This post addresses some (but certainly not all) of the major instruments that constitute President George W. Bush’s post-9/11 counterterrorism infrastructure that unfolded in the wake of Al Qaeda’s deadly attack. Additionally, this post addresses how and in what ways President Barack Obama and the current White House occupant President Donald Trump detracted from or expanded President Bush’s counterterrorism infrastructure.
Background
There are many programs and pieces of legislation that indicate the counterterrorism infrastructure predates the administration of George W. Bush. For example, President Ronald Reagan in 1983 introduced the Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA) program which provided “training and equipment to law-enforcement agencies of partner nations throughout the world, and has delivered counterterrorism training to more than 90,000 law enforcement personnel from 154 countries.”[1] Under President Bill Clinton, he signed the Anti-Terrorism Act in 1996 that authorized “nearly 1 billion federally funds for federal law enforcement efforts,”[2] called for the expulsion of terrorist aliens, and “increased the penalties for terrorist conspirators of terrorist-related crimes, to name a few.”[3]
Though a host of president’s have introduced a series of counterterrorism measures[4], the point herein is to acknowledge the most robust and at times the most controversial instruments that have significantly expanded the counterterrorism infrastructure have occurred during the presidency of President Bush.
Before addressing what constitutes a counterterrorism infrastructure, it is important to define counterterrorism. As a concept, the U.S. Army Field Manual defines counterterrorism as “Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism.”[5]
Like most, the author believes there is no universal definition of counterterrorism. Indeed, there are other significant aspects that are not included in the previous definition. Thus, more broadly defined counterterrorism should include the political, military, economic, diplomatic and cyber activities that may be implemented to prevent, and in some cases, that defeat the actions of terrorist organizations.
A question begs, how do we define “counterterrorism infrastructure”? Oddly, no formal definition of what constitutes the counterterrorism infrastructure exists. Broadly speaking the counterterrorism infrastructure consists of the military, political, economic, cyber, law enforcement, and other measures (i.e. intelligence) that are implemented by the leader of country to thwart terrorism. In the context of President Bush, there are a host of overt and covert measures that are associated with the Bush stewardship of the war on terror.
Bush and the Counterterrorism Infrastructure
As is well documented, the war on terrorism commenced during the presidency of George W. Bush. Few however understand that President Bush’s post-September 11 counterterrorism infrastructure is a by-product of what might be described as an ever-evolving strategy.
What is the foundation of Bush’s counterterrorism infrastructure? As the author described in the study The Global War on Terrorism: Assessing the American Response, Bush relied on a “four-pronged” strategy to confront Al Qaeda. To illustrate the genesis of the strategy, one may refer to President Bush’s Address to a Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2001. As contained in the address, the four components of Bush counterterrorism infrastructure consisted of diplomacy, cooperation in law enforcement, an expanded role for the U.S. intelligence community, and a dramatic use of force to attack Al Qaeda around the world.
The dramatic deployment of Special Operation Forces (SOFs) to confront Al Qaeda and their affiliates around the world represented a critical instrument for Bush’s counterterrorism infrastructure. As an illustration of the new role for the SOF, United States Central Command deployed over 13,000 coalition SOFs to Iraq, most of which were American. The decision marked “the largest post-Vietnam contingent of SOFs forces occurred over the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom.”[6]
In Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, SOF called in airstrikes against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Once the Taliban regime was deposed, SOF conducted a host of missions that were designed to capture or kill fleeing Al Qaeda and Taliban members.
Long before Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. SOFs set the stage for what became the “light footprint strategy.”[7] To serve as a deterrent against Al Qaeda, and as a tool to train local forces, SOF were stationed in a host of countries to include but are not limited to, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Georgia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, the Philippines, Somalia, and in Yemen.
In addition to training, U.S. SOFs conducted missions against Al Qaeda minions all over the world. Thus, whether in keeping a reduced footprint or through the introduction of large scale military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq[8], or through the deployment of SOFs, and later via the introduction of drone strikes, Bush’s light footprint strategy proved critical to the president’s counterterrorism infrastructure.
