Terrorists bent on mass murder cannot be contained or deterred.
The terror attack in New Orleans, which was carried out by an American radicalized and inspired by the Islamic State, is a grim reminder that the axis of autocracy – China, Russia, North Korea, Iran – is not the only threat we face. Jihadist terror continues to stalk us. While both these threat groups seek to undermine our security, our freedom and our way of life, they require different strategies.
The four autocracies In an effort to bring order to how we understand the sources of international disorder, defense officials more than a decade ago began using the phrase “four plus one” – shorthand for Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran plus terrorist groups such as ISIS, ISIS-K, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Kata'ib Hezbollah and Hamas. The Pentagon has shifted away from that construct in recent years, but it’s still helpful in organizing the threats arrayed against us.
Let’s start with the “four” side of the equation.
The best strategy for dealing with the axis of autocracy is Cold War-style deterrence. Deterrence – possessing sufficient military capabilities to signal an adversary that the costs of aggression will far outweigh any benefits of aggression – is what enabled the free world to win Cold War I and prevent World War III. However, the free world’s deterrent was not credible or sufficient in the early phases of Cold War I, which invited what Churchill called “temptations to a trial of strength” in South Korea and West Berlin.
Worryingly, we may be facing a similar situation today.
For example, a range of factors – the free world’s shrugging response to Putin’s invasion of Georgia and first invasion of Ukraine, the paltry defense budgets of NATO members before Putin’s second invasion of Ukraine, the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the undermining of NATO by some NATO leaders – had the effect of eroding deterrence vis-a-vis Russia.
Gen. Robert Brown reported near the end of his tenure commanding U.S. Army-Pacific that his Chinese counterparts “don’t fear us anymore.” This is surely a function of Beijing’s mushrooming maritime capabilities – China now boasts the world’s largest fleet – contrasted with America’s undersized, overstretched Navy.
North Korea’s unchallenged nuclearization at once strengthened its deterrent capabilities and weakened U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) deterrent capabilities.
Finally, given that Iran has normalized terrorism into a basic government function, an argument could be made that Iran belongs on the plus side of the “four plus one” equation. (Given Russia’s terrorist tactics against Ukraine, the same argument could be made about Russia.) But we know that Iran’s rulers, unlike the terrorist proxies they bankroll, are neither eager for martyrdom nor immune from deterrence, as underscored by U.S. deterrence-restoring operations in 1988 and 2020 and by recent Israeli operations. Moreover, we know that when military pressure is eased, Iran’s rulers take advantage and spread their malign influence, as they did when the United States pulled back from Iran’s neighborhood.
Those closest to these threats are making significant – in some cases historic – investments in deterrent capabilities. Doubling its investment in defense, Japan will soon boast the world’s third-largest defense budget. Australia unveiled a record defense budget in 2024. Israel’s defense budget jumped 87% in 2024. Defense spending among NATO’s European members increased by 19% last year. Poland is devoting 5% of GDP to defense. Germany has nearly doubled defense spending since 2022.
Finland has nearly doubled defense spending since 2019. France is increasing defense spending 40% between now and 2030.
Washington needs to follow their lead, follow the American people (77% of Americans support increased defense spending) and follow the Cold War I playbook. With an $886 billion defense budget, it might look like America is fully funding its military. But looks can be deceiving. The Army is trying to deter war in Europe with one-third the soldiers it deployed during Cold War I. Navy leaders say they need 500+ ships; they have 296. Just 14% of America’s bomber fleet could survive Russia’s or China’s air defenses. The cause of these self-inflicted wounds: For the past 13 years, America has invested a little more than 3% of GDP in defense annually. The average during Cold War I was more than twice that.
Restoring deterrence by building up military capabilities won’t be cheap. As we learned during Cold War I, deterring great-power war is expensive. But as we learned during World War II, there’s something far more expensive than deterring great-power war – and that’s waging it.
The four Rs While the axis of autocracy can be deterred, our jihadist enemies cannot. As Churchill explained, “The deterrent does not cover the case of lunatics.” The most effective strategy for dealing with mass-murderers masquerading as holy men is encapsulated by what might be called the “four Rs”: readiness, resilience, resolve and rollback.
