In Focus

The “Axis of Evil” and the War on Terrorism

In President Bush's first State of the Union address he spoke of an “Axis of Evil” in the world today naming Iraq, Iran and North Korea. What exactly does President Bush mean by the “Axis of Evil” and how will U.S. Policy towards this Axis effect the War on Terrorism? The President's remarks do not imply that the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qa'ida associates have been eliminated but that the United States has expanded the War on Terrorism to include the three most notorious proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. A discussion on the “Axis of Evil” and its relationship to the War on Terrorism is warranted but first I would like to say a few words about the current operations against Al-Qa'ida.

The Taliban regime has been toppled and the Al-Qa'ida training camps have been destroyed but the war in Afghanistan is by no means over. Overthrowing the Taliban government may prove to be the easy part of the Afghan operation. In the past few weeks United States Special Forces have attacked Al-Qa'ida/Taliban elements still operating in Afghanistan and the United States may have to face Taliban elements for some time to come. Even if every Afghan loyal to Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban were subdued, the United States and British led UN peacekeepers still have to deal with factional fighting among elements of the anti-Taliban opposition. Another concern of the United States military is the possibility of a clash with Iran because of Iranian meddling in Afghan affairs by supporting sympathetic warlords against the central pro-western government in Kabul and sheltering Al-Qa'ida fighters. As if this state of affairs was not bad enough, add to this mix an uncertain internal political situation in Pakistan and the spectra of nuclear war between Pakistan and India over the Kashmir area. If a successful end of war in Afghanistan is defined as a stable Afghanistan and a stable South Asia then it is premature to declare victory.

With Al-Qa'ida still active in over eighty countries, it is clear that the war will involve multiple levels in many areas. The war has broadened to include other fronts like the Philippines where the United States is sending over 650 men and logistical support to the Philippine government in its fight against Abu Sayyaf, a local guerilla group with close ties to Al-Qa'ida. Many operations will be small and involve local forces (like the Philippine military) used as proxy forces of the United States military. The fighting in Afghanistan and the Philippines along with operations in other countries like Somalia and Yemen are not insignificant when it comes to eliminating Al-Qa'ida's bases. The Bush Administration through its the State of the Union address has changed the nature of the war by extending it from a war against Al-Qa'ida to a war against the “ Axis of Evil” along with Al-Qa'ida.

President Bush expanded the War on Terrorism to a whole new level by clearly lumping Iraq, North Korea and Iran in the same category as Bin Laden, Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban. This does not mean that the United States will be going to war with these countries in the immediate future. The War on Terrorism in this way will resemble the cold war; a state of international relations that leads to a series of smaller hot wars instead of a single worldwide conflagration.

Labeling Iraq, North Korea and Iran the “Axis of Evil”, will complicate U.S. diplomacy. The word “Axis” conjures up comparisons with the Axis Powers of “World War Two” and not everyone including some US allies are pleased with this comparison. Critics claim that Iran, Iraq and North Korea are very different countries with very different relationships between themselves and the West than was the case with the Axis alliance of World War Two. Calling Iran, Iraq and North Korea an “Axis of Evil” complicates relations between these countries and the International community, which is counterproductive to promoting international security. The argument is that being three different countries they have to be handled in three different ways: Iraq needs to be contained, while in Iran democratic factions need to be promoted and North Korea can and needs to be coaxed into giving up its missile program. By calling these countries an “Axis of Evil”, it is argued there is less of an incentive for any them to change their behavior.

Evidence on how closely allied the “Axis of Evil” is inconclusive at best. Since Iran and Iraq fought a very brutal war with each other in the 1980s, it is highly unlikely they could be allies for any extensive length of time, though it is not inconceivable because they have cooperated in the past. However the claims that Iran and North Korea have little in common are a little threadbare. It is well known that North Korea sells missile technology to the Iranians, but the relationship is more extensive than a mere business partnership. North Korea developed SCUD-like missiles in the mid-1980s and sold these missiles to Iran during this period. It is even thought that Iranian officials were present during key phases of the North Korean ballistic missile program in the mid to late 1980s.

The evidence of a relationship between Al-Qa'ida and the so-called “Axis of Evil” is tentative at best Al-Qa'ida has been helped by Iraq and Iran before September 11, and Iran is reported to have provided asylum to Al-Qa'ida fighters fleeing Afghanistan. North Korea's relationship with Al-Qa'ida is even more vague, other than unsubstantiated reports that North Korea has provided Anthrax to Al-Qa'ida there is little evidence to connect the last Stalinist Government and the Islamist Al-Qa'ida organization. Lack of evidence does not preclude a connection between the “Axis of Evil” and Al-Qa'ida but there are other countries President Bush did not mention who in the past have helped Al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups. Pakistan and Syria are not part of the “Axis of Evil” though in the past they backed Al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups.

The Bush administration appears to be combining the war on terrorism with counter-proliferation efforts. The three countries of the “Axis” are generally viewed as the chief proliferators of Weapons of Mass Destruction by the United States and have been for the last ten years. Their foreign policy is at odds with United States interests. Iraq and Iran are both hostile to US interests in the Persian Gulf; Iran as been promoting violence in the Occupied Territories (most recently with the shipment of 50 tons of arms to the Palestinian Authority) and North Korea remains a threat to South Korea and Japan. The United States has a long antagonistic relationship with all three of these countries and does not need their support in the war on Terrorism. The U.S. needs Pakistan in order to fight the war in Afghanistan. Syria is a key player in the Middle East Peace process and Cuban acquiescence (other than North Korea, the only non-Islamic nation on the State Department's list of Terrorist Sponsoring States ) to the uses of its airspace in transporting Al-Qa'ida prisoners to Guantanamo Bay is highly desirable.

