'War on terrorism will become routine'

The terrorist attacks on the United States have changed the outlook for military strategy and international relations for ever, a think-tank based in London said yesterday.

The terrorist attacks on the United States have changed the outlook for military strategy and international relations for ever, a think-tank based in London said yesterday.

The effects of what it called "mass casualty terrorism" coloured the conclusions of the annual report on the Military Balance compiled by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, which forecast that the "war on terrorism" would become as routine a part of international relations as was the Cold War – but more difficult to win.

John Chipman, the institute's director, said: "The enemy is diverse and invisible and victory will be even harder to declare than for the Cold War. The political, financial and diplomatic challenges in prosecuting this campaign are enormous. The geopolitical challenges are huge."

The coalition mustered by America in response to the attacks had to maintain a delicate balance, he said, instituting a new regime in Afghanistan, supporting a fragile Pakistan and keeping the Middle East peace process alive. "No one wants to be accused of imposing a regime on Afghanistan," Dr Chipman said, "but failing to organise its shape will be an act of strategic negligence."

In a prescient decision, this year's Military Balance – which lists national military capabilities – contains for the first time a list of "selected non-state armed groups" around the world. They include al-Qa'ida, the group headed by Osama bin Laden, which is blamed for the 11 September attacks. It lists its strength at 1,000-plus men, and its aim as "re-establishing the Muslim state worldwide".

The institute's report also cautioned Europeans in particular against seeing any big shift to multilateralism in American policy, even though it had forged the anti-terrorist coalition. While the coalition would "demand of the United States and its allies a form of hyper-engagement in world politics not seen since the height of the Cold War", the likelihood was that, despite hastily paying its UN debt and re-engaging with Russia and Pakistan, the Bush administration "has not embraced multilateral diplomacy ... nor found a new affection for international treaties".

Indeed, Dr Chipman argued, the anti-terrorist campaign would make America more likely to make "harsher judgements" about the relevance of existing or proposed international treaties and would be "more rather than less vigorous" in ensuring that it was not constrained by them.