Readiness Readiness enfolds connecting dots, exploiting intelligence and sharing that intelligence to preempt terrorist attacks when possible and dismantle terrorist networks when discovered. But readiness isn’t limited to intelligence-fusion centers, CIA paramilitaries, intel case officers, missile-armed warships, fighter-bombers, JSOC units and UCAV operators. Readiness enfolds all of us: local law enforcement and first-responders, air and commuter travelers, concert-goers, people attending sporting events. To fight terrorism and protect our way of life, all of us need to be ready, alert, and willing to say something if we see something threatening or amiss.
Recall that America’s first counterstrikes against al-Qaida on Sept. 11 came from the passengers of Flight 93, that local law enforcement was America’s first and last line of defense against the Boston bombers, and that New Orleans police officers ended the New Year’s Day terror.
Resilience Next, we come to resilience – a gritty determination to go on with life, to keep living as free men and women even amid fear and danger, to defend our way of life by continuing to live our way of life. We saw such resilience on display just hours after the attack in New Orleans. The people of New Orleans – and the people they hosted from across America – mourned the loss of 14 innocents. And they continued to go to church. And they continued to conduct commerce. And they continued to welcome in the new year. And they continued to celebrate their love for college football. And they continued to live in freedom.
We’ve seen such resilience on display elsewhere: Once maimed, Manhattan’s skyline has been restored. Once buckled and charred, the Pentagon’s western wall has been rebuilt. Once punctured and bloodied, USS Cole is repaired and at sea defending our interests and fighting our enemies.
Resolve That brings us to resolve. What used to be called the “war on terrorism” will be measured in decades, as military leaders have predicted, explained and warned since Sept. 12, 2001. To be sure, that phrase “war on terrorism” is imperfect. We cannot defeat terrorism, it was argued after the smoke and fury of Sept. 11 faded, because terrorism is a tactic or a method. However, the civilized world has defeated or otherwise marginalized uncivilized tactics and methods. In his book “Surprise, Security and the American Experience,” historian John Lewis Gaddis points to slavery, piracy and genocide. While these scourges still exist, they are not commonplace and are not practiced by legitimate governments. In the same way, as terror regimes are replaced, as terror networks are dismantled, as the patrons of terror are exposed and their financial reservoirs dry up, as the masterminds of terror are eliminated, as systems are reformed, terrorism can be marginalized, fully delegitimized, even defeated. It is a matter of will and resolve.
Rollback Early in Cold War I, advocates of rollback called for actively pushing back – or rolling back – communism. Advocates of containment, conversely, called for deterring Moscow, erecting defenses around the communist bloc to prevent it from expanding, and responding militarily when there was an attempt to breach those defenses. The two approaches were, in a sense, put to the test in Korea. Rather than simply ejecting North Korea’s invasion force from South Korea, Gen. Douglas MacArthur swung his troops northward, pushed across the 38th Parallel and began to liberate communist North Korea. MacArthur’s men raced toward the Yalu River – North Korea’s border with China – rolling back communism each step of the way. China’s ferocious response settled the containment-rollback debate.
Containment was the more prudent and less costly option in dealing with communism. However, when it comes to jihadism, containment and deterrence are not an option. After all, jihadists view death itself as a doorway to paradise. They cannot be given any safe space, any breathing room, any quarter, any opportunity to reconstitute or recruit.
And so, we must execute a policy of rollback – pushing the front away from our shores, hunting down terrorist leaders, ripping apart terrorist networks, punishing terrorist states, forcing the enemy to expend finite resources on survival, pressing a multifaceted campaign of campaigns against the patrons and training grounds of terror. As we saw in the early phase of Afghanistan and the final phase of the counter-ISIS operation across Iraq and Syria, this 21st-century version of rollback translates into whittling away and grinding down the post-9/11 generation of jihadists, liberating what they conquered, and hopefully convincing the next generation to choose a different vocation.
Regrettably, we’ve forgotten what happens when we pull back from rollback: Groups like al-Qaida and ISIS set up shop in ungoverned lands and metastasize like cancer cells. In 2024 alone, al-Qaida stood up nine new training camps in Afghanistan. There are more than 4,000 ISIS-K terrorists training in Afghanistan today.
They won’t be contained to Afghanistan.
- Landing Zone