EVEN A HEGEMON NEEDS FRIENDS AND ALLIES:

The War Against Terrorism May Prove To Be As Unwinnable As The War On Drugs,
Writes Moises Naim:

This week's terrorist attacks not only killed people; they also killed
ideas. Many of the certainties and assumptions that guided position papers,
policies and budgets will not survive the deliberate crash of jetliners into
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Some of the ideas that passed away
last Tuesday had been with us for decades; others were as new as the Bush
administration. The attacks have also brought about new ideas, some of which
are likely to be as misguided as those discarded.

First and foremost among the ideas now buried beneath thousands of tons of
rubble is the notion that technology could make the American homeland
impregnable. Whether this idea's demise will also kill plans to build a
missile shield that would protect the US from the intercontinental ballistic
attacks of rogue states remains to be seen. There is too much money to be
made and too many careers are at stake for this programme to die quietly or
quickly.

What is certain is that proponents of missile defence will have a much
tougher time persuading Americans that this is the best use of their tax
dollars. The terrorists made everyone fully and painfully aware of the
concrete meaning of asymmetric war: enemies that respond to high-technology
weapons with low-tech tools. The idea that, in some instances, the
brilliance of scientists and engineers is no match for the suicidal
motivation of fanatics is no longer just a experts' prediction: it is now a
conviction burnt into the minds of all those who saw Tuesday's harrowing
scenes.

Those scenes also destroyed the idea that military superiority ensured
national security. Military might may be necessary but, contrary to what was
frequently implied in the haggling over military budgets, it is not
sufficient to guarantee national security.

The terrorist attacks have sparked new ideas that will inform debates and
shape policies. The main one is the need to wage a global war against
terrorism. While the idea may not be new, it is now high in the minds and
the agendas of politicians, policymakers and the public. Giving more
attention, money and priority to efforts to prevent and to fight terrorism
is long overdue and absolutely necessary. But this idea may lead to two
other, more problematic ones.

The first is that the fight against terrorism is a war and can therefore be
won. The second is that other foreign policy problems that confronted the US
before the terrorist attacks of last Tuesday can be put on the back burner
while the war against terrorism is being waged.

Terrorism has always existed and will not be eradicated. In fact, by
increasing the terrorists' mobility, agility and global reach, globalisation
has made them much tougher adversaries. Nor does the world lack fertile
breeding grounds for future terrorists. These may be refugee camps that are
home to millions displaced by war, ethnic strife or failed states, or
neighbourhoods as big as entire cities where the only way out of despair and
hopelessness is the promise of martyrdom: the supply of volunteers will
continue to be steady, diversified and abundant.

The idea that the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his network would
substantially curb the terrorist threat may prove to be as misguided as the
hope that the elimination of Pablo Escobar, once the leader of Colombia's
most powerful and violent drug cartel, would thwart drug trafficking. After
the Colombian police killed him, Escobar was quickly replaced by other drug
lords at least as cunning and violent. Today the drug war shows no signs of
abating and is in fact fiercer than ever.

There are no reasons to believe that the war on terrorism will be any
different: it will be permanent, with elusive and changing enemies - and
even important victories will not ensure that the enemy has been defeated.
Calling this conflict a war may feel right but what is being fought is very
different from what we used to know as war.

The second idea engendered by recent events is that in the foreseeable
future there will be no foreign policy priority more important for the US
than defeating terrorists. Yet before Tuesday the US was facing, in addition
to terrorist threats, myriad other challenges for which it had no obvious
response. It still is.

While the terrorist attacks can and should be used as an opportunity to
improve the US's relationship with Russia and China, the stubborn fact
remains that the Bush administration is still in the process of defining its
long-term strategy with those two countries. It is not clear, for example,
what stance the administration will take towards China: strategic ally or
future threat. Will it ignore Russia or actively engage it? While the Nato
alliance has unequivocally and strongly supported the US, multiple rifts and
disagreements on issues including missile defence and the Kyoto agreement -
still plague the relationship between Europe and the US.

In a few months, the World Trade Organisation summit in Doha will highlight
the sorry state of the world's trade regime and the need for the US to build
and to lead a coalition that could break the stalemate that has paralysed
trade talks for years.

Plan Colombia. Tensions between India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, or on
the Korean peninsula. The Balkans. Nuclear proliferation. Africa. Aids.
Poverty. Global economic slowdown and financial instability. Argentina and
Turkey. Last but not least, the Middle East. The list is long and well
known. Some of these are chronic problems and will not go away. Some are
dormant and do not require immediate attention. Others will not directly
affect important American interests. But sooner rather than later, one or
more of them that does touch vital American interests will flare out of
control. And the US will not have the luxury of not getting involved. It may
even be that in a year or two the fight against terrorism is itself
displaced as the highest priority.

The good news is that another idea rising from the ashes of Tuesday's
tragedy is that even a superpower cannot afford to go it alone. Many of the
unilateralist instincts that were so much in evidence at the beginning of
the Bush administration will, one hopes, now be tempered by the realisation
that the long-term fight against terrorism requires close co-operation with
other countries. That lesson will come in handy when the need to deal with
the other foreign policy challenges facing the US arises. Few if any of the
problems listed above can be effectively confronted by America acting alone.
We all need friends and allies. Even a hegemon.