Last month, we observed the third anniversary of the day that awakened the US to a new world, when extremists killed thousands of innocent people on American soil. Last week marked the third anniversary of the commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom, the day the US resolved to take the battle to the extremists themselves -- and we attacked al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Three years into the global war on terror, some ask whether the US is safer, and if the world is better off. These are fair questions.
But, first, some historical perspective. It has been said that this global war against extremism will be the task of a generation, a war that could go on for years, much like the Cold War, which lasted for decades.
We look back now at the Cold War as a great victory for freedom. But nothing was certain or preordained. The fifty-year span of the epic battle between the free world and the Soviet empire was filled with division, uncertainty, self-doubt, setbacks and failures.
Even with our closest allies, there were disputes over diplomatic policy, weapons deployment and military strategies. In the 1960s, France pulled out of NATO's military organization altogether.
In the US, columnists and editorialists questioned and doubted American policies. There were even instances where US citizens saw their own government challenged as being warmongers or aggressors.
But the US -- under leaders of both political parties -- and our allies showed perseverance and resolve, year after year. The strategies varied -- from coexistence to containment to detente to confrontation. Our leaders continued to stand up to what many thought an unbeatable foe, and eventually the Soviet regime collapsed.
That lesson has had to be relearned throughout the ages: the lesson that weakness is provocative, that a refusal to confront gathering dangers can increase, not reduce, future peril and that victory ultimately comes only to those who are purposeful and steadfast.
From the outset of this conflict, it was clear that our Coalition had to go on the offensive against an enemy without country or conscience.
A little over three years ago, al-Qaeda was already a growing danger. Its leader, Osama bin Laden, was safe and sheltered in Afghanistan. His network was dispersed throughout the world and had been attacking US interests for years.
Three years later, more than three-quarters of al-Qaeda's key members and associates have been detained or killed.
Bin Laden is on the run, many of his key associates are behind bars or dead, and his financial lines of support have been reduced.
Afghanistan, once controlled by extremists, today is led by President Hamid Karzai, who is at the forefront of the world's efforts in support of moderates versus extremists. Soccer stadiums once used for public executions under the Taliban are today used, once again, for soccer. Over 10 million Afghans, 41 percent of them women, were registered to vote in the country's first national election.
Libya has gone from being a nation that sponsored terrorists, and secretly sought nuclear capability, to one that renounced its illegal weapons programs, and now says it is ready to re-enter the community of civilized nations.
Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan's nuclear-proliferation network -- which provided lethal assistance to nations such as Libya and North Korea -- has been exposed and dismantled. Indeed, Pakistan, once sympathetic to al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime, has under President Pervez Musharraf cast its lot with the civilized world and is a stalwart ally against terrorism.
NATO is now leading the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and is helping to train Iraqi Security forces -- an important new "out of area" responsibility. The UN is helping set-up free elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Over 60 countries are working together to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Three years ago, in Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his sons brutally ruled a nation in the heart of the Middle East. Saddam was attempting regularly to kill US and British aircrews enforcing the no-fly zones. He ignored 17 UN Security Council Resolutions. He was paying US$25,000 awards to the families of suicide bombers.
Three years later, Saddam is a prisoner, awaiting trial. His sons are dead. Most of his associates are in custody.
Iraq has an interim Constitution that includes a Bill of Rights and an independent judiciary. There are municipal councils in nearly every major city and in most towns and villages. Iraqis now are among those allowed to say, write, watch, and listen to whatever they want, whenever they want.
Have there been setbacks in Afghanistan and Iraq? Of course. But the enemy cannot win militarily. Their weapons are terror and chaos. They attack any sort of hope or progress to try to undermine morale. They know that if they can win the battle of perception, we will lose our will and leave.
These are difficult times. From the heart of Manhattan and Washington, to Baghdad, Kabul, Madrid, Bali and the Philippines, a call to arms has been sounded, and the outcome of this struggle will determine the nature of our world for decades to come.
Today, as before, the hard work of history falls to the US, to our coalition, to our people. We can do it knowing that the great sweep of human history is for freedom -- and that it is on our side.
Donald Rumsfeld is US secretary of defense.
Copyright: Project Syndicate and The Council on Foreign Relations
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Japan and the Philippines on Monday signed a defense agreement that would facilitate joint drills between them. The pact was made “as both face an increasingly assertive China,” and is in line with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr’s “effort to forge security alliances to bolster the Philippine military’s limited ability to defend its territorial interests in the South China Sea,” The Associated Press (AP) said. The pact also comes on the heels of comments by former US deputy national security adviser Matt Pottinger, who said at a forum on Tuesday last week that China’s recent aggression toward the Philippines in
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Ministry of National Defense on Tuesday announced that the military would hold its annual Han Kuang exercises from July 22 to 26. Military officers said the exercises would feature unscripted war games, and a decentralized command and control structure. This year’s exercises underline the recent reforms in Taiwan’s military as it transitions from a top-down command structure to one where autonomy is pushed down to the front lines to improve decisionmaking and adaptability. Militaries around the world have been observing and studying Russia’s war in Ukraine. They have seen that the Ukrainian military has been much quicker to adapt to