Essay on Grand Strategy
This is long, but it may interest some people.
United States Grand Strategy in the War Against the Terrorists
November 6, 2006
by Tim Krenz
The 2006 mid-term campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate focused on the war in Iraq, becoming a national referendum on Republican Party foreign policy. Whatever the elections will have decided, the new Congress will be part of a needed public debate on U.S. grand strategy in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the larger war against the terrorists. It is necessary for a reevaluation of the entire approach to U.S. foreign policy in the Indian Ocean Area, from east and North Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southeast Asia.
Some time following the elections taking place tomorrow, a bipartisan commission examining the war in Iraq will present their findings and conclusions. They are expected to devise a new strategy in Iraq in order to secure victory for the United States and the Iraqi people. The commission leader, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, has repeatedly said that the commission has “not ruled anything in” nor “ruled anything out” in its deliberations and recommendations. The commission’s ideas on the topic have remained largely secret, to be revealed after the partisan elections. In weighing what they will say, there are some things that the American people should consider in listening to the commission’s report.
Iraq is indeed part of the wider conflict in the Middle East. There is a direct relationship between Iraq to the war on the terrorists taking place world-wide. But the conflict has far larger dimensions, from energy security concerning Persian Gulf oil, to the Israeli-Arab problem, to the Palestinian question. Even deeper, the war in Iraq involves the millennial crisis taking place in Muslim civilization, a problem that will rend all Muslim countries into a conflict between faith to its past and confronting its destiny.
U.S. political strategy in this area of the world (both the diplomacy and the military side of politics) has failed to secure vital national interests since the end of the Cold War. The problems for U.S. foreign policy seem to grow hourly: A Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan; open sectarian civil war in Iraq; Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology. Currently, America’s favoritism for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and U.S. support for oppressive dictators in the region have alienated Muslims all over the world.
In short, the U.S. has not given its best ideals to the problems facing the countries in the greater-Indian Ocean Area. The best America has to offer, things like information, education, globalized prosperity, democracy and self-government, and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, have been largely overshadowed by 61 years of economic exploitation, political pressure, militarism; and recently, support for Israel’s use of excessive force in Lebanon, the war in Iraq, arrogance, and support for president’s and royal families who torture, jail and murder their people. There has and even been racism, the obvious impression given during the Dubai Ports controversy in early 2006.
Long-term, Muslim civilization is teetering. With the challenges that the poor, under-connected, and oppressed Muslims have to confront now and very shortly, it is no wonder that more and more people in these countries turn to the wrong solution offered by the radical, murderous, and equally oppressive terrorists. The Muslim countries see looming, if not already at their front door, demographics (the number of people), economic reality, and cultural sterility combining for a perfect storm. The large number of young people, growing larger all the time, and the backward economic foundations mean that these countries will remain poor. They will fight over ever scarcer wealth and resources, and they will beonly more likely to fall further behind the standard of living of the West and Far East.
While terrorist themselves come from well-educated, well-off families, the reason they probably join is why the middle classes rise in revolutions throughout history: They see the injustice happening around them and want to have the power to change it. This is a law of rebellion against any established order. It is common in history. This sort of revolution from the middle, where all revolutions start, is currently seeking to control the politics of the Muslim countries. It is in the form of terrorist who offer the people something new, not necessarily better, but certainly different. The masses in the Muslim world are tired of dealing with the ancien regime. These masses could eventually become the fodder of mass revolutionary armies. It is this short-term crisis which the U.S. must confront now.
The crisis in the Muslim countries will bring that civilization to the turning point in the not too distant future. One choice of Muslim peoples is to find those who would find a better, more peaceful way to lead their societies to sovereign independence, peace, prosperity, and enlightenment. The alternative is the leadership and ideology of militant Islam. History is on the side of the peaceful and enlightened. The first Muslim country to confront these problems was Turkey following World War I. Kemal Mustafa Ataturk was a visionary. His reform is still a successful modern Muslim country 80 years later. The challenge for the alternative to the terrorists is to act like Ataturk did: with bold vision, political willpower, and hard work. This millennial “mid-point” for Muslim civilization is similar to the Reformation, Counter-Reformation and the religious wars over Christianity in 16th and 17th Century Europe. The questions are: Will the war of the terrorist lead to the Islamic equivalent of the Thirty Years War? Will the conflicts within Islam and between Islam and the rest of the world result in some sort of stability and peace within Islam? And peace and amity with other civilizations?
For the U.S., which HAS limited material and human resources, along with flighty political will, economics determines strategy. How we use our wealth, people, and other assets in a military campaign should be largely based on our advantages and the opponent weaknesses. But the higher, political-level of “grand strategy,” needs to be formulated which will align our emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual power in ways that will lead to long-term victory in the war on the terrorists, and success in Iraq by default. Tinkering with tactics in Iraq will not change the situation there. Operationally shifting units from province to province in Iraq and Afghanistan is not the answer to winning this “Long War.”
