Tag Archives: isis

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, donald trump, islam, Terrorism, war

Do something – even if it’s wrong?

President Trump’s top advisers are considering hiring mercenaries to replace US Troops in Afghanistan.  Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater Security (who is also the brother of  Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos), Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner are promoting the idea that mercenaries can succeed where our armed forces have not, by imposing a stable government in that nation.   Blackwater is the same contractor that caused so many problems in Iraq.

How did we get to this point?

After 9-11, President Bush and many Americans seemed intent on “Doing something, even if it’s wrong.”  Secretary of State Colin Powell warned “If you break it, you own it.” meaning that  if we deposed Saddam Hussein, we Americans would be responsible for assuring the security of the Iraqi people until a stable, democratic government could be established.

Based on the mistaken notion that Iraq threatened us and our allies with weapons of mass destruction, we became the occupying power that deposed Saddam Hussein and destroyed the authority of Iraqi institutions; but we did not successfully replace them.  The US proved that we could remove a Middle East dictator quickly and efficiently.  That seemed to inspire rebellion and revolution against repressive governments across the region.  But rather than freedom and democratic government, the result was a power vacuum where competing ideologies and religious sects fought to impose their will on the rest of the population.

Arguably, the principal glue that held Iraq together was the rigid and sometimes cruel control imposed by the dictator that we had deposed. The nation fell into anarchy and chaos, an ideal environment for extremists to spawn ISIS and other terrorist groups.  A multitude of Iraqi religious and political groups fought for power.  No one succeeded in uniting the people.

Inspired at least in part by events in Iraq, a spirit of revolution spread.  The governments of Libya and Egypt fell.  Syria is in a protracted civil war with Russia propping up the dictator while the US insists that he give up power.  It seems unlikely that either of those outcomes would result in a free and stable nation.

Revolutions across the Middle East and North Africa have produced a horrendous refugee crisis.  Individuals and families have fled nations where they fear becoming victims of violence, starvation, abuse and disease.  Anarchy – the collapse of government – has allowed the most despicable aspects of human nature and behavior to thrive.  Children have been taught to decapitate others for practicing a different version of religion while other innocents are sold as sex slaves.

The refugee crisis spread to Turkey, then across the sea to Cyprus, Greece and into Europe.  That has created instability in the European Union.  Some nations, led by Germany, have welcomed refugees and tried to create opportunities for them.  Hungary, Poland and others strongly disagree and want to reject refugees.  The UK’s decision to secede from the EU was motivated in part by a desire for a strong national border and control over who crossed it. Back in the US, Americans elected a President who campaigned on the promise to ban Muslim immigration.  Just as in Europe, Americans are bitterly divided about whether to admit refugees from the greatest human tragedy of our lifetimes.  Without our invasion of Iraq, would any of it have happened?

As citizens of a free and democratic nation, we Americans are individually and collectively responsible for the actions of our government.  “If you break it, you own it” should have clear and personal meaning for each of us.  The cascade of events across the Middle East and North Africa and the direct line to today’s conditions should have taught us how actions intended as controlled and limited wars can spiral out of control.  We can’t change the past, and it’s hard to see how more “help” from us will be well received.

We now have a President who seems fond of saber-rattling and doesn’t like constraints (including the prohibition of torture) so he is considering turning the American military role in Afghanistan over to private contractors (mercenary corporations).  Americans would pay the bills while corporations and foreign governments set the rules of engagement as they see fit – unleashed from the Geneva Convention and other moral standards that govern American armed forces.

If President Trump hires mercenaries, we Americans will be individually and collectively responsible for the actions of our hired guns.  There are two adages to remember.  “If we break it we will own it.” and “Forewarned is forearmed.”

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND READING:

NY Times report of trump Administration considering mercenaries for Afghanistan

Colin Powell on US Policy in the Middle East

Colin Powell on the Pottery Barn Rule in Syria

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, budget, deficit, Terrorism, war

WE NEED MORE UGLY AMERICANS

1 Comment

Who was “The Ugly American“?  Most of us know the phrase, but few are aware that the original Ugly American is the hero of the novel by the same name.  Published in 1958, the book described American diplomacy in the fictional Southeast Asian nation of Sarkhan.  Obvious similarities to actual events in nations where the US and the Soviet Union competed for influence (especially Vietnam) made the book a hot topic of discussion in the press and the congress.

The “Ugly American” was Homer Atkins, an American engineer who went to Sarkahn with a desire to help local citizens improve their own lives.  Doing hard, physical work in the fields to design and build simple devices like a bicycle-powered irrigation pump often left Atkins sweaty and dirty, and that “always reminded him that he was an ugly man”.  “Ugly” was a title that he applied to himself, not to others.

In 1958 the Soviet Union was spreading communist ideology into emerging nations around the world.  They portrayed the US as an empire-building colonial power enriching itself and capitalists by dominating smaller nations.  Our diplomatic corps was focused on influencing rulers (often dictators), business owners and military leaders.  The Soviets were interested in the general citizenry, especially any movements to depose rulers or to create wealth among peasant classes and divide them from rulers.  As far away as Vietnam and as close to home as Cuba, the Soviet approach was succeeding.

