1. Dealing with Terror after 9-11 How do dealing with terrorism and trying to develop and practice peace fit together?

2. Three major concerns on 9-11: How to guarantee security – no more attacks now, and little possibility of more later How to respond in a manner consistent with achieving security and with the expectations the world will have of a great power under attack How to set in place new global arrangements which will deal with this - and related – problems

3. The War Model vs. the International Crime Model War ModelInternational Crime Model Guarantee Security Operate in the world of states as controllers Operate to shut down a network with allies, UN Respond as a Great Power Singular use of force and political power Longer, multi- faceted effort, a military ‘plus’ Set in place new arrangements Military bases & allies; security cooperation Carrots, sticks & a complex array of actions

4. Why the War Model wins We do war well – and many aspects of the event fit our paradigm for war Singular control for a singular situation War mobilization works well in foreign & domestic affairs War rewards come early (Oct – Dec 2001) (Iraq: 3/15 – 5/5) and easy

5. Why the War Model wins (cont.) Past efforts that were less than war and criminal law-focused have failed. These terrorists have networks that are fuller and deeper - only a full scale response will work. International rules vary and take time to develop regarding an international “posse” and it will invariably lead to constraining us.

6. Are we winning the war militarily against al-Qaeda? Moderate gains regarding leaders captured or killed – estimates range from 50-75% Probably 70% of the “rank and file” in Afghanistan captured or killed But dispersion and hiding likely are high, posse cooperation has been low

7. But… It is forever open-ended. Criteria of victory specified by whom? When? The diplomacy may have given way to only military effort Do we want a permanent war economy? Do we want a permanent war society? How do we discuss and decide each?

8. Brainstorming: How peace & terrorism might relate EVERY government in the system is committed to and has the capacity to combat terrorism within its borders – AND it does so EVERY group committed to terror has its grievances heard and “discussed” and thus they can renounce terrorism without “surrender” Criminal terror is dealt with via law & order The result is not just the “end of terror” but the development of a different set of methods and relationships by which grievances are processed & resolved – you might call it PEACE

9. The tensions and challenges: What does love of others and/or citizen- ship (local, national, global) require of me? What works against terrorism? How does what works fit with peace? Which may beg the question: What is peace? Or at least what are policies which get us to peace?

10. What are the aims of global counter-terrorist policies? Destroy networks, cells, leadership Law enforcement, military means, legal and diplomatic Deny assets and resources Law enforcement, legal, diplomatic and economic means Diminish underlying causes & conditions Economic, legal, political and social means

11. LEADERSHIP TERRORIST ORGANIZATION STATE UNDERLYING CONDITIONS INTERNATIONAL DEFEAT DENY DIMINSH LAW ENFORCEMENT DIPLOMATIC INTELLIGENCE MILITARY INFO/INFL ECONOMIC FINANCIAL

12. Most peace folks: Have real problems related to “destroy” Can live with (and thus accent) the “deny” Work hardest on the “diminish” What does it mean that government sees its priority approaches in the reverse order?