With the tenth anniversary of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center soon to be upon us, time should be taken to understand the consequences of that attack, what has changed, and where the United States goes from here. A decade later the geopolitical realities of the world as well as the nature of the United States have become so different that we can with no great certainty predict the next ten years. Nonetheless, we should try to see what the United States should do differently in foreign policy, defense policy, and national security.
In terms of foreign policy, it is unlikely that the United States can do much better without the possibility of jeopardizing its interests. Too often, Americans have conflicting and contradictory viewpoints when it comes to the stances that the United States should take. Citizens of the United States sometimes want their country to not interfere in the affairs of other countries while at the same time wanting them to diplomatically spread freedom around the world. These goals are often in conflict. Indeed, America's current State Department is among the best that it has. This is, in short, about as good as America's diplomats can act. You will not see many better periods for foreign policy in the future.
There are some Americans who are worried that current foreign policy is unlikely to help America commit to its ostensible goals of building democracy around the world. This, however, is not the case. Oftentimes, American diplomatic intervention is seen as cover for otherwise overt manipulation of those pro-democracy forces. Indeed, without the ability to back up pro-democracy advocates, American diplomatic and foreign policy is likely to simply backfire against those seeking to spread democracy. And if America commits military forces to every pro-democracy uprising, it is likely to exhaust itself both militarily and financially, while reinforcing the belief that all democratic agitators are actually American agents bent on world conquest. It is probably better, then, that the United States allows the people of foreign countries to promote democracies themselves and step in when asked only.
This is partly because America is unable or unwilling to afford the same commitment to military endeavors that the previous administration had. Some would counter the previous statement by pointing to the United States' involvement in Libya, as well as their continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. This, however, ignores several key developments that the United States is undertaking. Military spending will be on the decline as more and more useless programs are cut. The recently passed debt ceiling deal mandates that up to $600 billion could potentially be cut from future defense budgets in the next 10 years. America is not becoming a country less willing to use force, but it is becoming a country less willing to have prolonged military presences in foreign nations.
And this is in line with a better counterterrorism policy in the wake of 9/11. Rather than turning entire countries with massive military commitments, the United States should use its superior intelligence agencies and technology to launch precision strikes against specific targets. Such counterterrorism methods would be much more effective: whereas military occupations can in fact be counterproductive, taking out specific individuals or locations is more likely to hamper the planning and morale of terrorists. Invading countries is simply a massively inefficient use of resources: dealing with a single country cannot solve a global problem like terrorism.
But while military doctrine is changing to adapt to the problems of terrorism well, national security has not. Indeed, because of the need for intelligence services, that particular area of the federal government is subject to tremendous waste and abuse. The number of outside consultants and private companies that provide little to no value and yet survive because it is hard to evaluate whether they are actually helping at all is too many to count. A more effective foreign policy will require that these people be weeded out.
And even more so, the way that the United States handles its domestic security in a wide variety of aspects need to be tuned up. Airport security is all but a joke, considering its inefficacy in getting anything done and its agents strict and arbitrary adherence to rules for the sake of rules. The TSA has, for example, been unable to stop a single terrorist, allowing individuals like Richard Reid onto flights. The new scanners they plan on implementing throughout all American airports has been shown to be ineffective at catching even rudimentary weapons. In short, domestic security in the United States is a mess. It is nonsensical, poorly implemented, and ineffective. The next decade will require serious changes to how the United States ensures the country against terrorist attacks.
In an overall sense, the United States is better prepared to deal with a terrorist attack than it was ten years ago. But it is not better prepared in all aspects. In terms of long and medium term prevention, both through better foreign policy and military doctrine, the country is on the right track and has made significant gains. But in terms of the implementation of actual defenses that would immediately be able to catch a terrorist, the country is in no better shape. That makes sense, as the 9/11 terrorists would have for the most part been able to get past current security setups. They did none of the things that made them overtly illegal or easy to catch by the TSA's rudimentary system. Either the TSA has to get smarter, or all of America's security gains since the last decade will have been for nothing.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
Deteriorating Relations with Pakistan
Obviously the United States stepped into Pakistan in a pair of stealth hawk helicopters with a team of special forces to take out Osama Bin Laden. In a mission that almost ran perfectly (no U.S. casualties), we left only a single helicopter part behind. It was enough to say that we the United States were there, as we are the only ones who posses that type of technology. And it's also enough to say that U.S. Pakistan are practically gone.
