I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. Out of the night that covers me Black as the pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul. The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud. Under the bludgeonings of chance My head is bloody, but unbowed.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil:
Beyond this place of wrath and tears Looms but the horror of the shade, And yet the menace of the years Finds and shall find me unafraid. I will face my fear. for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul. Only I will remain. and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever. Regular text is from Frank Herbert's Dune. Bold text is from the Psalm 23. Italicized text is from Invictus, by William Henley.
A while back, I asked an educated individual why the Russians were equipping their strategic bombers with rearward-firing turret cannons at a time when the United States was developing aircraft with the capability to down them at over a hundred miles away. His answer was succinct:
A Tu-22M "Backfire." A 23 mm autocannon turret can be seen just above the engines.
"The Russian "percentage" threat does not come from the U.S. It
comes from various countries throughout Asia. These countries fly
aircraft that mainly shoot guns/old IR missiles and first gen radar
missiles. The range of a tailgun shooting aft is equal to the range
of most IR missiles fired in the rear quarter. Also, the Russians
have great confidence that they can defeat any radar/radar missile
with the EW suite on their bombers and most IR missiles with an
impressive array of flares. The one thing for which there is no
defense is a brick hurled at you at three times the speed of
sound..."
In other words, the Russians were preparing to fight a war against the threats they thought were most likely: their Asian neighbors. That doesn't mean that they weren't prepared to take on America, if push came to shove, but they were certainly taking other threats into consideration.
Originally, this random fact was not going to make it into a blog post at all. However, over the last few weeks I've been noticing a common theme throughout some of my random research.
The wars you prepare for are the wars you are likely to fight.
The old adage "you fight like you train," means a lot in this situation. If you think you're going to go to a specific conflict, you train for that conflict.
But the converse is also true: The wars you fight become the wars you are prepared for.
An excellent example is the military of the Philippine islands. At one point, they had a balanced fighting force, including all-weather capable F-8 Crusaders for their fledgling air force and a well-ordered navy. Over the years, however, the Filipino government's focus end up concentrated almost entirely on defeating Communist rebels. Funding and training flowed to the army. Now their navy is composed of ex-US Coast Guard cutters and an air force focused entirely on close air support and ground attack missions.
All this means that the Filipino military may be absolutely fantastic at fight guerrillas, but its capacity to fight a war against even small near-peer nations is practically nil. Indonesia's handful of Su-27/Su-30 class fighters alone could probably sink their fleet and down every aircraft in their air force without losses.
I find all of this quite interesting when I read articles with headlines like this: "Sequestration Leaves Army With Only Two Brigades Ready To Fight."A quick perusal of the article will reveal that brigades deployed to Afghanistan are trained to conduct support and advisory operations, not fight a modern war, and thus they are not factored into the Army's panicky brigade-count.
Which makes me curious: after more than a decade of fighting low-intensity warfare against adversaries whose most sophisticated equipment is an RPG or an IED, are we ready for a modern war against a near-peer foe?
Of course, one could argue that near-peer foes are not our percentage threat. We are much more likely to be conducting combat operations against terrorists than we are against large foreign enemies.
But, at least in my mind, there is another percentage threat: the percentage of lethality. Putting it simply, throughout American history, what has been more deadly: conventional warfare or small-scale interventions?
The answer, of course, is conventional warfare. The Civil War, if my memory serves me correctly, was the most deadly war in American history. Large-scale confrontations may be rare, but they are also much, much more dangerous than terrorist threats. Given the propensity of conventional conflicts to develop despite our best efforts to the contrary, let's not ignore the unique dangers that come with our emphasis on terrorism.
A few days ago, I was up with my classmates at a place called "Bear's Den." As far as I could figure out, there were actually no bears. Instead, there was a massive jumble of rocks overlooking a beautiful landscape. Great place to take pictures, and such.
But I'm not mentioning it because of this; instead, I found it interesting because I overheard someone say "This would be a great place to go if the world, you know, got really bad."I found this interesting...and if you'll bear with me, I'll explain why.
I came to realize something very discouraging this summer.
