Perpetual War

By Kathleen Gilberd
Draft Notes - the Newsletter of the San Diego Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft

The Pentagon released a new Quadrennial Defense Review Report (QDR) in February. This report, mandated by Congress, offers a summary of the military's strategic planning, with an assessment of current problems and conditions. Designed to be released in conjunction with the President's 2007 budget proposal, the QDR gives the military's take on its mission, enemies, strategy and needs, with an eye to an expanded budget and broader authority.

The QDR explains that it does not offer a new strategy or approach, but rather an expansion and refinement of strategy from the 2001 QDR and a 2005 National Defense Strategy report. The new QDR presents merely a shift in emphasis to meet a new strategic environment in an era of "uncertainty and surprise." We are told that this is a shift" from a peacetime tempo to a wartime sense of urgency; from a time or reasonable predictability to an era of surprise and uncertainty; and from single focused and nation-state threats to complex challenges and decentralized network threats from non-state enemies. The claim of a single strategy seems disingenuous.

The long war

At the heart of the QDR is the idea that the US is engaged in a virtually endless war against terrorism. The "long war" is emphasized throughout the review, and military needs and modernization are shaped around it. The occupation of Iraq is not considered a war, in this perspective, but one battleground in the larger long war. "With its allies and partners," the report explains, "the United States must be prepared to wage this war in many locations simultaneously and for some years to come." In other words, the US may engage in multiple wars and conflicts, by the simple expedient of re-naming some of them and using allied troops as well as our own.

In the years since the Vietnam war, the military developed a strategy that allowed it to fight more than one war at a time, claiming that it must have the capability to fight two and a half regional wars at a time. During the drawdown of the 1990's, the military conceded that it might need only the capacity to fight two wars. Now, in the framework of one long, world-wide, non-traditional war, the military has expanded its numerical goals considerably. The QDR states that the US can accommodate two conventional wars simultaneously, or begin one new war if there is already a long and resource-consuming unconventional warfare campaign going on. In addition to these, however, the military envisions the ability to engage in targeted nontraditional actions in a number of areas-warfare and pre-warfare engagements in many countries and regions at the same time.

The world-wide enemy

The report describes a single enemy: "The enemies in this war are not traditional conventional military forces but rather dispersed, global terrorist networks that exploit Islam to advance radical political aims." While non-Islamic enemies are mentioned briefly-China as a potential problem or ally; North Korea, drug terrorists in Columbia, destabilization in Haiti-these are treated as side issues to the war on terror. Lest people think that lack of ties to Al Qaida or absence of WMDs in Iraq undercut this as a rationale for occupation, the QDR notes at several points that Al Qaida sees the creation of an "Islamic base in the heart of the Arab region" as key to its overall victory.

A strategy of dominance

The QDR strategy includes four priority areas, around which planning and specific proposals are focused: defeating terrorist networks; defending the homeland in depth; shaping the choices of countries at strategic crossroads; and preventing hostile states and non-state actors from acquiring or using WMD. While these sound reasonable in the abstract, they confirm a dominant role for the US military in international and domestic policy.

DEFEATING TERRORIST NETWORKS: The QDR states that the US has been at war against terrorist networks continuously since 2001. Iraq and Afghanistan are described as central, but so is unconventional and irregular warfare. The report notes that in recent years "US forces have been engaged in many countries, fighting terrorists and helping partners to police and govern their nations," an effort which requires an "indirect approach" of building up and working with other governments, "seek[ing] to unbalance adversaries physically and psychologically, rather than attacking them where they are strongest or in the manner they expect to be attacked."

DEFENDING THE HOMELAND: Here the QDR emphasizes an increased military presence and increased joint work with other agencies. To some extent, this is a response to public and congressional criticism of agency overlap, duplication, and lack of coordination. But it also seeks to expand the military's domestic role and to obtain greater authority and flexibility in domestic operations. From the militarization of the US-Mexico border to increased military intelligence gathering within the US, this strategy attacks both human and civil rights in the US.

SHAPING THE CHOICES OF COUNTRIES AT STRATEGIC CROSSROADS. This is as ominous as it sounds. Shaping choices apparently involves training governments, humanitarian support, use of foreign aid to build or shore up (both military and non-military) government functions of importance to the US, and, inevitably, the threat or use of military action to prevent wrong choices. This is an interventionist view of all relations with countries, particularly those in the critical regions of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa where "bad" choices might create support or friendly conditions for the terrorist enemy.

PREVENTING HOSTILE STATES AND NON-STATE ACTORS FROM ACQUIRING OR USING WMD. Prevention involves intelligence, tracking, and special operations to eliminate WMDs, but also seems to allow for preventive action. Pre-emptive strikes become an integral element of strategy.

These four priority areas don't negate traditional warfare and war preparation, but are seen as areas requiring special attention. The theory is that we are already well prepared for a "regular" war, but must expand military capability and authority for these new threats and non-traditional warfare methods. Lest we think that the need for conventional and unconventional warfare has reduced the need for nuclear weapons, the report notes the need for a "robust nuclear deterrent" and mentions star wars defense programs.

The QDR and its strategy of perpetual war are more than a rationale for warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, for a larger military budget and for greater military authority in the US and abroad. It is a policy of military dominance that will allow military intervention virtually anywhere in the world without congressional or public mandate-an imperialist policy masked as defense. In working against the war in Iraq, it is important that the progressive movement challenge and expose this broader strategy.