In his
2002 State of the Union Address, George W Bush warned Americans about the
looming threat of the contemporary ‘axis of evil’. This trio –
Iran, Iraq and North Korea - was ostensibly engaged in the headlong pursuit of
nuclear weapons with the sole purpose of wreaking havoc on the west. In the
aftermath of 9/11 and in the early days of combat in Afghanistan, Americans
were eager for the next target of our indignant fury. Within
14 months, combat operations would begin in Iraq, tearing apart the first of
the three ‘axis powers’.
Fortuitously,
we have not yet engaged or invaded Iran or North Korea. North Korea has
continued to execute a strategy of being the crazed knife-wielding hyena of the
East Asia. To placate the beast, we have and will continue to offer it food
while maintaining the DMZ along the border. This is how Clinton, Bush, and
Obama maintained the peace. With Iran, we have perceived the continual threat of nuclear
armament for years on end. Subsequent predictions should the Persians develop
weapons for the atomic age have conjured apocalyptic scenarios of a world
without Israel and gasoline at $12 a gallon. While we have intentionally
avoided official diplomatic discussions with Iran, we protest that it is Iran
who is the aggressive power in the Middle East. It is politically convenient to
ignore the reality that we have invaded two neighbors and control by military
might nearly 60% of the borders in contact with Iran. In the face of such naked
aggression on our borders, any nation would seek a more capable military
response.
The solution
for Iran has not yet come to pass, although it is debatable that such a
solution is the responsibility or prerogative of these United States. It is
unlikely that our solutions for North Korea and Iran will involve a land
invasion reminiscent of Iraq. In simple terms, the financial and emotional
wherewithal for a ground invasion and occupation of yet another nation does not
exist. Military strategy in the near future will require different tools, tools
developed and escalated within the past decade of military operations.
In our rampant
imperialism with boots on the ground, we have developed an unprecedented level
of air superiority. A decade ago, drones were the infants in the arsenal of the
west; today they are entering their adolescence. The military tools now seen in
the Predator and Reaper drones, when combined with precision munitions, are
capable of striking an enemy without endangering a pilot. This is a blessing,
as combat operations retain a keen edge of destruction without becoming life
threatening to military personnel. It is a perfect storm of superiority and safety
in opposition theatres.
This risk free
application of force has become the terrible vice of drone warfare, and in turn,
our foreign policy. The tactical reality is that there is almost no cost to the
US when autonomous missile throwers are employed. Economics imparts the wisdom that
‘there is no free lunch’; there are
costs associated with all actions. One clear cost is the damage wrought on the
ground by the ordinance. This is intentional, although properly controversial. A
cost that is far more difficult to account for is the United States’ loss of
moral standing in the world. The hearts and minds of people matter, as actions
and preferences are born from people’s beliefs.
Terrorism
is one consequence of desperation, the killing of innocents to draw attention
and make a point. It is not a consequence of living among sand, nor is the
result of raising goats rather than cattle. Terrorism is a tactic employed to
provoke a response and affect the hearts of the enemy. The ostensible
mastermind of the 9/11 attacks did not see the breaking of the towers as an end,
but as a means to an end. Bin Laden believed that when the US retaliated and began
to destroy the lives and families of Muslims, they would join his jihad against
the United States. Our invasions fit the historical US pattern of invasion, occupations,
withdrawals, and intermittent air strikes; we have returned to the very tactics
so strongly decried by those recruiting new terrorists. In Afghanistan alone,
there has been a 72%
increase in drone air strikes in the past year.
Pakistan,
Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Niger, Somalia,
Mali and others are now active theatres for US air strikes. These strikes
frequently create collateral damage. At the very least, they are annoying to
those who live nearby. In a primitive society, this is a god-like power, to
strike across borders from the air without consequence. These people are not
primitive; they are well aware of who bears responsibility for the bombings. It
has inflamed opinion against the US. It will bring on additional action against
the US. It will spur the very hearts and minds of those whose tacit opposition to
the jihad we so crucially depend on.
George
Friedman said it well, "A military strategy to defeat the jihadists is impossible. At
its root, the real struggle against the jihadists is ideological, and that
struggle simply cannot be won with Hellfire missiles.”
