Trump needs a strategic plan to combat terror

In his inaugural address, President Trump re-declared his campaign-trail commitment to the war on terror, promising to “unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth.” How the new administration will achieve this ambitious goal still remains to be seen – Trump has not yet presented a concrete strategic plan. The only thing one can draw from his past remarks is that he intends to present a fundamentally different strategy than that of the Obama administration.

Nevertheless, one might ask if such a strategy could or should be essentially different. In any case, the U.S. intelligence community will unavoidably have a prominent role in determining its overall shape.

{mosads}Any effective antiterror strategy must have a unique, threefold combination of measures: (a) dampening the motivations of terrorists and their supporters, (b) damaging their operational capabilities and (c) strengthening the mental resilience of terror targets. The first two tasks are in the hands of the intelligence community, and the latter is most importantly a matter of national leadership.

These three avenues of action are often contradictory: For instance, antiterror operations may only increase the motivations of potential supporters to become active terrorists. Sometimes, such measures yield domestic criticism, which could erode the standing of the leadership (e.g., in the case of drone attacks against ISIS, for which Obama was highly criticized).

The Obama administration tried to combine the three elements as follows: It tried to reconcile with the Muslim world, emphasizing that terror and Islam are not synonymous, while conducting countless global operations against ISIS and Al-Qaeda terrorists (relying mainly on airstrikes and special forces). Obama himself also attempted to demonstrate leadership – especially when Islamic terror hit the U.S. (e.g., after the Boston bombing) – and defended the need to continue his drone policy despite criticism.

Speculating on Trump’s antiterror strategy raises some concerns: There are reasons to believe he will focus on combating terrorist capabilities rather the basic conditions under which terror grows and flourishes. History has taught us that such a strategy will almost always fail. The best such a policy could achieve is the maintenance of a “reasonable” level of terror activities against the West. This goal hardly fulfills Trump’s promises.

As for leadership, Trump has thus far demonstrated his ability to unite people around a common enemy (Islamic terrorism). But in order to onboard the entire nation to this ambitious task, he will have to find avenues to the heart of many more Americans. That cannot be achieved by relying on fear alone – he will also have to convey a message of hope. Furthermore, such leadership requires a unified front among the branches of the U.S. administration, starting with those at the forefront of the war on terror: the intelligence community. So far, Trump has focused on the rifts with the community rather than a shared vision and cause.

The intelligence community, for its part, needs to support and execute Trump’s strategy – but more importantly, facilitate a strategic discussion with a president that has little geopolitical background. Yes, it needs to provide accurate tactical information upon which U.S. forces will act in order to hit ISIS around the world. But more importantly, the intelligence community needs to emphasize the importance of tackling the root causes that sustain terror. It needs to present to the president and his senior staff a holistic view of terrorism, and insist that decision-makers divorce from one-dimensional perceptions – i.e., “let’s just smoke them out and kill ’em!” 

It is also the intelligence community’s role to find common ground with the president, assisting him in demonstrating leadership. It therefore needs to refrain from any political discussion, and remain as professional as possible. 

There are two other tasks for the intelligence community: It seems that there is growing distance between America and its allies. Here, the intelligence community could be a silent partner in maintaining close relationships with U.S. partners around the world while reassuring U.S. commitment to shared interests. Intelligence organizations often operate as clandestine ambassadors – and with a highly controversial president, the intelligence community’s role in that respect is critical.

Secondly, the intelligence community should consistently explain to the new administration that the warming relationship with Russia could easily work against America’s interests. It needs to convey to the White House that when dealing with the war on terror, Washington and Moscow’s goals – especially in the Middle East – are not necessarily aligned. Yes, Russia could “do the dirty work” in Syria which America is reluctant to do. But the fact is that the two superpowers don’t see eye-to-eye on the end result there. 

This is especially the case if the U.S. puts Iran – Russia’s most important regional ally – in its sights. Here too, the intelligence community should clearly and repeatedly convey that message, while keeping a close eye on Russia – even if its boss chooses a different approach for the time being. 

Shay Hershkovitz, Ph.D., is chief strategy officer at Wikistrat, Inc. and a political science professor at Tel Aviv University specializing in intelligence studies. He is also a former IDF intelligence officer whose book, “Aman Comes To Light,” deals with the history of the Israeli intelligence community.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.