Winning the Un-War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism

By Charles Pena and Charles Peña

Book Overview

According to President Bush, "the American people are safer" as a result of invading Iraq. True, Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. But al Qaeda, the group that planned and carried out the attacks on September 11, remains at large. Meanwhile, the White House has conceded that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks. Charles Pe a argues that the war in Iraq is but one misstep in the Bush administration's "global war on terror." Terrorism is simply a tactic, however, not an enemy. Trying to eradicate it is a quixotic quest that does not focus on those responsible for 9/11. Instead, the national security strategy should consist of three central elements: establishing homeland security against further attacks; dismantling the al Qaeda terrorist network; and enacting a foreign policy that does not attract new al Qaeda terrorists. This approach requires restructuring U.S. forces and ending Cold War-era commitments that distract from the current, pressing threat. It also requires ameliorating the negative consequences of an interventionist U.S. foreign policy, which creates incentives and opportunities for terrorists to target the United States. If we misdiagnose al Qaeda's motivations or focus military efforts on the wrong targets, then we run the risk that the war against the al Qaeda terrorist threat (and the radical Islamic ideology it represents) will become a broader war against the Islamic world that could last generations and cost countless lives. With a foreword by Michael Scheuer, the bestselling author of Imperial Hubris.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1597970069
• ISBN13: 9781597970068
• Release Date: July 2007
• Publisher: Potomac Books
• Length: 256 Pages
• Weight: 0.90 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 6.3" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

'Long war' a tragic misstep

http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HH12Aa01.html Winning the Un-War by Charles Pena Reviewed by David Isenberg Not all worthwhile points are new ones. Sometimes the most useful thing one can do is remind people of certain undeniable truths, especially when the powers that be are doing their best to obfuscate or deny them. In this task Charles Pena, a former director of defense-policy studies at the Cato Institute, succeeds admirably in Winning the Un-War. His thesis is both simple and powerfully valid. He argues that the "global war on terrorism", which nowadays the administration of US President George W Bush simply prefers to call (shades of Nineteen Eighty-Four) the "long war", is a tragic misstep. Pena is not the first one to note that, as terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy, fighting a war against it is futile. But he does amass an arsenal of evidence detailing how it has made the United States less, not more, safe. Pena has an eye for detail. The book is crammed with it. Obviously he spent a long time Web-surfing while doing his research. As such, the first few chapters dealing with the threat of al-Qaeda and the lackluster US response to it, the distraction of the Iraq war and the costs it imposed cover much of the material that has been covered in previous books. To his credit, Pena acknowledges this up front. Yet he manages to flesh out insights that rarely, if ever, are mentioned. For example, in talking about the numbers of US troops needed for the United States to crush the insurgency, he writes: Historically, the force ratio required for imposing stability and security is 20 troops per 1,000 inhabitants; this is the ratio the British - often acknowledged as the most experienced practitioners of such operations - deployed for more than a decade in Malaysia and more than 25 years in Northern Ireland. With a population of nearly 25 million people, to meet the same standard in Iraq would require a force of 500,000 troops for perhaps a decade longer. That is the same line of thought, albeit more detailed, that caused the Bush White House to force former army chief of staff Eric Shinseki into early retirement when he testified before Congress in early 2003. Pena also has a flair for language, as you might expect from an author whose acknowledged inspirations range from Sting to Yogi Berra. Operation Iraqi Freedom is a "catastrophic success". Or: "Removing 70,000 US troops from Germany and South Korea is the right thing to do. But like the proverbial joke about the demise of 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea, it's just a good start." Or, commenting on the US lack of focus for waging war on terrorism, "It is as if America is still the little Dutch boy trying to plug all the holes in the dike with his fingers." He writes that the "war on terrorism" is the "un-war" because it is unlike any previous war the US has fought. Because it is a different war it requires a different paradigm. But, sad to say, although fortunately Pe

An Intelligent Strategy for Countering Terrorism

Charles Pena has written a superb book that captures the complexity of the problem the United States faces in battling Al Qaeda and its allies. His sophisticated analysis goes far beyond the cliche-ridden writings and speeches that usually dominate the policy debate in Washington. He shows clearly that the notion of a "war" on terrorism is an overused and misleading metaphor. Most of all, he demonstrates that America has frequently been its own worst enemy in the way it has dealt with the Islamic world. There are so many valuable lessons that this book provides, but perhaps Pena's greatest achievement is that he demolishes the simplistic notion that most Muslim enemies of the United States hate America because of its freedoms and culture. Instead, he amasses evidence that a growing number of Muslims sympathize with the terrorists because of inept and hypocritical U.S. policies in their region. We need to do many things to neutralize Al Qaeda and its allies, but none of those actions will prove effective in the long run unless Washington changes its foreign policy. This book is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the terrorist problem and how to combat it.

Necessary message for America

Chuck Pena, with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, has long criticized the administration's mismanaged war on terrorism and counterproductive invasion of Iraq. He deals with both in Winning the Un-War. It should be read by anyone who believes that protecting America requires more than ritualistic incantations about freedom's inevitable triumph. Pena contends that killing or capturing terrorists is necessary but not sufficient. He argues that Washington also must stop appearing to make war on Islam, which helps create more terrorists. He writes: "Ultimately, without blaming America, we must be willing to look in the mirror to examine and understand how our own policies--both foreign and domestic--may affect the dynamics and evolution of the Muslim terrrorist threat." Unfortunately, Americans don't hear such honest realism nearly often enough. Winning the Un-War may be the most important book yet to appear on dealing with terrorism.

A Conservative's View

Frank M. Hoopes wrote: If I have to take away one main thought from the book it is that U.S, foreign policy, and certainly not just during the Bush administration, and certainly not just the war, is, and probably will continue to be our big problem. The above is a significant acknowledgement concerning this book in that I am a very staunch conservative!

review on "Winning The Un-War"

This is exactly the cogent, focused strategy that should be read at the highest levels of The Executive Branch. Were we go from here with our nation's foreign policy can be summed up as follows: Good-bye PNAC, Hello Winning the Un-War. Pena's book is a must read.