Counterterrorism Official Urges Broader Approach to Foreign Policy

Michael E. Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, recently presented what could be termed a post-Bush administration view that meeting the threat of terrorism is critical but should not be the ultimate determinant of foreign policy decisions.

"Counterterrorism should be, in most cases, the tail, and we should not wag the broader policy dog," Leiter said at an Aspen Institute luncheon this month.

What was different from similar pronouncements in the past from high-ranking intelligence officials was Leiter's statement that he was an "enthusiastic supporter" of President Obama's view that "counterterrorism is part of larger U.S. policy" and "rarely, if ever, should be the lead in that policy."

"We should be influencing a lot of policy, we should be informing a lot of policy, but ultimately there are broader issues . . . whether or not it's in Pakistan and Afghanistan or Somalia," he said.

He cited Afghanistan as an illustration of a U.S. foreign policy problem that "is not all about terrorism." There are people fighting there who are terrorists, he said. But, he added, helping develop government structures in that country and assisting in providing services and security to the Afghan people should "inform those steps that are being pursued by the likes of" Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke and Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Leiter predicted that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda "will, over time, continue to disperse and splinter." He bristled when one questioner implied that it may be an accident or mere good fortune that the United States has not been struck since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, not a result of Bush administration policies.

"That is flatly and completely false," he said, adding that "we have disrupted plots, we have watched people, we have put things in place which make it less likely that we will be attacked today than we were on 9/11."

But he warned that the threat of "a broader global jihad will not go away with what I hope is the eventual destruction of al-Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

He acknowledged that strikes by unmanned aircraft against al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, which have caused civilian deaths, have had "some negative repercussions." But he added that "we have to find the right balance" between eliminating current threats and "winning hearts and minds" of the Pakistanis for the longer term. "If we ignore that short term just in favor of winning hearts and minds, we're going to face what I think are some unacceptable risks towards U.S. interests overseas and within the United States," he said.

He said the future al-Qaeda probably will have "less centralized command and control, no clear center of gravity . . . depending on where the U.S. and the international focus is for that period." He said that the next areas of interest could be Yemen and Somalia and that if they are taken down, it may "provide some opportunity for North Africa or other spots to start to rise again."

On the issue of visa restrictions on students coming to the United States, particularly from the Middle East, Leiter asked whether the Obama administration wanted to step back and answer the question, "What is the risk we're willing to accept?" He said that there is a "real and legitimate need to screen people" but that it should not be done "in a way that you're alienating them."

There is a desire to have these people come and learn about U.S. culture, build bridges and "understand again that the West is not at war with Islam," he said. But there is also "the risk of letting the wrong person in," he said. The consequences of such a mistake could be disastrous. There also is a price to pay for keeping law-abiding people out, he noted. "But it's tougher to measure, and it's much longer term."

One solution, he suggested, is to put more onus on the home countries of those who want to travel to the United States, by having them provide data that can help U.S. screening personnel as they process cases. But Leiter said the real problem is the fear among screeners of inadvertently allowing in that one wrong person.

"How do you strike the balance both in policies and among people who are doing the screening?" he said.