For those Americans who annually direct their attention to the pre-September 11 discussion about national security, chances are: They will still feel left in the dark, perhaps more so than ever.

This uncertainty results from the undefined use of forces for undefined ends.

There is a consensus now that the Bush-era's "war on terror" has come to a dead end. There is a common feeling that President Barack Obama' s attempt to chart a new course of counter-terrorism strategies is raising more questions than he can possibly answer.

A DIFFICULT SHIFT

A widely-accepted conclusion regarding former President George W. Bush's anti-terror strategy is that the Iraq war proved to be a great mistake.

President Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war as a presidential candidate. When he took office in January, he moved fast to withdraw troops from Iraq and shift the focus to Afghanistan.

He already sent 21,000 additional troops there and changed the U.S. military and civilian leadership in that nation.

Yet the problem remains that the situation in Afghanistan has barely improved, despite the fact that Obama is pouring more war resources into it and Americans are paying an increasingly high price.

What's more, attacks against U.S. troops have quadrupled since 2007, and August became the most deadly month for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since 2001.

The U.S.-supported government in Kabul controls less than one third of the country, which the Brookings Institution ranks as the "second weakest nation" in the developing world.

As the Obama administration strives to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" the al-Qaida and Taliban forces that provide safe havens for terrorists, cash-strapped American taxpayers are increasingly worried about having to spend more on anti-terror wars with uncertain outcomes.

So far, the United States has spent 223 billion U.S. dollars on its military efforts in Afghanistan while annual non-military aid to Afghanistan increased from less than 1 billion dollars in 2003 to 9.3 billion dollars last year.

Most analysts have agreed that Obama' s new strategy means more war costs.

The House Appropriations Committee said in a recent report that its members are "concerned about the prospects of an open-ended U.S. commitment to bring stability to a country that has a decades-long history of successfully rebuffing foreign military intervention and attempts to influence internal politics."

Some columnists and politicians are already openly calling for an exit plan.

Opinion polls showed that the majority of Americans oppose the war, and their ranks are expanding.

However, for Obama, the heir to this war, a retreat from Afghanistan will risk a comeback of al-Qaida and new terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

But if he continues his strategy of pouring resources into Afghanistan, he will risk further alienating his political base.

A HARD-TO-FIX IMAGE

Afghanistan is not the only consideration in Obama' s anti-terror policy.

An image problem that has been impeding U.S. counter-terrorism efforts over the years is still haunting the new administration.

Many scholars have agreed that the Bush administration responded to the 9/11 attacks with a simple "violence-for-violence" policy, using military, intelligence and legal resources to pursue a "global war on terror."

Its downside is obvious: That strategy seemed to have done little to tame terrorists, and was conducted at an increasingly high cost of human life and the country's resources and reputation.

Prisoner abuse, torture, "black sites," renditions and killings of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, and many other scandals related to the U.S. "war on terror" have infuriated the international community.

Obama is aware of the fact that if he wants international support for U.S. counter-terrorism efforts, the image problem has to be fixed in the first place.

So on his third day in office, President Obama ordered the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and are vamp of the system of detaining terror suspects.

During his visits to Arab countries where anti-American sentiments are aggravated by those scandals, Obama demonstrated a new attitude to show his goodwill.

He tried to win the trust of European countries, where opposition to U.S. counter-terrorism policies has been strong for a long time.

The president even replaced the unpopular word "war on terror" with the euphemism "overseas contingency operation."

Obama' s new approach has proven somewhat effective.

A Gallup poll released in June showed his approval rating was higher than his predecessor's in Arab countries.

In a Pew Research Center survey which came out this July, favorable opinions toward the United States have increased in most countries surveyed.

Pollsters said the closing of Guantanamo was among the key reasons for the improvement of the U.S. image.

However, Obama' s efforts to improve the image of U.S. anti-war efforts met with growing resistance at home.

A Fox poll showed 55 percent of Americans oppose Obama' s idea to bring some of the Guantanamo inmates to U.S. soil for detention or trial as part of the closure plan.

Meanwhile, the Democratic-controlled Congress is at odds with the Democratic president on the issue, threatening not to fund the closure plan until Obama' s plan satisfies lawmakers.

Under pressure from conservatives, Obama cannot make a clean break with the Bush-era detention and interrogation policies.

He plans to restart the Bush-era Military Commissions to try Guantanamo inmates and to continue the controversial renditions of terror suspects overseas.

Although Obama has softened anti-American sentiments abroad to a certain extent, international polls showed that people in most countries are still worried about the unilateral tendency of U.S. foreign policy.

NO CONSENSUS ON TACTICS, STRATEGIES

Since 9/11, most Americans have upheld the belief that terrorism is the country's biggest threat and that the ultimate objective of anti-terror efforts should be avoiding another attack on U.S. soil.

However, no consensus was reached on the tactics and strategies to achieve that end.

As the 9/11 anniversary is approaching, the country is resuming its debate over the anti-terror policy.

On a tactical level, the debate is focusing on whether sending more troops to Afghanistan is a necessity.

According to Obama's plans, U.S. troop levels there will reach 68,000 later this year.

However, many military analysts have argued that this number is too small to achieve the U.S. objective.

They said that to effectively protect the local population in an insurgency, it would require a military presence ratio of one soldier for every 50 civilians according to the U.S. Army doctrine. In Afghanistan, that would mean 320,000 troops are needed.

However, the military strength in Afghanistan only adds up to 270,000, even including the 68,000 planned U.S. troops, other NATO forces and Afghan troops.

Analyst Anthony Cords man said many military experts believe at least three more brigades, or some 10,000 additional U.S. troops, would be needed.

Scholars like Andrew Bacevich from Boston University said al-Qaida could be held at bay by using intensive intelligence, drones, cruise missiles and special operation squads, or by bribing local warlords, rather than by increasing troop levels.

Another level of debate concerns the country's development direction of its anti-terror strategy.

The Obama administration, while recognizing that using military means alone cannot defeat terrorism, insists that the Afghan war is a "war of necessity" and "worth fighting on."

Former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel argued in a recent op-ed article that waging wars against terrorism was a "20-century reaction to 21st-century realities."

"Iraq and Afghanistan are not America's to win or lose," he said. "Relying on the use of force as a centerpiece of our global strategy is economically, strategically and politically unsustainable and will result in unnecessary tragedy," he concluded.


Source: Xinhua