A new survey of U.S. foreign policy experts presents a surprising consensus that questions current policies and assumptions in the war on terror. The survey, conducted jointly by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine, was presented today at a panel discussion.
Featured on the panel were survey participants Dr. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit, and Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell and professor at the College of William & Mary. David Bosco, senior editor of Foreign Policy magazine, joined them along with moderator Joseph Cirincione.
The survey polled 116 foreign policy experts in the first installment of what is intended as a twice-yearly Terrorism Index. Survey participants came from a range of professional and ideological backgrounds, and the results were balanced to give equal weight to those who self-identified as conservative, liberal, and moderate.
The results of the survey provide surprising insights into how experts are viewing the war on terror’s progress. Most experts believe the U.S. is losing the war on terror and that the American people are becoming less safe. Establishing democratic governments in the Muslim world is not widely regarded as a key element in winning the war on terror, and there is a general dissatisfaction with the current effectiveness of government agencies in fighting terrorism.
Questions about current U.S. national security priorities indicate that the experts believe changes are needed. Securing weapons of mass destruction is regarded as more important than fighting terrorism generally. The majority favored increasing funds to the State Department, USAID, and other soft power agencies, while decreasing funding for the military. Most experts also believe that strengthening multilateral institutions should be a higher priority. According to Bosco, the survey tells the U.S. that the “remaining challenges are outside of the military realm.”
Drawing from the survey, the panel offered a variety of conclusions that lead to a spirited debate on national security. Wilkerson noted the “incredible discrepancy in resources” between the Department of Defense and Department of State, and said “that imbalance has perhaps caused some of the problems we are facing.” He emphasized that military force cannot be the first option for all foreign policy problems. “Bombs, bullets, and bayonets,” he said, “are not the answer to terrorism.”
Scheuer, while saying that, “We vastly underestimate the amount of killing left to do,” agreed with the idea that changes are needed in how the U.S. thinks about national security. Both experts said that the war in Iraq has made American security more difficult. “We’re the primary target,” Scheuer said, “because we’re in the way of what the enemy wants to do.” He advocated energy independence as key element in getting out of the way.
Scheuer did emphasize that “America has its future in its own hands,” but said that the security system right now is unsustainable and that changes need to be made. On that point, he seems to agree with the other national security experts surveyed. Wilkerson was certainly among that group. On our current course, he said, we are going to either “commit suicide as a democracy or spend ourselves to death.”