To be clear, I do not think the Pakistan government is actively working against the U.S. Far from it. I also do not think it is the ISI who is actively protecting Osama Bin Laden. However, I do think there are people within the ISI who knew about Osama's whereabouts, and were currently protecting him. This is different than saying the ISI's agenda was to protect Osama. But I do think that there were those within the ISI who thought that protecting the influential muslim leader would be important for various reasons. Regardless, it would be embarrasing for a well known fugitive to be caught near West Point. And this is the situation with Pakistan.
Regardless, the United States have demonstrated several things by taking out Osama Bin Laden without ISI approval. First, is the fact that the United States do not trust the ISI. Understandable-as the only intelligence agency that the United States trust 100% is probably only MI5. Even if the ISI was on our side, it would be ideal that this would be a U.S. led operation, something that any nation would forbid to begin with. And given a lot of the ISI's actions in terms of funding jihadists which inevitably bite the United States in the ass, it's clear that the ISI are not to be trusted.
That being said, the U.S. "invasion" has done several things. It has demonstrated that we do not trust what would be considered our biggest ally in the war on terror. Especially since the U.S. continually strikes terrorist targets via drones despite the fact that we are not "active" within the region. It has shamed the Pakistani military, which is probably the most trusted institution within the country in the fact that they are unable to keep high value fugitives out of their country as well as keep their borders secure from outside forces. Though keeping the U.S. out of your nation seems to be much harder with stealth everything.
The fact is this. The U.S. has been, is, and probably always will be unpopular with the people. Pakistan doesn't exactly have the most western of cultures. Furthermore, the U.S. has traditionally been on fairly good terms with the government due to the fact that we supply the Pakistani army with a plethora with arms DESPITE the fact that we nominated India for a security council seat. However, with these recent actions, the United States will find itself being pushed out of Pakistani politics.
To further exacerbate issues, Pakistan has close ties with another powerhouse known as China. Both China and Pakistan share aeronautical programs. And even more alarming, is the sharing of U.S. Stealth Helicopter wreckage with China. China is wise to tap into any sort of American technology they can get their hands on, as well as improve relations with Pakistan which is largely anti-westerner. And when push comes to shove, Pakistan is happy to receive any sort of military aid when it comes to dealing with the boarder of Pakistan and India. And although it is a fair statement to say that Americans was the one to screw up the relations first-the U.S. led operation straight into Pakistan showcases that the Americans do not trust the ISI or the Pakistani military in either competence or trust. That being said, with repeated evidence of the ISI sponsoring state terrorism and trading military technology with China, it is obvious that the Pakistani military is not on the same page with U.S. foreign policy despite the massive amounts of aid we supply to Pakistan.
Ergo, the United States needs to drop all funding for the Pakistani military. It's clear that we are unpopular with the people. And with this, it is also clear that we will become unpopular with the government. It is also apparent that we are unpopular with the ISI. Considering the fact that we now have military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the requirement for us to keep a presence in the area is no longer dependent on the Pakistani-especially with Kurdish support. Although some may argue that China may start to have a bigger role in the Middle East once we cut aid to Pakistan, I wager that Pakistan already has a more favorable view of China than America. At which point, we should cut funding for the Pakistani military. The U.S. tax payer dollars should not be used against the United States in any way shape or form.
To be clear, I do not think the Pakistan government is actively working against the U.S. Far from it. I also do not think it is the ISI who is actively protecting Osama Bin Laden. However, I do think there are people within the ISI who knew about Osama's whereabouts, and were currently protecting him. This is different than saying the ISI's agenda was to protect Osama. But I do think that there were those within the ISI who thought that protecting the influential muslim leader would be important for various reasons. Regardless, it would be embarrasing for a well known fugitive to be caught near West Point. And this is the situation with Pakistan.
Regardless, the United States have demonstrated several things by taking out Osama Bin Laden without ISI approval. First, is the fact that the United States do not trust the ISI. Understandable-as the only intelligence agency that the United States trust 100% is probably only MI5. Even if the ISI was on our side, it would be ideal that this would be a U.S. led operation, something that any nation would forbid to begin with. And given a lot of the ISI's actions in terms of funding jihadists which inevitably bite the United States in the ass, it's clear that the ISI are not to be trusted.
