Read on Twitter
On the anniversary of 9/11, we mourn the losses of that day. We’re also reminded that we remain locked in overseas war nearly two decades later. In @just_security I offer 5 big questions challenging some assumptions we have made since 9/11: (THREAD) https://www.justsecurity.org/72393/on-9-11-interrogating-the-assumptions-that-undergird-the-forever-war/
(1) Is it safe to play defense? - We have built up homeland security, law enforcement, and international cooperation since 9/11. Can we rely on these defenses to keep us safe or do we need to always be on offense?
2) What is the impact of so many dead terrorists? - We have killed the head and the deputies of nearly every AQ or ISIS group many times over and yet we often hear that if we don't maintain pressure, they'll be back with a vengeance. Is this true?
(3) Does al-Qaeda or ISIS affiliation matter? – Both have strong core groups but affiliates of varying potency, many of which are no more than criminal militias. Homegrown violent extremists, the leading cause of terrorist deaths in the US, usually have no affiliation to AQ/ISIS
(4) How much should we focus on small-scale attacks? – It was the catastrophic nature of 9/11 that led us to dramatic change. Yet we often take a zero-risk posture when it comes to terrorist attacks. Should preventing small attacks be a primary purpose of our overseas operations?
(5) Is resilience possible? – Resilience in the face of small attacks is key to coming off a permanent wartime footing. But in our hyper partisan and sensational media environment, is that even possible and are our leaders willing to put in the work to make it happen?
Ending the Forever War is easier said than done, and policymakers have to grapple with hard tradeoffs. But getting our assumptions and strategic underpinnings right is the necessary first step. [END]
