CONFERENCE Conference Debates Pros and Cons Of Using Force To Fight Terrorists By Roxanne Tingir Hoya Staff Writer

The use of military force as a policy instrument in the current war on terrorism was discussed at a conference Tuesday evening in the Copley Formal Lounge. The event, featuring Peace and Security Studies Professor Audrey Kurth Cronin, Assistant Peace and Security Studies Professor Bernard I. Finel, National Defense University Lieutenant Colonel Merrick E. Krause and Nora Bensahel of the RAND Corporation, was co-sponsored by Women in International Security and the Center for Peace and Security Studies.

Cronin, who teaches a counter-terrorism class at Georgetown, gave a brief overview of the use of military force in the pre-Sept. 11 context, explaining that “emphasis on the use of military force is an aberration when you look at the history of countering terrorism.”

She then reiterated what she believes to be the main points of the military force debate within the United States. According to Cronin, advocates of military force argue that it provides a strategic catharsis after a tragic event, responds to a domestic call to action, deters future terrorism through example and engenders allies by creating the semblance of national power.

“Military force carries out justice when there’s been a horrendous, tragic event,” she said. “It sustains national morale and national prestige.”

Arguments against the use of military force in combating terrorism include its tendency to drive terrorists underground, to increase clandestine ties among terrorists and to cause civilian casualties. Cronin also mentioned the lack of militarily attackable targets, saying “You need a very high standard of evidence to know who and what to attack.”

A final downside was that democracies have trouble sustaining military force over time.

“When that initial anger has passed, [terrorists] look for opportunities to carry out their campaigns,” she said.

After raising several questions about the future evolution of terrorist threats, Cronin introduced her colleague Finel. He spoke about the ongoing campaign in Afghanistan, classifying terrorist groups as “large transnational networks that take advantage of state support, seek out weapons of mass destruction and have no signs of restraint on their behavior.”

Finel said the U.S. is helping the Northern Alliance fight effectively by supplying aid and advice, special operational forces, such as CIA paramilitary troops and the use of air power.

“As long as there’s a local ally, this is a powerful system to have in place. If they disperse, they’re vulnerable to ground attacks, if they stay together they are vulnerable to air force,” he said. “On the whole, this military force was relatively low-cost if our goal was to eliminate a state that was sponsoring terrorist action.”

Finel emphasized American military dominance and the importance of force in this particular situation.

“You can’t trust Iraq not to give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda and you can’t trust al Qaeda not to use them,” he said.

Lieutenant Colonel Krause and RAND Corporation policy analyst Bensahel both requested their remarks be off-the-record. Krause discussed what he believed to be the initial strategic lessons of the Afghanistan campaign, while Bensahel addressed coalitions, alliances and challenges in relation to Operation Enduring Freedom and future terrorist threats.

Tuesday’s panel was the first of a five-part series, with future events focusing on economic sanctions, diplomacy, law enforcement and intelligence. The next installment is scheduled for Feb. 19.