An Unconventional War

In the days since the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have sought peace and security for our nation in the face of terrorist threats. These ends are linked, and the government must work to achieve both. The U.S. must reduce the capability of terrorists to attack our soil and must prevent the creation of new terrorist groups to replace the old. Enlisting the help of other nations is a crucial step in disrupting terrorist networks; however, should diplomatic efforts to root out terrorism fail, the limited use of force may be necessary to avert future loss of life.

But exactly how this force is used will make a world of difference. An indiscriminate military campaign may compromise other attempts to fight terrorism more effectively. The U.S. must take care to remain true to its democratic values in combating terrorism abroad, and it must exercise great caution in altering decades-old principles of American foreign policy.

Terrorism is an insidious adversary, one that moves in secret, and intelligence operations will be crucial to any effort to prevent future terrorist attacks. Last week’s events have clearly shown that the U.S. does not know enough about the plans and intentions of known terrorist groups. Although our spy satellites and electronic surveillance are unparalleled, raw technical ability will never fully replace the human intelligence gathered inside of terrorist networks.

In order to gather intelligence about terrorist plots, members of Congressional intelligence committees have called for allowing the Central Intelligence Agency to hire agents who have committed human rights violations. The policy against hiring such agents was issued in the mid-1990s, after a Guatemalan Army officer who killed an American expatriate was found to have CIA ties. Although the case for recruiting spies from within terrorist organizations is simple, any effort to repeal the policy should take extreme care not to increase the power of individuals whose agendas may run fundamentally counter to that of the U.S. Soliciting information is one thing, but significant monetary rewards that might be used to equip, arm or strengthen human rights violators is quite another—and could very well harm the long-term national interest. The guerrillas whom the U.S. supported in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion have used their skills only for more violence; the terrorist group Hamas was once Israel’s ill-fated attempt to create a competitor to the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The shock and anger following the terrorist attack has also resulted in calls to lift the longstanding American policy against state-sponsored covert assassinations. A ban on covert assassinations of foreign leaders was first imposed by President Gerald Ford in 1976, and an executive order signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 prohibits direct or indirect involvement in assassinations.

While the use of force on specified groups to prevent attacks on the U.S. may be justified, the possibility of covert assassinations gives one pause. The Constitution provides for the president to be Commander-in-Chief so as to maintain civilian control of the military. America can hardly be called a democracy if there is no democratic oversight over the use of force in our name. If the public disagrees with a president’s use of cruise missiles or Special Forces to take on a military threat, it can express that view at the next election; no such accountability is possible if actions are concealed.

Of course, military actions carry the danger that innocent lives will be lost. A heavy bombing raid that caused many civilian casualties would create a world in the terrorists’ image, one of random violence against civilians. But a blank check on the use of force by intelligence agencies poses a similar and perhaps a greater threat. And limiting covert assassinations to individuals directly involved in terrorist attacks would be fruitless, as actions that go beyond the limits might never come to public light.

The threat that America faces from terrorism is far different from those it has encountered in the past, and different tactics will be needed. But America must make sure that it recognizes the difference between itself and its opponents, and must not sacrifice democratic control over the use of force.