Well, we have no shortage of news
channels and websites that fill their time and white space with lots of news. Exactly whose news, though? We have been bombarded by non-issues, and much
ado has been made over each candidate’s view on Roe v Wade. Last time I read the Constitution, I missed
the part in Article II that gave either the power to overturn a Supreme Court
decision, if they won. You might as well
argue which one is going to change the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Oh wait, that won’t happen either. On the other hand, there are a number of
stories that seem to be getting little analytical coverage. You have to search far and wide to find
coverage of some very key issues.
Furthermore, analysis, and by that I mean objective analysis, on foreign
policy is even harder. Remember when the
problems oversees and, oh by the way, 9-11 (the original) were not because the
interest of the United States run contrary to some places, just as theirs run
contrary to ours, but it was because we “meddled” and “asked for it.” Remember in 2009 when President Obama spoke
in Cairo.
“…tension has been
fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a
Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies
without regard to their own aspirations…
So long as our relationship is defined by our
differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who
promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people
achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to
seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world;
one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth
that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.[i]”
Problem
solved, right? Well, how could you
possibly know? What’s more, some will argue that foreign policy is immaterial
and a waste of money. It did not prove
to be immaterial to the United Kingdom when Neville Chamberlain negotiated with
Germany in 1938. It did not prove to be
immaterial to the United States and Pearl Harbor after a series of embargos on
a small Japanese country seeking global resources. It was not insignificant or a waste when the
Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as the Minister to France to
secure their support. It has always
mattered and it always will. Here’s
another news flash. It has always been a
global economy, which is why navies and trade routes were established, and
exist today. Columbus did not set out to
earn the reputation of the first bio warfare specialist; he was searching for
trade routes for global goods on a global economy of 1497. Too often we confuse the speed of transit
with globalization.
There are
countless areas of foreign policy that should more than interest us and for various
reasons. South America not only has a
potential rising power, Brazil, but also several countries that represent the
genesis of drug trafficking. Mexico’s
depressed economy has spawned a wave of illegal immigration, which is exacerbated
by providing cover to drug cartels and potential terrorist organizations, both
seeking entry into our country. Let us
not forget the rising power of China, the still separate and volatile Koreas,
and the nation of Japan that has been rocked by catastrophes. All of that aside, the intent here is to
examine the news out of the Middle East after three years of a new engagement
policy.
There is a
school of thought prevalent in America that we deserved the attacks on September
11, 2001. The innuendos surround the
bombardment of countries and commission of war crimes, almost always without
specificity, however stating the targets were Muslims. It can only be assumed that persons of this
school of thought specifically mean OPERATION DESERT STORM (Iraq ’91),
OPERATION DENY FLIGHT (BOSNIA ’93-’95) and OPERATION NOBLE ANVIL (Kosovo
’99). While Muslims were the targets,
they were also the object of protection.
It is like saying that every death in the American Civil War was an
American death. So, any act of violence
in another country is bad and is inviting trouble for us? In spite of a desire to avoid the appearance
of colonization, we have engaged in Libya and Egypt.
Obviously, this administration
inherited two wars, so our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is
explicable. We have, however, engaged remotely
controlled pilotless air vehicles to fire missiles into other countries, and at
unprecedented levels, since Obama’s 2009 speech. According to an analysis of US drone strikes
in Pakistan, drone attacks have killed between 1100-1800 civilians and
militants there.[ii] Add another 500-1000 mixed militant and
civilians killed in Yemen and Somalia[iii]. The news we get of these operations is of the
death of a militant leader. We fail to
get a discussion or analysis of the applicability of the War Powers Act,
whether it is lawful to target these leaders given their apparent proximity to
civilians, and say nothing of the fact that these individuals are in countries
where we have no expressed hostilities. Furthermore, this would seem to run contrary
to the cessation of “colonialist” policies that would deny rights and
opportunities to Muslims. In fact, a
Twitter post from a Yemeni lawyer stated, “DEAR OBAMA, when a U.S. drone missile kills a child in Yemen, the
father will go to war with you, guaranteed. Nothing to do with Al Qaeda.[iv] “ Either we have mischaracterized the nature of
the “radical Islamic” problem we face or there seems to have been a conscious decision
to maintain the pre-2008 status quo and modus operandi.
In 2008, it
was argued that Iraq was a distraction from the justified effort in
Afghanistan. We are led to believe all
is won and the effort should end. The
President spoke in October at a Florida venue saying, “Four years ago, I told you we’d end the war in Iraq,
and I did. I said we’d end the war in Afghanistan, and we are. I said we’d
refocus on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11—and today, al-Qaeda is
on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.[v]” The administration announced that the end of
the effort in Afghanistan was drawing to a close, and yet deaths from Green on
Blue attacks, (Afghanistani Army and Police attack US and Coalition forces)
have risen from 2 in 2008 to 55 so far in 2012[vi]. In the midst of this, the administration
announced plans to negotiate with the Taliban.