After reading “The Ugly American” a Senator from Massachusetts was so impressed that he bought a copy for every one of his Senate Colleagues and encouraged them to read it.  Less than two years later, that Senator became President John Kennedy.  Only six weeks into his presidency, Kennedy created the Peace Corps by executive order.  Its mission was to recruit highly qualified volunteers, educate them about local language, customs and issues, then send them to emerging nations as representatives of America.   Kennedy’s decision to create the Peace Corps was inspired by The Ugly American and based on his belief that talented young Americans working alongside local residents without compensation would be excellent ambassadors for our nation and our values.

Today, the Peace Corps remains active and successful, but it is woefully undersized to address needs and opportunities around the world. The Peace Corps budget for 2016 is $410 million.  For comparison, the Department of Defense spent $437 million on military bands in 2015.  The estimated cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars (including derivative costs such as benefits for veterans) for the years 2003-2014 is $5 trillion.  That is almost $52 million per hour.  Eight hours of these wars costs more than a full year of Peace Corps funding.

The Ugly American argued that, “…we spend billions on the wrong aid projects while overlooking the almost costless and far more helpful ones…”.  Today budget deficits are massive and our world seems increasingly dangerous. We should re-examine our spending, the results that we are getting, and our national values.  Despite great sacrifice, uncountable deaths and heroic effort, military intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan,  and throughout the Middle East has not produced peace, safety, prosperity or stable nations.  Instead we see civil war, poverty, terrorism and refugees that no nation wants to accept.  Americans and Europeans now fear home-grown terrorists who have been nurtured by brethren in the nations that we have invaded.

The three Middle Eastern nations with a history of Peace Corps involvement, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia have plenty of problems but seem more stable and less susceptible to anarchy and terrorism than their neighbors. We’ve supported a wealthy and radical dictatorship in Saudi Arabia that seems increasingly vulnerable to popular uprisings because oil revenues are down.  The most stable large nation in the region appears to be Iran – the only one that has avoided our efforts at military driven nation-building.

One can only wonder what the Middle East might be like today if we had consistently offered Peace Corps style nation-building that helps individuals and families improve their own lives based on their own values rather than regime change and military solutions.  People of the region might be more inclined to treat us well if we send “Ugly Americans” to help them build the kind of nation that they want rather than arming them to fight each other.  Under the circumstances, it seems like an idea worth trying.

All Posts, Christianity, Congress, islam, justice, religion, Terrorism, war

WILL PEOPLE CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED?

3 Comments

Some Americans have begun to speak of the USA as a failing nation.  I don’t agree. Our internal divisions are nothing new; they have persisted throughout our history. We succeed because most of us remain committed to working out our differences for the common good. We are justifiably worried about anarchy and terrorism, but they too have always been present. From the British point of view, our Revolutionary War heroes were domestic terrorists.  From the point of view of many colonists, the war was a justified and necessary step toward freedom.  The principal difference between terrorism and a “just war” is which side you are on.

Anarchy and terrorism lost when colonists created a new government based on “the consent of the governed”.  Within it they argued, debated and compromised to create something that the great majority of them would support.  That kind of political struggle is at the core of “consent of the governed”.  Our constitution protects the rights of individuals over the wishes and whims of majorities but our government is strong enough to make laws for the public good. That balance makes consent of the governed possible.

Terrorism emerges when extremely angry people who don’t get what they want through politics decide to use violence instead. An early example was the whiskey rebellion of 1791. Congress levied a tax on distilled spirits to pay off war debts. Farmers who made whiskey from their surplus corn were so opposed to the tax that they banded together and killed tax collectors. President George Washington personally led an army of 13,000 to put down the rebellion and enforce the law.  Our civil war, the biggest threat the nation has faced, was organized by slaveholders because they knew they were losing their political struggle to preserve slavery.

Americans’ ever-changing attitudes bring debate, conflict and changed laws. There was violence (terrorism) in opposition to the constitutional amendment that allowed women to vote. Our electorate was once dominated by religious extremists who passed laws to ban birth control and racially segregate society. As attitudes and beliefs changed, those laws have been repealed or found unconstitutional. The same can be said of the Prohibition Amendment that banned alcoholic beverages. Examples of terrorists in those causes include organized criminal gangs (alcohol) and KKK (segregation). 20th century arguments over civil rights, union rights, abortion rights, and the Viet Nam War brought violence and uncountable deaths.  As the issues were addressed some very angry people resorted to violence.

We shouldn’t expect today’s challenges to be easier than those faced by prior generations. Terrorists continue to attack both freedom and the government that protects it.  A majority of us now see marriage equality as a right, and our Supreme Court has determined that it is protected by our Constitution. That change was preceded by decades of homophobic violence. In 1973, women gained the legal right to control their own bodies, including the right to make their own decisions about ending a pregnancy. “Lone wolf” terrorist Eric Rudolph bombed the Atlanta Olympics to protest abortion rights and government protection of homosexuals. Timothy McVeigh, a “Christian” white supremacist, bombed the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City as revenge for government support of civil rights.