In a democracy, perception is more important than reality. And since the perceivers make the decisions in a democracy, in a very strange way, the perception is more real than the reality. For people are not acting on what is true, but rather what they perceive to be true...and so, slowly, the perception supplants the reality.
Think of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. During the Reagan era, they became afraid that the United States might carry out a preemptive first strike against them in an attempt to wipe the USSR off the map. Their fears were heightened by the "Star Wars" initiative that promised to shoot down incoming ICBMs. Such a system would allow the US to attack the Russians with impunity.
In reality, Reagan had no such intentions. But because the Soviets perceived a first strike threat, their perception influenced their decisions, and their actions were influenced, not by reality, but by their perceptions.
I read a recent article on how poorly the American public is informed on just one vitally important issue (hat-tip to the very interesting Defense and Freedom blog.) Now, what ends up influencing American voters isn't the reality about the deficit–it is and will continue to be what their perception about the reality of the deficit is.
What, do you think, is our perception about our country? Is it possible that many Americans feel that our political system is deeply dysfunctional and corrupt beyond all hope of repair? Is that the reason that less than 60 percent of Americans voted in the 2012 presidential election? Is that why Congress ranks lowest on the list of different public institutions surveyed, hitting an all-time low for any public institution? And is it telling that the church/organized religion ranks behind the military, which is the most trusted institution in the United States?
Does it tell us something about ourselves that I hear college students talking about a place to retreat to in case the "world goes bad?" Or that ladies in their 60s are getting amateur radio licenses to be prepared for an imminent societal collapse? Because they are. I've met one.
Is it odd that the DHS is buying ammunition in bulk? Or that .22 ammunition, a cheap and plentiful round, has been scraped from the store shelves, and that ammunition in general has been generally incredibly hard to find? Or, for that matter, that our sitting president is often enshrined in gun shops–as a master gun salesman?
Why is the demand for tactical gear so high among civilians?
And why are quiet country towns buying armored vehicles? Isn't it strange that the local police think that "the way things are going in this country, you'll probably be using it a lot?"
Really? What way are things going in this country?
I think that's a good question to be asking at this point. During the Cold War, people stockpiled for a nuclear apocalypse. Now, it seems that people are stockpiling for some sort of widespread violence. Certain sections of the population seem to believe that a societal collapse is imminent, or at least possible, and they are preparing for it. Interestingly enough, my own experiences have told me that military members, those public servants most trusted by the citizens of the United States of America, tend to rank foremost among these people. Practically every officer I've spoken to within the past few years is deeply apprehensive about the near future of the country. They're also cynical about national politics to a man, and they've sworn oaths to the US Constitution, not their leaders.
Don't get me wrong, I understand and respect someone's right to prepare for whatever disasters they like. Indeed, one would be remiss not to be prepared for what one sees as an imminent danger. One has a responsibility to protect and defend oneself and one's family, and I see the reasons people are worried about the collapse of society, or a civil war.
But it does concern me that the nation is so deeply divided that people see the need to prepare for a potential crisis. What worries me is that such perceptions may lead to reality–become, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Preparation for civil war may end up sparking one.
On July 3rd, 1988, the USS Vincennes, a guided missile cruiser, launched two surface-to-air guided missiles at an Iranian airliner, swatting it from the air and killing everyone onboard. The crew of the ship believed that the aircraft was an Iranian F-14, conducting an attack run.
Why anyone would want to down one of these beauties is beyond me...
After the shootdown, members of the Vincennes crew testified to facts that were blatantly contradicted by onboard instrument records. Why?
"When questioned in a 2000 BBC documentary, the U.S. government stated in a written answer that they believed the incident may have been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment', which is said to occur when persons are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a training scenario, believing it to be reality while ignoring sensory information that contradicts the scenario. In the case of this incident, the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft."
This is why the attitudes I have detailed above bother me. Should we, as a nation, be more focused on the truth, and less on our partisan perceptions? Is this why the Founding Fathers deemed education essential for well-ordered people? Have we as a nation allowed our partisan rhetoric to become so heated that we feel that someone–"us," or "them" is going to resort to violence? Are the citizens of this nation really concerned that the government might crack down on them? Is the government really afraid of an armed revolt? Has our distrust brought us to this point? Is it possible that "scenario fulfillment" will trigger a first shot sometime, somewhere?