That being said, the U.S. "invasion" has done several things. It has demonstrated that we do not trust what would be considered our biggest ally in the war on terror. Especially since the U.S. continually strikes terrorist targets via drones despite the fact that we are not "active" within the region. It has shamed the Pakistani military, which is probably the most trusted institution within the country in the fact that they are unable to keep high value fugitives out of their country as well as keep their borders secure from outside forces. Though keeping the U.S. out of your nation seems to be much harder with stealth everything.
The fact is this. The U.S. has been, is, and probably always will be unpopular with the people. Pakistan doesn't exactly have the most western of cultures. Furthermore, the U.S. has traditionally been on fairly good terms with the government due to the fact that we supply the Pakistani army with a plethora with arms DESPITE the fact that we nominated India for a security council seat. However, with these recent actions, the United States will find itself being pushed out of Pakistani politics.
To further exacerbate issues, Pakistan has close ties with another powerhouse known as China. Both China and Pakistan share aeronautical programs. And even more alarming, is the sharing of U.S. Stealth Helicopter wreckage with China. China is wise to tap into any sort of American technology they can get their hands on, as well as improve relations with Pakistan which is largely anti-westerner. And when push comes to shove, Pakistan is happy to receive any sort of military aid when it comes to dealing with the boarder of Pakistan and India. And although it is a fair statement to say that Americans was the one to screw up the relations first-the U.S. led operation straight into Pakistan showcases that the Americans do not trust the ISI or the Pakistani military in either competence or trust. That being said, with repeated evidence of the ISI sponsoring state terrorism and trading military technology with China, it is obvious that the Pakistani military is not on the same page with U.S. foreign policy despite the massive amounts of aid we supply to Pakistan.
Ergo, the United States needs to drop all funding for the Pakistani military. It's clear that we are unpopular with the people. And with this, it is also clear that we will become unpopular with the government. It is also apparent that we are unpopular with the ISI. Considering the fact that we now have military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the requirement for us to keep a presence in the area is no longer dependent on the Pakistani-especially with Kurdish support. Although some may argue that China may start to have a bigger role in the Middle East once we cut aid to Pakistan, I wager that Pakistan already has a more favorable view of China than America. At which point, we should cut funding for the Pakistani military. The U.S. tax payer dollars should not be used against the United States in any way shape or form.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Libya, Revisited
It is an apt time to revisit the issue of Libya. Despite claims that the opposite might happen, despite the setbacks that the rebels have faced, it seems very likely now that they have broken through to Tripoli that Muammar Gaddafi is finally finished. Even if he himself is not arrested or killed, his regime is all but dead. Having allowed the rebels to enter and take significant parts of the capital, the soon-to-be former Libyan government can do nothing to stop the advance of rebel troops. The implications this has for the country and for the region, are, of course, astounding.
First, let us examine the consequences for Libya. In almost any situation, the end of a dictator's rule never completely marks the transition to freedom. Indeed, in the case of Libya, the gap between Gaddafi being forced from power and even something resembling a stable, freer government is difficult to accomplish. Libya's eccentric autocrat was not simply crazy, but was also smart: he had weakened many national institutions that would normally unite the country in his departure, meaning that much of the law and order that could be ensured depended entirely on him. The army was not uniformly treated well: Gaddafi saved the best training and equipment for members of his tribe and foreign militiamen from Africa. This is indicative of a broader cunning on his part: recognizing that the country he ruled contained many different tribal groups, he had set up his power in such a way that none of these groups could ever be united anywhere, except, ironically enough, against Gaddafi.
This problem is not unique to Libya, of course. Plenty of countries in Africa have great difficulties with diverse ethnic groups. Yet those countries do not give much hope for a post dictatorship Libya. Indeed, even the most stable of these countries, Kenya, faced a sustained period of ethnic violence as recently as 2007. Libya, unless it performs a genocide, will have an even worse problem: the tribe that Gaddafi belonged to will still be around, meaning that trouble will be built into the new Libya.
Of course, not all of the news is bad. That there are no prevailing institutions means that there is a higher chance that the rule of law and government itself can become established, instead of, say, the police or military. The latter two generally lead to police states or military juntas and having institutions stronger than the leaders of the new transitional government could have undermined any gains in freedom that Libyans would have won. Moreover though, the behavior of the transitional council has been promising. Though they have little ground to deviate from, it would appear that the new Libyan government is on the right path.