The sticking point appears to be, “the Taliban are internally divided and unwilling to meet Washington’s
demands to sever all ties to Al Qaeda, renounce violence and accept the
commitments to political and human rights in Afghanistan’s Constitution.[vii][viii]” When renouncing violence is cause for an
impasse, one must question whether we have chosen the correct partner and been
consistent with our policies and values.
There is a raging war in the United States with the
government siding to protect women and their “lady parts,” yet there is hardly
a peep when a 22-year-old Afghan woman is shot and killed for committing
adultery[ix]. Think she had that coming? How about the 20-year-old
Afghan woman that was beheaded for refusing to become a prostitute at her
mother-in-law’s insistence[x]? Finally, there are the Taliban in Pakistan, and
before one argues that Pakistan is not Afghanistan, ask where Bin Laden was
killed? There the Taliban decide to
board a bus of school children and shoot two girls multiple times including a
headshot[xi]. Their crime, one advocated for girls education
since she was 11 (she is now 14), and the other pointed her out.
So it is clear that the attacks of
9/11 were the reason for our action in Afghanistan. Less clear is our action in Iraq, however,
the country seems well rid of a tyrant and he wasn’t our tyrant. Saddam Hussein prior to OPERATION IRAQI
FREEDOM was doing as much as he could to bog the US down. The reasons for our actions with Libya and
support in Egypt are less clear. It
should have been evident that while Mubarak was less nice, he maintained a
stable and semi-sympathetic government.
It should have also been clear that anything else was an unknown. Libya, even more astonishingly, had turned to
the US after OIF and voluntarily relinquished it WMD programs. Kaddafi’s reward was US aircraft supporting
rebels against his government resulting in another overthrown government with
the assistance of our hand. Our dividend
for our investment is a dead Ambassador and three security guards. Clausewitz advises that if the value of the
object is high enough then it is appropriate to conduct politics “by other
means.” Was the value of the object
worth the price of 4 dead Americans?
The deaths of those Americans were
unavoidable, right? Well, many are
believers of coincidence when it suits their narrative. Those of us that have careers where we are
held accountable for our decisions, however, might look at this slightly
differently. Here’s an accounting of
what led up to the State Department issuing a Travel Warning for Libya on 27
Aug 2012 and the subsequent attack on 11 Sep 2012.
•
April 10, 2012 - A convoy carrying the head of the UN mission to Libya on a
visit to Benghazi is attacked with an improvised bomb. The bomb misses its
target by a few meters but leaves "a small hole in the road."
•
June 6, 2012 - A bomb is thrown at
the gate outside the US Consulate in Benghazi. This is the same location where
the deadly attack that killed four Americans took place on 9/11.
•
June 11, 2012 - A rocket propelled grenade is fired at a convoy carrying the
British ambassador as he approaches his consulate in Benghazi. The ambassador
is unharmed but two bodyguards are injured.
•
July 31, 2012 - Seven Red Crescent
officials are kidnapped by a Benghazi militia.
•
September 2, 2012 - A bomb is placed in the car of a Libyan intelligence
official. It explodes on one of the busiest streets in Benghazi, killing him.[xii]
It
would seem that there were adequate indications that security problems existed in
the region. Imagine if this was the timeline
of a child molester in the days and months leading up to an abduction and
murder. Would we feel that the local
authorities had done all they could? I
doubt it. It would seem that in all
likelihood September 11, 2012, and the 4 American deaths were avoidable, if
anyone had paid attention.
Then there was the October 11, 2012
(curious recurring day, Batman) drive-by assassination of a U.S. Embassy
security official in Yemen. “Yemeni officials said the
killing bore the hallmarks of an attack by the al-Qaida offshoot in Yemen.[xiii]” Apparently another
example of al-Qaida “on the run.”
Perhaps, officials are confusing “running” or “attacking” with
“on-the-run.”
While this discussion has centered on countries where the
US has taken action, there are two countries where continued inaction may
result in an equally negative result; Syria and Iran. With “the U.S., Israel, European allies, and Gulf States on one side and
Iran, China, and Russia on the other – and their efforts to preserve their
vital interests, escalation into a conflict with Iran is likely to pit power
blocs against each-other in a confrontation reminiscent of 20th century war
politics.[xiv]” Syria due to its resources, location, and
politics becomes the focus of a proxy war for influence in a critical region
with Iran being a chief ally. “Syrian
society is fraught with cleavages – Alawite vs Sunni, Sunni vs Minorities, Arab
vs Kurd, Secular vs Islamist, Rural vs Urban, as well as class divisions.[xv]” Combine this with the historic support and
obvious terrorist population and US interests become far more apparent than
they could have been imagined in Libya and Egypt.