Are we, as a nation, are allowing our perceptions to drag us inexorably into a horrific reality from which there is no turning back?
Of all the supporting cast in the New Testament, I think Pontius Pilate is probably my favorite. We know little about him, of course, but it is interesting to speculate. If one wants to imagine what Pilate was like "off duty," then I think that perhaps the most revealing thing he said during the trial is the cynical question he posed to Jesus in John 18:38: "What is truth?"
Despite this callous remark, Pilate unhesitatingly told the Jews that "I find in him no fault at all." But when the Jewish mob agreed to take responsibility for Jesus' death, Pilate acquiesced, perhaps believing that "it was expedient that one man should die for the people," (John 18:14) rather than risking a bloody riot. Ironically, while the Jewish crowd, schooled in tradition and well aware of the words of the prophets, failed to recognize their Messiah, the Romans on the scene were less blind. (See John 19:19-22 and Mark 15:39)
I find no fault in this man...
It seems to me that in the final analysis, Pilate realized that the truth did not matter to the mob, and rather than give them justice, he granted them what they desired. Perhaps this prompted his cynical query and his equally cynical treatment of the Jewish authorities after the crucifixion. His cynicism seems justified when the priests later stage a cover-up of Jesus' resurrection. What is truth, indeed?
Regrettably, I feel I have to sympathize with Pilate. As a journalist, the truth is important to me. Yet today, I sense that the crowd is not interested in the truth, only in what they want to hear. I live in a democratic society, after all, and democracies tend to devolve into mobs. Like the one before Pilate, the mob today is only interested in appeasing its own wants. The truth is irrelevant because it does not satisfy those wants. Instead, it becomes replaced by pundits and opinion pieces and columnists and studies telling people what they want to hear. Why? Because in a democratic society, telling people what they want to hear works.
For instance, one frequently hears people, especially conservatives, decrying the bias and incompetence of the media and blaming it for various ills, accusing it of "manipulating facts" and distorting people's views. The truth is that the media rarely changes people's perspectives (the recent acquittal of Zimmerman, despite the poltergeist of racism raised by the media, can attest to this fact) and in today's pundit-filled world, I suspect people are most likely to pick and choose the mouthpieces that reenforce their preexisting views. But it is more convenient to accuse the "liberal media" of "brainwashing America" than it is to conclude that the liberal media is merely a Pilate before the mob, producing what sells. To come to this conclusion would be to undermine the fundamental notions of our modern democratic beliefs, the beliefs that the common man is decent and smart and knows what is right and will vote accordingly, as long as he is not lied to by the television. To hold any beliefs to the contrary is to imply that we, not them, are to blame for the problems. And (heaven forbid) it might even imply that democracy doesn't work, and that is unthinkable.
Along with the media, "corrupt politicians" and "the president" as long as he is on the opposing side of the two-party divide, are also held equally accountable for the "mess America is in." Actually, they are blamed for the mess, but not held accountable. They are instead reelected, or they are shuffled out and other political puppets are put in place.
Perhaps the truth is that deep down, we Americans like being lied to by those in power because, like Pilate, we feel we can wash our hands of the guilt. But those in Congress, you will notice, blame the President with appalling frequency while letting more power slide into his hands. What little power Congress retains appears to exist merely to allow the President to blame his failures on them.
"As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this." -George Mason
Perhaps the truth is that those in Congress want the president to have more power so that he, like a lightning rod, will attract the wrath of the people once his eight years are up and they will be unscathed.
"It is expedient that one man should die for the people..."
Perhaps the truth is, that like any mob, our impatient desires and thoughtless attitude render us unfit for governance. We call upon our Pontius Pilates to release our Barabbas and then are shocked when we find who is crucified. Too late we realize that the blood is on our hands and on the hands of our children forever, and Pilate's guilt is ignorable compared to the massive weight of our own.
"He that delivered me unto you hath the greater sin."
