Missing the Target

As the United States passed another milestone with word that 2,500 American troops had been killed in the Iraq war, Congress engaged in a sham debate Thursday about the direction of U.S. policy in Iraq.

A transparently partisan elec- tion-year resolution drafted by the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives essentially endorsed President Bush's open-ended plan to keep U.S. troops in Iraq until the "mission is completed." Laden with references to victory, Sept. 11 and the sacrifices of brave soldiers, the sole purpose of the meaningless resolution was to force Democrats to vote against "the troops" and for "cowardly surrender to the terror- ists."

The political stalemate prevents Congress and the administration from dealing with larger problems that will continue to fuel global terrorism no matter what the outcome in Iraq.

A significant study released this week by one of Britain's leading independent think tanks concluded that the United States' single-minded focus on fighting terrorism has raised, not lowered, the possibility of future large-scale terrorist attacks. Furthermore, the Oxford Research Group report says the U.S. obsession with terrorism is diverting precious human and financial resources from even more serious threats to global security.

The Oxford Group's conclusions were supported by a separate survey of 100 leading American foreign policy experts. The analysts included an ex-secretary of state and former heads of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. The bipartisan panel of experts listed the war in Iraq, the detention of terrorism suspects in Guantanamo Bay, U.S. policy toward Iran and U.S. energy policy as key reasons why the United States is less secure today than it was before the Bush administration launched its unrealistic "war" on terrorism.

The costly and destructive military response to terrorism is counterproductive as a long-term strategy because the collateral damage of war generates a continuous supply of new recruits to the terrorist cause. Short of a permanent occupation, it is still an open question whether a conventional military victory is possible in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The Oxford Group ranks climate change higher than terrorism as a threat to global security. Other threats to peace that are likely to cause future international conflict are competition over dwindling resources, particularly fossil fuels; the widening gap between rich and poor people and nations; and the worldwide arms race, especially the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons.

In terms of widespread loss of life, the Oxford Research Group says the threats it has identified are potentially far deadlier than international terrorism. Even the Pentagon acknowledges that climate change vastly eclipses terrorism as a threat.

A 2003 report from the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment concluded that climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.

The report's authors argue that the risk of abrupt climate change should be "elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."

Climate change is at the top of the threat pyramid because it has the potential to cause the greatest and longest-lasting harm. Fortunately, many of the most effective strategies to address climate change also mitigate other threats identified by the Oxford Group study.

Reducing gasoline consumption, switching to alternative fuels, emphasizing conservation and developing renewable energy sources all reduce greenhouse gas emissions as they relieve pressure on oil supplies. Those efforts also reduce the importance of oil in the geopolitical power balance.

Combined with more aggressive initiatives to address global poverty and to rechannel money from militarization to more humanitarian goals, the Oxford Research Group strategy offers an alternative to the Bush administration's increasingly dubious approach to confronting terrorism.

Instead of trying to frighten the American people into accepting a perpetual state of war, wouldn't it make more sense for Bush to embrace a truly international security strategy, one that endeavors to avert global disaster even as it addresses some of the root causes of terrorism?

Instead of asking only the U.S. armed forces and their families to sacrifice, wouldn't it change the dynamic of the struggle if the president enlisted every American in a campaign to combat global warming, reduce gasoline consumption and actively fight poverty?

If the current Congress is incapable of having a real debate on issues that affect the lives of every citizen, it will be up to voters in November to replace them with representatives who can.