Challenges still remain. Gaddafi himself is not accounted for, and his forces still control parts of the country. Indeed, even Tripoli has neighborhood still loyal to him. The new government has to rebuild an economy, win back the rest of the country, and establish an entirely new constitution and institutions, among other weighty agenda items. In this regard, foreign aid and assistance will be crucial. Yet we can take hope: it appears that, for the moment, everything is going well.
First, let us examine the consequences for Libya. In almost any situation, the end of a dictator's rule never completely marks the transition to freedom. Indeed, in the case of Libya, the gap between Gaddafi being forced from power and even something resembling a stable, freer government is difficult to accomplish. Libya's eccentric autocrat was not simply crazy, but was also smart: he had weakened many national institutions that would normally unite the country in his departure, meaning that much of the law and order that could be ensured depended entirely on him. The army was not uniformly treated well: Gaddafi saved the best training and equipment for members of his tribe and foreign militiamen from Africa. This is indicative of a broader cunning on his part: recognizing that the country he ruled contained many different tribal groups, he had set up his power in such a way that none of these groups could ever be united anywhere, except, ironically enough, against Gaddafi.
This problem is not unique to Libya, of course. Plenty of countries in Africa have great difficulties with diverse ethnic groups. Yet those countries do not give much hope for a post dictatorship Libya. Indeed, even the most stable of these countries, Kenya, faced a sustained period of ethnic violence as recently as 2007. Libya, unless it performs a genocide, will have an even worse problem: the tribe that Gaddafi belonged to will still be around, meaning that trouble will be built into the new Libya.
Of course, not all of the news is bad. That there are no prevailing institutions means that there is a higher chance that the rule of law and government itself can become established, instead of, say, the police or military. The latter two generally lead to police states or military juntas and having institutions stronger than the leaders of the new transitional government could have undermined any gains in freedom that Libyans would have won. Moreover though, the behavior of the transitional council has been promising. Though they have little ground to deviate from, it would appear that the new Libyan government is on the right path.
Challenges still remain. Gaddafi himself is not accounted for, and his forces still control parts of the country. Indeed, even Tripoli has neighborhood still loyal to him. The new government has to rebuild an economy, win back the rest of the country, and establish an entirely new constitution and institutions, among other weighty agenda items. In this regard, foreign aid and assistance will be crucial. Yet we can take hope: it appears that, for the moment, everything is going well.
Monday, August 15, 2011
London Riots and How We Should Treat Riots
When it looks to riots, its easy to blame them on stupid people. It's direct. It's obvious. And it's where we shouldn't be laying the blame. Don't get me wrong. I don't condone rioting of any kind. But rioting is a measure of civil unrest. Whether it be caused by ANYTHING, rioting must always be treated as civil unrest, rather than as a criminal offence. Civil unrest and criminal offence seem to go hand in hand, but they must be treated fundamentally differently. Criminal offence should be treated by the police. But rioting must be treated as an indicator for the current state of things.
This is the fact of the matter. A person is smart. But people are stupid. So as soon as people start getting angry, they start doing irrational things like breaking into buildings, burning cars, and so on and so on. Everyone has been in situations where they have lost their temper, and all of us have done bad things as a result. However, the difference is that for most of the time, this is a localized event. You go home, you take a drink. Or maybe you spend the night in jail and your friend bails you out. In a riot on the other hand, everyone is angry. It's an angry mob. You cannot think straight or act the way you're supposed to when you're angry. It's why years of training is devoted to keeping people calm.
So what of the London riots? The question shouldn't be why this happened. We know what happened. The question really needs to be, why are people angry? Again, if people are happy, they won't be rioting because they are less likely to be drawn to releasing pent up anger. Remember, rioters cannot be reasoned with. So applying any sort of logic that doesn't twang the string of pillaging isn't going to help.
Rioters are angry mostly because their lives suck for some reason. The 1968 Chicago riots resulted as the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. But, there was no riot that followed the Kennedy assassination. Why? Because for most of us, our lives were good during the time of the Kennedy assassination. So we mourned. But for many black people, they were treated unfairly in public and suffered from a very large racial economic gap. They didn't have a happy life, so they got angry. MLK being shot resulted in the release of that anger by the entire black community. The assassination isn't the root cause of the riot. It may be the tipping point-but income disparity and lack of equal right is ultimately what caused it.
Riots take years in the making. It's not the result of a senseless act. Though the riot may be triggered by a senseless act, riots need to brew.