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world."
-The G-Man, Half-Life 2
For those of you who are not Half-Life aficionados, the G-Man is speaking of Dr. Gordon Freeman, a theoretical physicist with an inexplicable knack for functioning as a one-man army and using whatever he can find to get out of the sticky situations he finds himself in.
For the purposes of examining the War on Terror, a lesson in Half-Life mythology is not necessary. For this article, should suffice to understand that the G-Man has a habit of inserting Freeman into "the wrong place" intentionally, letting Freeman wreak havoc on his foes.
I bring all this up because I like the idea behind the G-Man's thinking, and I'd like to look at a some other cases of "the right men in the wrong place."
Case Study Number One: A young man named Ahmed Bouchiki is gunned down by assassins in Lillehammer, Norway as he walks home from a theatre. The Norwegian police capture five people in connection to the murder, all agents of Israel's secretive intelligence organization, Mossad. Bouchiki had been mistaken for a terrorist involved in the Munich massacre.
Case Study Number Two: May 2, 2011. Navy SEALs and CIA operatives scoot across the Pakistani border in helicopters, crash one of them in Osama bin Laden's front yard, kick in the door and shoot bin Laden. They then scoot back across the border, mission accomplished without any friendly casualties.
Both operations are examples of covert operations, "black ops," as it were. Israel's Operation Wrath of God is a prime example of that country's longstanding policy of "terrorizing the terrorists," carrying out assassinations and sabotage far beyond their borders. Israel is not as militarily strong as the United States, and it does not have the luxury of invading nations because it believes terrorists have taken up residence there, which is why it relies heavily on intelligence and targeted killings.
But even the Mossad makes mistakes, as the Lillehammer Affair makes clear. The killing of bin Laden and the assassination of Bouchiki are almost polar opposites, in this regard: one a worst-case scenario, a mistake ending in compromise and embarrassment; the other a carefully-planned and well-executed raid that eliminated the world's most wanted terrorist. In both events, a government sent "the right men," spies and special forces, to "the wrong place," another state, to exact retribution for crimes committed against its citizens.
This, in my opinion, is how we should carry out our counter-terrorism operations. Sure, I have some reservations, but before we delve into the downside of black-ops, let's look at some of the plusses.
Let's just all admit it: special operations is really, really cool. This is possibly the worst reason for using these guys to do all our dirty work, but things like this matter to somepeople.
2) The Cost is Lower
It's not hard to make a case that running around whacking people with secret commando assassins and a secretive intelligence organization costs less money than, say, invading a couple of nations, killing a bunch of their people and blowing up their cities, then rebuilding the cities and bribing all of their leaders to get along with us. But that's not the only cost involved.
This is also cool.
Looking back at the Lillehammer affair, we realize that the Mossad's massive blunder resulted in a single innocent death. Far be it from me to minimize this tragic loss of life, or present the Mossad as a squeaky-clean paradigm of niceness and butterflies. But, to put things in perspective, a similar "oops" moment carried out by conventional forces–say, drones–could very likely result in ten to twenty dead. Not only do drone strikes tend to cause a lot of collateral, but they are also comparatively easy to carry out (once you've invaded a country, or smooth-talked their leaders into thinking it's a great idea.) I suspect that the ease associated with drone strikes and our suspect methods means that we've had quite a lot of "my bad" moments in the War on Terror so far, even leaving out cases where genuine targets have been successfully killed along with a whole lot of "collateral damage." To put it shortly, we kill fewer people by putting boots on the ground. And I think that's a good thing.
Knives don't create collateral damage.
Usually.
3) Wise Investing
Our current tool of choice when dealing with terrorists is a drone. Drones are cheap, they can stay in the air for practically forever, and they never have to use the restroom or suffer conscience attacks. They are pretty effective as long as you are killing people whose best anti-air weapon is an AK-47 (and even then they are so predictable that said people will scrape together a must-read list of ways to deal with them.)
This is not cool. But it is cheap.
