Thomas Henriksen writes about the efficacy of raids in the GWOT as opposed to expensive efforts in "nation building."
While pursuing diplomacy and nonlethal measures, the United States might find that it also must dispatch commando raids, capture terrorists for intelligence, assassinate diabolical masterminds, and target insurgent strongholds with airpower, missiles, or Special Operations Forces from bases around the globe rather than undertaking enormous pacification programs and nation-building endeavors in inhospitable lands. Military offensive operations must not be surrendered; they must be applied so as to marshal our resources for a protracted conflict.[1]Our earlier post (It's not about "bungling.") makes a good case for seeing our efforts in Iraq as a part of a much larger struggle. Given that reality, a certain argument can be made that if there has to be an investment in a killing machine for deranged (or run-of-the-mill) Muslims, why not let it be in Iraq (along with other efforts to cut of funds, track down the head vultures, etc.)?
Iraq is, however, expensive and probably not the highest and best use for our armed forces. (Killing a whole lot of Iranian Revolutionary Guards would be an excellent mission for them, mind you.) Nation building in Iraq is just too much mixed up with internecine struggles between people who like to flaggelate themselves during religious festivals (WKYN) and those who probably think that's weird but killing "polytheists" and "blasphemers" isn't. Oh, wait. They all think that's cool.
Fortunately, neither groups seems to have any particular position on the "smart ass" category of miscreant, though we're sure that if they thought of one it would involve killing them.
Stop the presses!
Much as we like Mr. Bush for the clarity of his instincts, he probably made a mistake to get us involved in an enterprise such as showing Iraqis The Way and the Truth and the Light. Better the in-break-things-kill-Muslim-dogs-out (IBTKMDO) strategy.
The other aspect of our security situation to keep in mind is something that Mr. J.R. Nyquist writes regularly about, namely, the long-term threat from China and Russia and our own unaddressed national failings.[2]
It was a Great and a Good Thing for the U.S. to lash out at some obvious targets after 9/11. Afghanistan was great and hard strikes on Iran and Lybia would have been even better. Even Iraq made sense given the universal belief that the Animal in Charge was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
In retrospect a different strategy there might have been appropriate after the intial military success. However, given the horrendous attack on us by the amorphous "Islamist" threat, we think it no shame on Mr. Bush that his policy lacked a certain coherence then that is, perhaps, more obvious to us now.
To be fair, Gen. Petraeus may be in the midst of a imminently successful military strategy of neutralization now possible after the basic structure of a new and improved Iraq had been established. Our enemies in Iraq are neutralized on an day-to-day basis, even if they have not been eliminated. Attractive targets such as some of the militias still may warrant our loving attention, with overall excellent results, we do not doubt. There must surely be greater clarity and understanding on what to do in Iraq now and we accept it as a given that the negative news of Iraq is wildly out of synch with Iraqi military realities.
Even if there is some slight basis for our reservations on Iraq, there are nevertheless serious anomalies in our overall security policies. We are shouldering the human and economic costs of Iraq without assistance from the Europeans yet we continue to expend huge sums to maintain a military presence in Europe. We argue internally about the huge cost of the war as though it can only be viewed in some kind of a memory vacuum.
Furthermore, China and Russia no doubt enjoy the spectacle of our expending blood and treasure while they, respectively, enrich themselves by trade with us and selling oil to the West. China and Russia actively aid our enemies and China, in particular, is spending heavily to upgrade and expand its military. Coastal defense, don't you know.
Rather than national spasmoplexy over Imus's
That we will refocus and come together in the face of large, looming threats is a baseless hope on our part. Yes, we know this.
But those threats remain and it would be well for there to be a serious debate about our national strategy.
If it would be ok with the Reverend Sharptoon, apparently the Designated Arbiter -- by acclaim -- of all Sujets Graves et Essentiels de la Nation.
Notes
[1] "Security Lessons from The Israeli Trenches." By Thomas H. Henriksen, Policy Review, February and March 2007.
[2] See, e.g., "The Destruction of the United States." By J.R. Nyquist, Financial Sense Online, 1/26/07.
No comments:
Post a Comment