As a result, the riot is in fact a political statement. Disorganized yes, but it speaks more out towards the current economic state of England, as well as their unpopular political motions. And it really needs to be treated as such. A riot is ultimately an indicator that the people have been abandoned by their politicians in some way, shape, or form. Remember, the politicians job is to prevent wide scale degradation of life. Degradation of life makes people unhappy. Unhappy people riot. It's really that simple.
Don't get me wrong. Striking a moral code with people can incite riots on their own, such as stealing an election. But so can a dirty cop act which would normally result in the resignation an investigation of said cop.
That being said, it's important that the British government not see this as a reason to impose curfews and harsher laws. Rather, they must use this opportunity to reassess their actions. I would advise heavily against poking an angry mob with a stick, let alone trying to control them with harsher punishments. What needs to happen is an influx of jobs. And it's important that the British government tries everything within its power to increase job growth.
That being said, the United States needs to take note of the London riots as well and with very serious considerations. The United States is suffering from an even heavier weight of public anger as congress seems to run around like headless chickens. Every dollar that wall street executives take and every person that gets laid off is another tick towards civil unrest. No matter how well educated we are, the growing numbers of college graduates unable to find jobs and being under pressure of student loans is going feed a growing population of unhappy people.
All its going to take is for a stupid act to really cause another riot in America. If the government does not start acting on raising the life of the rest of America within the next year, America will riot. In fact, if things continue on its course, there may very much be a riot on the streets of Wall Street.
This is the fact of the matter. A person is smart. But people are stupid. So as soon as people start getting angry, they start doing irrational things like breaking into buildings, burning cars, and so on and so on. Everyone has been in situations where they have lost their temper, and all of us have done bad things as a result. However, the difference is that for most of the time, this is a localized event. You go home, you take a drink. Or maybe you spend the night in jail and your friend bails you out. In a riot on the other hand, everyone is angry. It's an angry mob. You cannot think straight or act the way you're supposed to when you're angry. It's why years of training is devoted to keeping people calm.
So what of the London riots? The question shouldn't be why this happened. We know what happened. The question really needs to be, why are people angry? Again, if people are happy, they won't be rioting because they are less likely to be drawn to releasing pent up anger. Remember, rioters cannot be reasoned with. So applying any sort of logic that doesn't twang the string of pillaging isn't going to help.
Rioters are angry mostly because their lives suck for some reason. The 1968 Chicago riots resulted as the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. But, there was no riot that followed the Kennedy assassination. Why? Because for most of us, our lives were good during the time of the Kennedy assassination. So we mourned. But for many black people, they were treated unfairly in public and suffered from a very large racial economic gap. They didn't have a happy life, so they got angry. MLK being shot resulted in the release of that anger by the entire black community. The assassination isn't the root cause of the riot. It may be the tipping point-but income disparity and lack of equal right is ultimately what caused it.
Riots take years in the making. It's not the result of a senseless act. Though the riot may be triggered by a senseless act, riots need to brew.
As a result, the riot is in fact a political statement. Disorganized yes, but it speaks more out towards the current economic state of England, as well as their unpopular political motions. And it really needs to be treated as such. A riot is ultimately an indicator that the people have been abandoned by their politicians in some way, shape, or form. Remember, the politicians job is to prevent wide scale degradation of life. Degradation of life makes people unhappy. Unhappy people riot. It's really that simple.
Don't get me wrong. Striking a moral code with people can incite riots on their own, such as stealing an election. But so can a dirty cop act which would normally result in the resignation an investigation of said cop.
That being said, it's important that the British government not see this as a reason to impose curfews and harsher laws. Rather, they must use this opportunity to reassess their actions. I would advise heavily against poking an angry mob with a stick, let alone trying to control them with harsher punishments. What needs to happen is an influx of jobs. And it's important that the British government tries everything within its power to increase job growth.
That being said, the United States needs to take note of the London riots as well and with very serious considerations. The United States is suffering from an even heavier weight of public anger as congress seems to run around like headless chickens. Every dollar that wall street executives take and every person that gets laid off is another tick towards civil unrest. No matter how well educated we are, the growing numbers of college graduates unable to find jobs and being under pressure of student loans is going feed a growing population of unhappy people.
All its going to take is for a stupid act to really cause another riot in America. If the government does not start acting on raising the life of the rest of America within the next year, America will riot. In fact, if things continue on its course, there may very much be a riot on the streets of Wall Street.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)