In a more definitive illustration of the increased role of the military in Bush’s counterterrorism infrastructure, the president dramatically increased U.S. forces to Central Command and created U.S. Northern Command and Africa Command which proved essential in the ongoing struggle against radical Islamists.
The CIA represented another important component of Bush’s counterterrorism infrastructure. Once “the gloves came off” in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the CIA emerged as the principal instrument of the Bush administration that conducted the initial phase of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The CIA, along with other areas of the intelligence community, worked to track Al Qaeda Central and their affiliates all over the world. To further validate the role of the CIA, Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007 ushered in the highly controversial detention and interrogation program. Other significant and provocative programs that were operated by the CIA include extraordinary rendition and black sites.
Another significant development that proved critical to the counterterrorism infrastructure is the creation of a host of regional alliances. Some examples include the Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) and the Trans Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP).
Through legislation President Bush implemented a series of institutional changes that further increased the post-September 11 counterterrorism infrastructure. Specific examples include the creation of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, and Bush set in motion “modernization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”[9]
There are several organizations that were created as part of Bush’s counterterrorism infrastructure. The following quote provides details of some of the actual organizations that were created: “President Bush … enhanced our homeland security and counterterrorism infrastructure through the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), the Homeland Security Council (HSC).”[10]
As one can see, President Bush’s counterterrorism infrastructure is vast. Though there have been disagreement with several components of Bush’s counterterrorism infrastructure; however, most of the initiatives will stay in place through much of the war on terrorism.
Obama and the Counterterrorism Infrastructure
In the initial period of the Obama administration, the new president issued several executive orders designed to end the CIA’s participation in torture and the goal (which was not fulfilled) of closing the detention facility in Guantanamo, Cuba. President Obama also called for the expanded of the use of civilian courts to prosecute Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Additionally, Obama increased the role of the Justice Department and FBI to deal with the threat posed by Al Qaeda. Scholars have argued that Obama views the best approach to counterterrorism involves the increasing use of law enforcement. Taken collectively, Obama’s approach which chipped away some aspects of Bush’s counterterrorism infrastructure were often referred to as the “back to Clinton” approach.
One of President Obama’s major shifts in the counterterrorism infrastructure occurred in the light footprint strategy. Averse to the deployment of ground forces (other than during the multiple deployments of U.S. forces in Afghanistan), President Obama relied instead on the use of SOFs against Al Qaeda and their affiliates and later against the Islamic State. The other dramatic Obama change to Bush’s counterterrorism infrastructure concerns the use of drones. The Obama administration, initially in Pakistan[11], Yemen, and in Somalia, increased the use of drones in targeted killings that were designed to eliminate high value terrorists. Beginning in the summer of 2014, Obama unleashed drones strikes against the leaders of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Viewed collectively, President Obama’s use of SOFs, drones, and even cyberwarfare, represented a nuanced version of President Bush’s light footprint strategy.
From another perspective, while President Obama did make changes to Bush’s counterterrorism infrastructure; however, “most of the fundamental conceptual elements of George W. Bush’s campaign [against terrorism] have remained in place.”[12] There are those that argue that Obama redefined areas of the counterterrorism infrastructure, “the president has gone over to the dark side by introducing” several “… dangerous policy innovations and bureaucratic precedents that will shape the foundation of America’s future counterterrorism policies.”[13]
Worse, President Obama “has presided over a vast increase in domestic and foreign surveillance through the NSA, launched a witch-hunt against government whistleblowers and created a secret drones program to kill terrorist suspects worldwide without public acknowledgement or due process.”[14]
Trump and the Counterterrorism Infrastructure
In terms of continuity, much like President Obama, it is certain that President Trump will continue to conduct the war on terrorism under the framework of President Bush counterterrorism infrastructure.
There will be one salient difference between Trump and Obama. During the 2008 president campaign, candidate Obama incessantly railed against Bush’s counterterrorism policies. In office President Obama repeated many of same campaign statements. Interestingly, President Obama clandestinely implemented a new set of counterterrorism policies, even if it is clear to counterterrorism professionals and scholars that he still operated under President Bush’s framework.