However, once you start fighting anyone with modern technology like refrigerators and 1960s era surface-to-air missiles or jet aircraft your drone is probably going to die like this one:
(The exception would seem to be Iran, but I suspect strafing one of our recon drones with a ground-attack aircraft was probably a spur-of-the-moment-Republican-Guard-macho sort of a thing.)
My point to all of this is that drones are of limited use outside of the narrow spectrum of terrorist killing. That's not a call to scrap every last one of them by any means, but I suspect most of the drones we use now will be superfluous once (and if) the War on Terror winds down. Special Forces, on the other hand, are as useful in a conventional war as they are in asymmetrical combat.
Besides their lack of flexibility, drones also bother me for another reason: they represent (in my mind) an increasing focus on technology-centered intelligence operations. From the NSA to the NRO, American intelligence is often derived from satellite pictures, intercepted communications, and, of course, drone surveillance videos. That's not to say that such technology is bad, but HUMINT should not be neglected. While traditional spycraft has its own shares of pitfalls, the more technical types of intelligence-gathering can be circumvented with amazing ease, especially by a technologically advanced enemy. (Or, to use Al-Qaeda's phrase, an enemy with $2500 and someone who is a "computer know-how.")
In summary, I believe that running counter-terrorism operations using Special Forces and the like builds a robust capability that does not go away in a time of conventional war. Rather than planning around America's traditional "dissect-the-state-looking-for-baddies" model, I think that the US Military should be building and cultivating tactics and resources–including human ones–that are robust and versatile and can weather a conventional conflict with a well equipped and modern foe.
Some disadvantages:
I've laid out some reasons why I think that using Special Forces to, er, impede terrorist activities is a better idea than invading multiple nations in a clumsy and ham-handed attempt to catch a handful of perps, so I'd like to set aside some time for the downsides of targeted killings, midnight raids and the like.
Obviously, it is both expensive and it requires a capable intelligence network to selectively target terrorists in the way I am suggesting, but I dealt with those issues above. So let's start off with what I think is the biggest problem with the strategy I am suggesting.
1) It Takes Time
It's called extraordinary rendition, and the CIA is good at it.*
It seriously does take a lot of time. We ran around pacifying whole nations for a decade before we finally caught up to bin Laden. Now, I don't mind waiting ten years if that is what it takes to get the job done–and I would prefer to see the job done with as few casualties as possible–but somepeople care about these things. It's really pretty simple. People want justice (or revenge) after a terrorist attack, and they want it now! It looks weak to say "we're gonna pursue these terrorists to the ends of the earth, if necessary, and we will bring them to justice, if they don't die of old age first." It looks much better to say, "Oh look! Afghanistan! He's hiding in Afghanistan! Let's invade it!"
*Most of the time.
If you stop to think about it, of course, it's pretty stupid–we wouldn't invade any state that could stand up to us if we thought they harbored a terrorist–we would ask nicely, and if they said no, we would grumble about it and take him anyway, or grumble about it and decide it wasn't worth it. But, because Afghanistan and Iraq were kinda the equivalent of a large-scale live-fire exercise to invade, we had no problems doing so. This means two things. One, a lot of people die. Two, politicians look like they are doing something.
I, personally, dislike this method of capturing individuals by invading countries and would much rather we wait and take the time needed to do the job right. (Don't worry, your ratings will probably plummet that second term anyway.)
2) It Violates National Sovereignty
Nations take their territorial integrity pretty seriously, so flying in a couple of helicopters to shoot somebody you don't like is a great way to start a war, or at least get a couple of towel shipments canceled. Knocking somebody off by having a spy (or other non-military asset) do it is a little less odious (especially if you don't tell anyone it was you) but it's still a great way to lose that embassy and a bit of your pride if you get caught doing it. However, it is generally considered a lot less offensive than actually invading a sovereign nation. It is also less expensive and fewer people get shot.
To be clear, I don't think we should make a general habit of kidnapping or killing people in other people's countries without their permission. But I think that doing it when it is absolutely necessary, and with the full understanding that they are well within their rights to take action against us when their sovereignty is violated, is a much better approach to combating terrorism than, well, invading random nations and forcing them to adopt democracies.