Today we still have angry people who think their needs are not being addressed.   That includes Americans who lack adequate education and skills. They face a bleak economic outlook; suffer from depression and die younger than previous generations. Many African-Americans think that new voting laws are designed to reduce their influence. Some religious conservatives say their nation has been stolen by a majority that won’t accept literal interpretation of scripture as a basis for laws. Readers can probably add to the list of reasons why people are angry. In Biloxi, Mississippi a restaurant customer was enraged when a waitress told him that smoking was not allowed.  He shot her dead on the spot.  She might be angry too if she could talk to us.

So much anger makes it difficult to listen, to understand, and to accept our differences.  It also feeds the desire to control others through laws or violence rather than nurturing the individual freedoms that we cherish. Our “culture war” will continue in legislatures, courtrooms, and in our streets. Yes, there is terrorism, but there is also hope.  I remain optimistic that we will listen, learn, acknowledge our differences; and then find sufficient agreement for future “consent of the governed”.  Then we can move on to argue about another set of issues.  It’s what Americans do.

 

All Posts, islam, religion, Terrorism, war

IS THIS A TIME FOR WAR?

2 Comments

What should we Americans do about ISIS and other radical Islamists – the ones who want a Caliphate; attack non-believers and violently enforce their religious beliefs on others?  They are as much a problem for most Muslims as they are for the rest of us.  In this dangerous time we should not see all Muslims as radical Islamists and  we must avoid poorly considered, emotional decisions that could make matters worse.

Our world’s mood is changing quickly since the brutal attack on civilians in Paris and the bombing of a Russian airliner.   Western nations are questioning whether to accept Middle Eastern refugees. Many citizens of nations that have been attacked want revenge and want to feel safe from future attacks.  But are revenge and safety are compatible?

Most Americans are in agreement on two goals.  First, protect our citizens and our nation from attack.  Second, encourage people of other countries to develop free and peaceful societies.  Our disagreements are about how to achieve those goals.

Every strategy has risks.  No one can know the best plan with certainty but we do have history as a guide.  It demonstrates that military action alone will not defeat  radical Islamists.  War against them has produced anarchy (civil disorder and the collapse of government).  Anarchy is fertile ground where they can spread their beliefs.  One important example is Afghanistan where a Soviet invasion in 1978 brought on total collapse of the Afghani government.  Over  100,000 Soviet troops, fully equipped with modern weapons, tried to impose a pro-USSR government.  After ten years they withdrew, having been defeated by the Mujahedeen and Taliban.  The anarchy they left behind allowed the radical Islamist Taliban to take charge.  Americans have been fighting the Taliban since 2003 and still have not defeated the ideology or created a stable government.

In Iraq, the American invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship has produced a similar result.   The near collapse of Assad’s Syrian dictatorship created an opening for ISIS there.  Radical Sunni Islamism has morphed from Al-Qaida and Taliban to ISIS and it has spread among Muslims beyond the Middle East into Northern Africa, North America, and Europe.  There is no example where invasion and military occupation have produced good outcomes.  Why would we expect a different result if we invade again?

Critics of President Obama have persuaded many Americans that we have no strategy but he has clearly articulated one.  It is a long term plan focused on two goals:  (1) American safety and (2) development of free, peaceful societies.  Click here to hear the strategy.   It recognizes that ISIS brutalizes non-compliant Muslims even more than it does westerners.  It coordinates our military actions and our foreign policy to encourage Muslims to fight ISIS and replace anarchy with the rule of democratic civil law.  The strategy has had both successes and failures; and it is too early to know whether it can succeed.

Hatred of western civilization fuels ISIS and other radical Islamists.  Without it, they can’t recruit and they can’t convince other Muslims that the West is their enemy.  Today’s battle is against an ideology not a nation.  When we destroy a Muslim nation, even one as bad as Saddam’s Iraq or Assad’s Syria with a massive invasion, we feed radical ideology.  The critical question is whether the President’s strategy can effectively fight ISIS and encourage non-Islamist Muslims to do the same without creating more hatred of the west.

The financial cost of war in Afghanistan was a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Americans are already saddled with a dangerously large national debt.  Since we have no will to raise taxes, it is all but certain that future warfare will be paid for with borrowed money – probably measured in trillions of dollars – as was the failed war in Iraq. When we calculate costs, we must also remember that any “boots on the ground” will belong to loyal Americans risking their lives to protect ours.

My conclusion is that  encouraging moderate Muslims and their governments to defend themselves from radical Islamism; providing them with military support and intelligence and maintaining our internal security at a high level is our best course of action.  That, in general is the President’s strategy.  I would stick to it until it succeeds or until someone comes up with a demonstrably better idea.  Another war is likely to be a disaster in both human and financial terms.

All Posts, budget, islam, justice, religion, taxes, war

AN ALTERNATIVE ISIS STRATEGY

There must be better ways to relate to Middle Eastern Muslims than the ones we have chosen. Three fallacious assumptions have formed the basis for many mistakes: “The enemies of my enemies are my friends.” “The friends of my enemies are my enemies.” “Those who are not for us are against us.” Here are two examples of where that logic took us. Continue reading AN ALTERNATIVE ISIS STRATEGY →