President Trump, who did not campaign against Bush’s framework, did embrace a controversial aspect of “W’s” counterterrorism infrastructure during the 2016 presidential campaign: torture. In support of torture, candidate Trump uttered these words: “Though the effectiveness of many of these methods may be in dispute, nothing should be taken off the table when American lives are at stake…. The enemy is cutting off the heads of Christians and drowning them in cages, and yet we are too politically correct to respond in kind.”[15] In another illustration, Trump stated, “I’d bring back waterboarding. And I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”[16]
In the wake of his electoral victory, President-elect Trump remarked in a conversation with General James Mattis, who was selected to be Secretary of Defense, commented the retired Marine offered his opinion on the matter: “‘I’ve never found it [torture] to be useful.’”[17]
In response to Mattis’ advice, Trump stated, “I’m not saying it changed my mind. Look, we have people that are chopping off heads and drowning people in steel cages, and we’re not allowed to waterboard. But I’ll tell you what, I was impressed by that answer.”[18] Does that mean Trump will return to and expand upon Bush’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT’s)? The likely answer is this: at this point, we simply do not know.
One thing is certain, Bush’s counterterrorism infrastructure will quietly infuse President Trump’s strategies against the Islamic State and Al Qaeda Central and their affiliates. The details of the actual support for Bush’s counterterrorism framework will come during future speeches on terrorism and on future National Security Strategies documents.
[1] Programs and Initiatives. The Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA) Program. https://www.state.gov/ j/ct/programs/index.htm#ATA.
[2] Clinton Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill. April 24, 1996. http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/24/anti-terro rism/.
[3] Ibid.
[4] There is a great book on U.S. presidents and counterterrorism, see Tim Naftali, Blind Spot: The Secret History of American Counterterrorism (New York: Basic Books, 2005).
[5] As quoted in Jason Rineheart, “Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency,” Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 4, No 5 (2010). http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view /122/html.
[6] J. Paul de B. Tailion, OMM. CD. Ph.D., Canadian Force, “Coalition Special Operation Forces,” Military Technology MILTECH, Special Issue (2009), p. 14.
[7] P. J. Crowley, Red Line: American Foreign Policy in a Time of Fractured Politics and Failing States (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2016), p. 30-31.
[8] One of the many problems associated with the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq is often associated with the light footprint strategy. Consider the following quote as an illustration: “The occupation was a disaster, rooted in the fundamental contradiction between means and ends, between the “light footprint” chosen by General George Casey and the grand reformation attempted by Paul Bremer, who tried to change everything down to the coinage.” See Charles Krauthammer, “Charles Krauthammer: The Bush Legacy,” Washington Post, April 25, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-bush-legacy/2013/04/25/ b6de6efa-add8 -11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html?utm_term=.ed4e958f3971.
[9] Policies of the Bush Administration 2001–2009. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ infocus/bushrecord/documents/Policies_of_the_Bush_Administration.pdf.
[10] Ibid.
[11] In Pakistan alone “President Obama authorized nearly four times the number of strikes … as President Bush did in his eight years.” See Jonathan Masters, Deputy Editor, “Targeted Killings,” CFR Backgrounder, May 23, 2013. http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627.
[12] Michael Boyle, “President Obama’s Disastrous Counterterrorism Legacy,” The Guardian, August 5, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/05/obama-legacy-shad ow-wars.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] David Wright, “Donald Trump Defends Torture: ‘Nothing Should be Taken Off the Table.”” CNN, February 16, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/politics/donald-trump-waterboarding-op-ed-usa-today-enhanced-interrogation-techniques-torture/.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Richard Sisk, “Mattis to Trump: Beer, Cigarettes Work Better Than Waterboarding,” Military.com, November 23, 2016. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/23/mattis-trump -beer-cigarettes-work-better-waterboarding.html.
[18] Ibid.