How covert operations would fit into a broader counter-terror strategy
If the United States is really serious about reducing the threat of terrorism to its country, attacking terrorists should be viewed as only part of a larger counter-terrorism strategy. It is often not difficult to discern the motives of terrorists, and, as I pointed out previously, simple things like not bombing innocent people can contribute to undermining terrorist recruitment. This can be taken a step further. For instance, one could ask the following questions: Is the US military presence in said country [e.g. Saudi Arabia] a factor in terrorist violence against the United States?
If the answer is "yes," then Does the US military have a compelling national security interest or obligation to be in said country? Is the US military presence there making the US more or less secure?
If the answer is "no," and "less secure," then perhaps a move is in order. Similarly, US foreign aid shipments, treaty proposals, etc. can all be scrutinized.
Of course, this sounds very much like "caving to terrorists." But objectively, any government that deliberately puts its citizens in harm's way just to appear "tough" is not doing a good job of protecting them. To draw the analogy further, who supports inviting war with foreign nations merely to keep up appearances?
I do think, as well, that distinctions should be drawn between being soft on terrorism and undermining terrorist propaganda and recruiting techniques. Disarming all of our nuclear warheads in response to a terrorist threat is one thing, but conducting US foreign policy in such a way as to render the US less likely to create enemies is another. Certainly some people will aways be at odds with the United States, but to give their complaints the air of legitimacy is unwarranted and unwise.
Some final thoughts:
Before I wrap this post up, I'd like to throw in a few closing reminders.
1) The United States of America is the only nation on Earth that has the luxury of being able to invade other nations halfway across the globe. Every other nation has to deal with terrorists by doing arduous things like not letting them into their country or asking other nations to please send them back to be tried for their crimes, thank you. Every single one. And many other nations have far worse terror problems than the US.
We have 10 of these...
2) Terrorism is a big deal because it kills people. However, all people die, so terrorist's achievements are limited unless they can force a society to change its behaviors and capitulate to their goals. To return to Clausewitz, terrorists "win" by forcing a society to bend to its will. As long as people react–as long as citizensor governments freak out when a terrorist attack happens–the terrorists are winning. In my humble opinion, ignoring them, hoping they will go away, and shooting them quietly in the face are good ways to deal with terrorists, and should be used in concert.
3) This series is not a book, and it is not exhaustive. I'm sure I missed some stuff. However, I welcome feedback, questions, comments, or concerns, and if enough of them pile up, perhaps I can scrape together another blog post full of the stuff I missed.
I remember when I was still in high school doing
team policy debate. That was Russia year (the resolution we were arguing had to
do with changing the US policy towards Russia) and the affirmative team was
arguing something or the other that basically boiled down to spending a lot of
money doing stuff in cooperation with Russia to counter terrorism.
My partner and I rolled in quickly, citing
statistics proving that bathtubs were more dangerous than terrorists. Our point
was simple: is it really worth all this money to institute another counter-terrorism
plan?
Of course, the rebuttal is simple: "Any amount
of money spent is worth a human life!" And the argument is a good one:
compared to a human being, money is worthless.
Unfortunately, that argument suffers from a fatal
reaction to reality. In the real world, human life is not our greatest
priority, simply because there are some things that we value above human life.
(And, in my opinion, rightfully so.) At the best, safety is balanced by economy
and practicality.
For starters, we don't have unlimited money. We
have to make do with what we have. That's why the IRST was deleted from the F-22. Sure,
it's a valuable tool. But someone, somewhere, decided that we didn't have the
money.
But even if we did have infinite money,
there are some things that we wouldn't do. One of these is institute a Health
Safety Force to deploy Safety Officers to your home every time you prepared to
take a bath. We hold that privacy and freedom are more important than safety.
(Or at least we should. Today, I sometimes think
that we are becoming more like Nietzsche's Last
Men, men who claim to have "invented happiness." They live
safe, comfortable lives, but lives not really worth living because they involve
nothing approaching a challenging or discomforting experience.)
With all this being said, however, it must be
remembered that one of the duties of the federal government is to "Provide
for the common defense." I believe this should remain one of the US
Government's primary duties, but I think we should all be asking whether the
methods the United States government has used to protect the American people
are actually causing more harm than good.