The leadership of Iran makes
absolutely no secret of its desire to become the regional hegemony or disguise
Anti-Zionist views and statements. It
makes only minimal efforts to veil the goal of not only becoming a nuclear
power, but also developing its own nuclear weapons. But, surely we haven’t faltered here. Only if you put in context our intervention
in Libya, our support in Eygpt, and the likely funneling of weapons to Syria
against the 2009 protests in Iran.
Arguably, the first “Arab (well Persian, maybe that was the difference)
Spring” and the most significant to our interest, yet there was hardly an
acknowledgment. The event was of course
made infamous by the killing of a young woman, Neda Agha-Soltan when it was
captured on video and aired on YouTube - and still the U.S. held tight.[xvi]
One of the main limitations preventing any Iranian nuclear program from
being a direct threat to the continental United States is the lack of a
delivery vehicle. Iran, however, is a
country that openly supports terrorists.
Can there really be any doubt that it would use its ties to such organizations
to deploy a newly developed nuclear weapon if so provoked, or that it might not
take much “provocation” to meet their criteria?
All countries that have developed a nuclear weapon have felt obligated
to detonate one, if not their only, in order to prove it to the world. This usually takes place as a test in a
semi-controlled region; but what if it doesn’t?
If there is a coherent US foreign policy
in this region, it is not clear that its principles can be found in the
President’s 2009 Cairo speech, or that it has ever been articulated to the
American people. Instead, “we the
people” are left to fend for ourselves for news, the more important leads of
which seem to be frequently buried. The
result is a smoke and mirrors foreign policy that ebbs and flows more cyclically
than the tides.
[i] Obama, Barrack.
"Text: Obama’s Speech in Cairo." New York Times Politics. New
York Times, 4 2009. Web. 19 Oct 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?
[ii] "The Year
of the Drone: An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2012".
New America Foundation. http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones. Retrieved 10
October 2012.
[iii] Ross, Alice.
"Covert War on Terror." The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
N.p., 15 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012.
<http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/10/15/counting-the-bodies-in-the-pakistani-drone-campaign/>.
[iv] Monthana,
Ibrahim. "The NYT Opinion Page." The New York Time. N.p., 13
2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/opinion/how-drones-help-al-qaeda.html>.
[v] Dale, Helle.
"The Foundry, Trending." Obama Changes Stump Speech: Al-Qaeda No
Longer “on the Run”. The Heritage Network, 18 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012.
<http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/obama-changes-stump-speech-al-qaeda-no-longer-on-the-run/>.
[vi] Roggio, Bill,
and Lisa Lundquist. "Green-on-blue attacks in Afghanistan: the data."
The Long War Journal. N.p., 16 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012.
<http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/08/green-on-blue_attack.php>.
[vii] . "The New
York Times Opinion Pages." Peace Talks With the Taliban. N.p., 4
2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/peace-talks-with-the-taliban.html?_r=0>.
[viii]
. "US
'committed to Afghan talks' despite Taliban suspension." BBC News Asia.
BBC, 16 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17393837>.
[ix] . "New York
Daily News." Afghans protest public execution of woman, 22. N.p.,
11 2012. Web. 20 Oct 2012.
<http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-11/news/32636536_1_afghan-woman-afghan-advocates-taliban-member>.
[x] "Afghan
woman beheaded for refusing to be a prostitute Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/19/afghan-woman-beheaded-for-refusing-sex-with-man-report-says/?test=latestnews
[xi] . "Taliban
shoot teenage Pakistani girl activist outside school Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/09/taliban-shoot-teenage-pakistani-girl-activist/
[xii] Sexton, John.
"STATE DEPT. ISSUED LIBYA TRAVEL WARNING TWO WEEKS BEFORE ATTACK." Breitbart.com.
Breitbart, 18 2012. Web. 31 Oct 2012. <http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/18/State-Dept-Issued-Travel-Warning-for-Libya-2-Weeks-Before-Consulate-Attack>.
[xiii]
.
"Yemeni security official for US embassy killed in drive-by
shooting." The Guardian. N.p., 11 2012. Web. 31 Oct 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/11/yemeni-security-us-embassy-killed>.
[xiv] Geleta, Atkilt.
"Syria, Iran, and Israel: tensions and potential consequences." Peace
and Conflict Monitor. N.p., 2 2012. Web. 21 Oct 2012.
<http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=944>.
[xvi] Fathi, Nazila.
"In a Death Seen Around the World, a Symbol of Iranian Protests." The
New York Times Middle East. The New York Times, 22 2009. Web. 31 Oct 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/world/middleeast/23neda.html>.
