 |
|
|
Home | Search | Site Index | Site Map | Directories | |
|
|||
 |
An expert on international relations, foreign policy analysis, security policy, and international organizations, Jeffrey Lantis is an associate professor of political science and the chair of the international relations program at The College of Wooster. Lantis received his bachelor's degree from Bethany College, summa cum laude, before earning his master's degree and his Ph.D. from The Ohio State University. He joined the Wooster faculty in 1994. The author of Domestic Constraints and the Breakdown of International Agreements and the associate editor of The American Defense Annual, Lantis also edited and contributed to The New International Studies Classroom: Active Teaching, Active Learning, which strives to educate faculty about innovative teaching methods that they can use with contemporary curricular themes. Lantis is a member of the American Political Science Association, the International Studies Association, and serves as secretary of the Active Learning in International Affairs section of the International Studies Association. He also has extensive field research experience in Europe and North America. |
The political and military consequences
of the terrorist attacks that rocked America September 11 are unclear at
this point, but Jeffrey Lantis, associate professor of political science
and chair of the international relations program at The College of Wooster,
has some insight into what we might expect. What factors must be considered when making strategic political and military decisions in the aftermath of this terrorist attack? The Bush administration was confronted with a very serious challenge to U.S. national security in the terrorist attacks of September 11, and government officials are working to develop a comprehensive response. The first step in that effort has been to assemble a great deal of information about the attacks, then to define the target of any possible U.S. or coalition action. Once the Bush administration was assured of domestic political support for action, officials have begun lobbying foreign governments to assist the U.S. or pledge to join in a future military coalition against a common enemy. President Bush and his advisors have thus had to consider a very wide range of factors in crafting what they hope will be a comprehensive response to terrorism. How will the United States' response to this incident change alliances and allegiances of countries throughout the world? Will enemies become allies and vice-versa? It is not an exaggeration to say that the events of September 11 have altered the existing international order, and past alliances are evolving as we speak. Some recent news reports about international support for the U.S. have seemed surprising. U.S. allies in NATO and the European Union have expressed their support, but we have also heard condemnations of the violence from other governments including Cuba and Iran. As the United States' response crystallizes in the coming months, it is safe to say that allegiances may begin to shift. In some ways, this becomes an opportunity for constructive dialogue with countries we might never have considered as allies in the past. What are the likely consequences for nations that harbor terrorists? In President Bush's first primetime speech to the American people on September 11, he provided an important clue about how any future campaign might be conducted. He stated that the United States would equate non-state terrorist groups who perpetrated these acts with states that harbor the groups. By intentionally widening the scope of responsibility, Bush has allowed the U.S. government greater flexibility in future actions. Once the countries that are considered responsible for harboring these groups are defined, it appears that a coalition of countries will employ a full range of instruments of statecraft against them. Bear in mind that this could include anything from diplomatic statements to economic sanctions to actual military intervention. Will efforts to apprehend the terrorists and bring them to justice require the formation of a multi-national anti-terrorist special forces unit? I don't believe that the international community would actually create a special new, anti-terrorist special forces group. Multinational enterprises such as this require years of coordination, joint training and exercises, political resolve about a clear and common threat, and a strong resource base to be successful. I am certain, however, that allied nations will collaborate through shared intelligence and possibly some joint, special operations in the future. What is the likelihood that the response to these terrorist attacks will escalate into a world conflict? There's been a lot of talk about the possibility of the spillover of this conflict from (potentially) Afghanistan to neighboring countries. There have also been concerns expressed about a global "clash of civilizations," pitting the West against Islamic countries. While one has to recognize the possibility of spillover due to demographic realities in a region like South Asia, I expect that any allied coalition offensive againstterrorism would be conducted with some discretion. Diplomatic initiatives would complement other actions in an effort to distinctly target the aggressors. Furthermore, casting this conflict as a struggle between western powers and Islam represents too simplistic an interpretation of the realities of differences between sects of Islam as well as important national and cultural distinctions. What are the chances that nuclear or biological weapons will come into play? There are really two dimensions to this issue. First, weapons of mass destruction exist in the region of potential conflict, and of course, they are possessed by allied countries like the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Government officials around the world, including U.S. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, have maintained that they are not predisposed to even consider the use of these 'special weapons' that carry heavy historic baggage. The second dimension of this issue is more complicated, however. Experts have warned repeatedly that terrorist groups could use biological or chemical agents in attacks on population centers in the western world. Indeed, a religious cult in Japan did just that in an attack on the Tokyo subway system in 1995, leading to a high number of casualties. Sadly, these nightmare scenarios are real threats based in fact. Materials necessary to construct 'simple' chemical or biological weapons are accessible, and information about such weapons is available in the open scientific literature and even on the Internet. Is there any chance for a peaceful resolution? In spite of the concerns that I have already mentioned, I do hold out some hope that a resolution to the crisis short of an all-out use of military force in a regional war may be possible. In fact, I think that the answer to this question lies in the definition of 'peaceful resolution.' As we speak, many governments are considering a range of diplomatic instruments to address these problems. We will likely hear about some global campaigns against terrorism in international organizations like the United Nations, packages of targeted economic sanctions against states harboring terrorists, cyber-warfare conducted against terrorist financial holdings, as well as the use of limited force or special forces against terrorist base camps. How might the U.S. political landscape be altered in the next 6-12 months? The terrorist attacks of September 11 have changed the United States forever. Citizens everywhere remember where they were on that day, and government officials have shown great resolve about preparing us for a potential war on terrorism. Past partisanship over many issues - domestic and foreign policy concerns - will be sidelined as the United States government attempts to express a united front to the world. Gone from the airwaves are policy debates about the budget surplus and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. For the next 6-12 months, or longer, a central focus of the Bush administration will be confronting the terrorist threat. Opinion polls suggest that a strong majority of the public will support such actions, and the media has perpetuated that resolve through its selective coverage. For now, politics seems to have stopped 'at the water's edge'. |
 |
 |
 |
| Last updated: January 10, 2006 · For more information, contact John Finn | ||