Pakistan
is rightly opposed to US actions: our invasion of their borders, our assassination
teams sent in without permission and our continually escalating air strikes by
drones. According to Gallup,
92% of those polled in Pakistan are now opposed to the US leadership in
Pakistan. The single nation on earth which lays claim to being both Muslim and
a genuine nuclear power is the sovereignty we have violated with reckless
abandon. The democracy of Pakistan is on shaky ground, propped up by the US,
which is detested by the population. It is no far-fetched proposition to see a
future in which the nuclear weapons of Pakistan are deployed against the west
in retribution for the wrongs committed in the name of preempting terrorism.
In a poker
game where cards represent nations, and the cards showing nuclear threats are Iran
and North Korea are on the table. The card of Pakistan still sits in the deck.
History and God deal many wildcards over the course of time, and Pakistan could
be the next one. If such a deal comes, we will look once again in wonder and
anger and ask, “Why do they hate us?”
The answer will be found in our actions, our vice, and our imperial hubris that
led us to believe that there could be no consequences to rampant bombing of
individuals the world over.
Liberties and
the constitution are sacrificed for security upon the altar of political
expediency. Once again, we will see the Military-Industrial complex fully
primed for a war financed by continual deficits. It is glory and it is pain to
see from within an empire behave as an empire, but better perhaps to be within
then without.
Posts
1 comment:
We have gone so far astray as a country. It is not impossible to think that a terrorist responsible for organizing an attack in Germany, could be hiding out in the US. Would we allow them to send a drone in to blow up their house or apartment building. Of course not. Germany would scream like crazy at us and expect us to do something about it. This is the normal diplomatic process and a process that works very well when countries respect the process of declaring war.
We don't declare war any more and therefore we are always fighting someone. I am not pro-war by any stretch but wars have a beginning and an end. Look at all the enmity we have accumulated since we stopped declaring war. How much enmity do we have from the countries we have declared war on? Japan, Germany, Italy... these countries may not love us unilaterally but they hardly hate us like the countries we have "liberated" or had a hand in over throwing their government.
I am not saying that I would have wanted to declare war on Pakistan but what happens if we try to hold the world to the standards we hold the west. An American attack on foreign soil is considered an act of war. War can be prevented by the capture of the individual(s).
I do understand that the Pakistani government has a shaky hold on the nation and that they would and do have a difficult time policing their nation. This is clearly hypothetical but what would have happened if after refusing to help us, we declared war on the nation. Not some group hiding in the mountains but the actual nation.
We make our intentions clear. We see the terrorist act (in this case 9/11) as an act of war and anyone harboring those murders are the enemy. If they want to prevent a war they can produce those responsible. Then the question becomes "what if they don't". We attack. We park some naval vessels right in front of their country and proceed to slowly take out military target. It may never accomplish anything. It may encourage the military that want to survive to go find the criminals they are hiding. But clearly it may not.
Either way there would be a system, it would be between two armies, and it would end. I am not out to pick on Pakistan either this could have been the tactic with Afghanistan. Let them know we are not going to put up with it. There is no guarantee that the terrorists would be caught in this scenario but the world would know that it doesn't pay to be a nation harboring terrorists. At the end of the day we would kill less people, over less time, and move on. I am not saying they would turn into key trade partners overnight like Japan.
I am saying that I would rather be feared by my enemies that fund a terrorist recruitment campaign in a ten year occupation draining billions of dollars and risking the lives of thousands of service men and women. Not only do I think this has a greater chance of success than what we, as a nation, have been doing in the world but it uses our army for what it is trained for and maybe (this is a real maybe) if we had to declare war on a nation to attack it we would be more careful about who we attacked.
As it is we are fighting terrorism with terrorism. Terrorist like to blow up government targets and the US likes to blow up terrorist targets. No judge or jury or review of evidence. Just murder on the land of another sovereign nation. I want terrorists to face justice too but I don't like how our country has decided that should be administered.
I agree with Palmboy that it is the height of hypocrisy to spend so much effort trying to stop 3 nations from going nuclear while starting a wild fire in a mostly hostile nation that already has nuclear weapons, like Pakistan.
Post a Comment