To fight the War on Terror, the US invaded two sovereign states,
Afghanistan and Iraq. The motivations for invading Iraq were more
complicated than Afghanistan, (what with the whole WMD arguments and UN resolutions.) Afghanistan, on the other hand, was invaded because it refused to extradite bin
Laden without seeing evidence of his involvement in the 9/11
attacks/because they harbored and aided terrorists, something the United States and Israel both have done in the past.
In invading Afghanistan, the United States
committed to months (as it turns out, years) of strenuous, low-intensity
conflict with next to little return. Remember, Afghanistan is the
"Graveyard of Empires," the country that put the Soviet Union in the
grave. Since the invasion of Afghanistan, US operations have expanded to
include Yemen and Pakistan.
Now, I don't pretend to be on the inner circles of
worldwide terrorism, but from my perspective, the actions of the United States
could not have been better tailored to further the goals of the Islamic
terrorists who perpetrated the attack. In short, we were playing right into
Al-Qaeda's strategy. By invading Afghanistan, we not only
gave them further grounds for recruitment with every civilian that we killed,
we also engaged them on their terms. We played into their battlefield and
allowed ourselves to be bogged down to a protracted, long-term war...in Asia,
no less.
Sun Tzu was quite explicit on this kind of
warfare. He actually waxes wordy on this particular issue, saying in part:
"When you do battle, even if you are
winning, if you continue for a long time it will dull your forces and blunt
your edge...then others will take advantage of your debility and rise up. Then
even if you have wise advisers you cannot make things turn out well in the end.
Therefore I have heard of military operations that were clumsy but swift, but I
have never seen one that was skillful and lasted a long time. It is never beneficial
for a nation to have a military operation continue for a long time."
Obama recently declared an "end" to the
War on Terror. I agree with Sun Tzu: we did not make things turn out well in
the end. Aside from the thousands of innocent lives lost in the conflict and
the billions of dollars (that we don't have) spent to fight in the war, the
cost must be measured in those things that we hold more dear than life. The War
on Terror may be over, but the vigorous and prolonged efforts to
erode constitutional rights in the name of national security, however
well-intentioned, have brought forth fruit that is here to stay. American noncombatants have been killed without a trial.
Expansive and invasive data mining programs have been enacted, and
Americans cannot even board an airplane without being virtually strip-searched.
Our international status as a world leader in human rights and the rule of law
has become a joke.
We should not be surprised by this, of course. In the modern age, war is directly linked both to the expansion of government and the profits of many individuals in the private and public sector.
Instead of remaining unmoved in the face of adversity, we reacted to terrorists; we changed our
ways of life and we spent vast swaths of time and money to achieve little
besides the wholesale slaughter of a number of our "enemies." In the
long term, however, the heavy casualties we have inflicted on terrorist
organizations around the globe are irrelevant, because the enemy we are
fighting are not loyal to a political system or an organization; they are
motivated by a vibrant and thriving ideology that set down its roots long
before the Constitution was penned. An ideology can only be defeated by another
ideology; force of arms or military action is rarely effective.
I am reminded of the story of the US officer who, while engaged in negotiations
with the North Vietnamese, told his counterpart from Vietnam that the
US had never lost a single battle in the war. "That is true," replied
the Vietnamese officer, "but that is also irrelevant."
Similarly, our killing of "terrorists"
is irrelevant inasmuch as it will never defeat America's enemies and terrorists
worldwide. Did we know this before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq? Whether we did or not, our approach determined the outcome: before the war began, we committed ourselves into an unending and fruitless conflict.
In short, I believe that the overall effect of the
War on Terror has done little towards the ultimate defeat of militant Islam,
has played into the hands of Al-Quada by involving the US in a number of
exhausting and financially draining military operations worldwide, and has
eroded the civil liberties and rights that Americans ought to hold dear.
However, nothing is not exactly an
appropriate response to a terrorist attack on the level of 9/11. So in my next
post in this series, I'll try to outline what I believe would have been
an appropriate response.
.jpg)