Another problem is how much weight should be put on the term “Axis of Evil”. There is some concern among critics of the Bush Administration that using harsh language like the “Axis of Evil” precludes reconciliation with Iran and North Korea and weakens the internal position of moderates in these governments. In the case of Iran it is questionable that there will be a long-term negative effect. The State of the Union address did not lump all Iranians as one group, it did mention the existence of pro-democratic elements in Iran, which may lessen the long-term influence of any rally around the flag effect. As for North Korea, even before September 11, the Bush Administration had been skeptical of the Clinton Administration and South Korean government's attempts at rapprochement, a skepticism shared by the South Korean opposition if not the United State's European allies. Charles Krauthammer argues that the inclusion of North Korea in the “Axis of Evil” is a political ploy because including a non-Islamic country could dampen criticism of the War on Terrorism. He believes it would have no long-term negative effect on United States foreign policy because North Korea is too weak to harm U.S. interests without facing a disproportionate U.S. response.

The United States government has said that despite talk of an “Axis of Evil” no immediate action will be taken against any member of the “Axis of Evil”. The general consensus is that the next likely target is Iraq. The fluid domestic situation in Iran makes it an undesirable target because a U.S. attack could hurt the domestic reformers in Iran and thereby prevent any potential thaw in relations. Situations may arise that could change this calculus, Iran's maneuvering in western Afghanistan, evidence of sheltering Al-Qa'ida in Iran, or further support of Terrorists in the occupied territories or Lebanon could lead to a United States military response. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the most likely attack will come against Iraq. However, Saddam Hussein may prove to be a more difficult opponent than the Taliban. Given the lack of enthusiasm shown by the United States' allies in Europe and the Middle East, along with Russia and China for military action against Iraq, a war to topple Saddam modeled after the war against the Taliban will be a difficult sale. The Iraqi military proved to be inferior to western armed forces in the Gulf War in terms of equipment and training and it is more likely than not it has deteriorated further because of a decade long embargo. The Afghan model, however, may not apply to Iraq. Saddam's forces may leave much to be desired, but they are still better armed and organized than the Taliban. Iraq may have a conventional military of poor quality but it is a more formidable opponent than the Taliban's forces, more of a collection of irregular militias than an army in the conventional sense of the word. The opposition to Saddam's regime is weaker than the Northern Alliance and would require a large amount of US support. Any war to oust Saddam will involve years of preparation by the opposition with heavy US assistance and/or the intervention of large numbers of United States ground forces.

The difficulties of employing large numbers of US ground troops against Saddam Hussein are more political than military in nature. For both domestic and regional political reasons, many of Iraq's neighbors would view with alarm the presence of large numbers of US troops. Remember, the introduction of US troops in the Gulf War on Saudi Arabian soil was one reason Bin Laden turned against the US and the Saudi Monarchy. The prospect of the United States government using its power to change a sitting regime probably would not sit well with Russia, China and even some of the NATO allies. It would take months to prepare the diplomatic groundwork for a war against Iraq. . As for the other members of the “Axis of Evil” Bush's speech should be viewed as a long term policy statement directed at the countries the United States has, for over a decade, viewed as the biggest threats to US interests than as an imminent call to arms. President Bush's State of the Union address suggests not that United States is preparing for a final conflagration against Iran, Iraq and North Korea in the next year but a more robust response to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

---

1. A clarification of terms : Axis powers or Axis alliance of the Second World War consisted of: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. Axis of Evil on the other hand refers to Saddam's dictatorship in Iraq , the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Stalinist North Korea.

2. The claim that the “Axis of Evil” countries do not form an alliance like the Axis of the Second World War is based on assumptions about the unity of the Axis alliance that is not definitively supported by the historical record. Victor Davis Hanson's National Review article The Axis — Then and Now uses the historical record to argue that the analogy is not too off because the cooperation, coordination and amicability of the World War II Axis alliance was not as extensive as some claim and the Axis's loose alliance is not that dissimilar from the Axis of Evil in that the only shared interest both Axis's have ise their hatred for the west and mistrust of each oher. This is not to say that Mr. Hanson is right and the critics are wrong only that the question “How unified was the Axis alliance?” complicates comparisons.

3. Dan, Uri Old Foes Iraq and Iran in Unholy Alliance vs. Israel Feb 12, 2002; New York Post;

4. Bermudez Joseph S. The Armed Forces of North Korea The Armed Forces of Asia Series, I.B. Tauris Publishers New York 2001

pp. 250-253

5. Who deserves and does not deserve to be on the State Department's list of Terrorist Sponsoring States is a complicated political issue beyond the scope of this paper.

Recently In Focus

• NMD: Prospects and Considerations
  
• The September 11 Attack and the United States Armed Forces
  
• Andrew Marshall and the U.S. Military in the 21st Century
  
• NMD: Prospects and Considerations
  
• QDR