Ten years after the War on Terror was declared, experts continue to dispute its future as it relates to U.S. foreign policy.
In a debate titled “Is It Time to End the War on Terror?” Michael Doran, senior fellow in the Saban Center at Brookings Institution, and Will McCants, research analyst at the Center for Strategic Studies at CNA Analysis and Solutions, discussed the implications of both continuing the War on Terror or shifting U.S. focus away from the conflict. The debate was hosted by the Alexander Hamilton Society and moderated by Peter Feaver, professor of political science and co-director of the Duke American Grand Strategy Program.
Urging the Obama administration to rethink its current policies toward global terrorism movements, McCants said the United States is in a good position to declare an official end to the War on Terror.
“At this point, we must shift away from the mindset of a war against a terrorist group, as this rubric is such that gives [the government] too much power for action in the Middle East,” said McCants, founder and co-editor of the Jihadica blog.
Conversely, Doran said he believes the government should continue its war efforts. He added that the only solution is to keep troops on the ground to continue to gather information on terrorist activities.
“If [the U.S. government] doesn’t have people on the ground, [it] won’t have the intelligence to deal with what goes on,” Doran said.
The debaters’ opinions also differed concerning the relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq. Although Doran considers the problem a combination of state-sponsored terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and terrorism’s global reach, McCants noted the effect of the Iraq War on al Qaeda’s current state of affairs. McCants added that new militant groups were likely created as a result of the conflict.
“When you think about the effect of [Iraq] on al Qaeda, it’s important to consider the connections the group has made with other organizations in Iraq,” McCants said.
The Arab Spring, revolutionary demonstrations and protests in the Arab world beginning Dec. 2010, also served as cause for debate. McCants related the Arab Spring to the region’s economic strife, adding that unemployment issues drove the protests. Doran, however, cited former President George W. Bush’s foreign policy as the main instigator of the revolution.
“Bush understood that the structures of the Middle Eastern governments were the issue—not the allegedly imperialist policies of the United States in the region,” Doran said.
Sophomore John Scott-Jones said he enjoyed seeing two speakers with such different perspectives discuss a political issue that is currently being addressed by President Barack Obama’s administration. Scott-Jones added, however, that he questioned the value of the debate given larger ethical issues.
“It was disturbing to hear two individuals who have an interest and an influence in global affairs talk purely about American interests rather than a greater good,” Scott-Jones said.
The debate only concerned the policies of the past two administrations.
“It would have been interesting to hear more about events that occurred prior to 9/11 and their impact on terrorism today,” sophomore Kamika Shaw said.
Senior Nick Setterberg, president of the Alexander Hamilton Society, noted the importance of having experts with different political views debate on Duke’s campus.
“Reactions to the debate were extremely good,” Setterberg said. “Every person who was there gained useful insight on the War on Terror and United States-Middle East policy in general.”
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.