What is this proper and realistic grand strategy, the political strategy in other words, that people should consider in listening to any solution to the problems of the current war?
First, the U.S. cannot afford to take any side but its own in the world, especially in the Middle East. Our interests are not served by Israel bombing Lebanon or Gaza long after political reality takes leave. Neither are U.S. interests served by Hamas or Hezbollah taking hostages. On all things in the Middle East, the U.S. needs to present itself and address the issues from the viewpoint of the most powerful player in world politics willing to use its power and leverage for fair, just, and equitable settlements between peoples and nations in conflict. Such an attitude toward the United States would undermine any opposition.
Second, U.S. political policy concerning leadership in Muslim countries should be to endorse the people’s chosen (not necessarily elected) governments.. There cannot be any outside interference or coercion on the part of the U.S. or anyone else in any nation’s selected form of government, as long as that government has the consent of the majority and minority rights are ensured. While radicals, or even terrorist, may win some power or elections, the reality of governing changes everything. Furthermore, if radicals are brought to power by the ballot box by eager, impressionable first-time voters, the responsibility of voting and holding leaders accountable will in the end moderate even support for even the most radical positions. History guarantees this result of peaceful, free nations.
Third, the U.S. must lead the entire world in an economic transformation of the Muslim countries. Prosperity, or even maintaining the basic “comforts” of life like plentiful food, safe water, and basic health, are keys to connecting this region with the rest of the world. Globalized economic opportunity in diverse free-markets solidifies personal satisfaction and removes causes for societal grievances. In addition, there must be in the long-term alternatives to the fossil economic systems. The future of the world and the future workers of Muslim countries require this important step. Development of economic alternatives to oil and the oil economy are a must for economic growth so that everyone can share in the prosperity. Oil has mostly benefitted the royal families who are dictators over their people. It is time for democratizing energy.
Fourth, for a “pure”military grand strategy, U.S. military policy in the Indian Ocean Area should be based on a “maritime” strategy, not the long-term, exhaustive and expensive ground occupation of the region. The U.S. should use its superior sea, land and air mobility and expeditionary power; its superiority in space, cyberspace, and the laboratory; and its incredible leadership and training. The strategy would be for quick, decisive action, not for a “slobberknocker” of ground combat that chews up people and machinery. Information, targeting, maneuver, and firepower delivered from long-distances, penetrating to the core of our enemies, that destroy and disrupt their centers of gravity, should be our method of defeating any enemy in the 21st Century. Land wars in Asia cannot become the norm. Already, U.S. military transformation is getting toward this. Iraq is tripping the military’s steps in this direction
As part of this military strategy, re-groupment to the Kurdish north and Shi’a south of Iraq may be necessary to begin stabilizing these areas. The areas in the middle of Iraq should be cut off: isolated, contained, and patrolled. The U.S. should secure the north and south of Iraq, ensure the clearing and holding of these areas, and then move incrementally into central and western Iraq. This sort of methodical and patient pacification and stabilization would take a shorter number of years with the limited manpower the U.S. can continue to commit to Iraq. It would take far shorter than the current strategy, which is failing more every day. The eventual peace of Iraq is not guaranteed. Eventual U.S. disengagement from Iraq is necessary. Is there a better idea?
And fifth, as part of the “maritime” strategy for the U.S. in the Middle East, the United States should lead the nations in the Indian Ocean Area, along with the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council, in a large security and cooperation organization for the region. Instead of the only military decision-maker in the region, the U.S. should offer itself only as a balancer of power among all nations with interest in the region. The organization should prevent and fight aggression. It should also work for economic development in the Indian Ocean nations. Most of all, allies, locally and from around the world, are necessary for the U.S. Help is better than unilateral action in this part of the world.
In the strategy for solving the Iraq war, a broader grand strategy approach is needed. To solve Iraq we must address the far larger, epochal issues at stake. A grand strategy is required before anything else is done. Victory will only come when the United States adopts a more realistic, less partisan view of what are the problems, and only if it adopts a more logical framework to solving them.
United States Grand Strategy in the War Against the Terrorists
November 6, 2006
by Tim Krenz
The 2006 mid-term campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate focused on the war in Iraq, becoming a national referendum on Republican Party foreign policy. Whatever the elections will have decided, the new Congress will be part of a needed public debate on U.S. grand strategy in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the larger war against the terrorists. It is necessary for a reevaluation of the entire approach to U.S. foreign policy in the Indian Ocean Area, from east and North Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southeast Asia.
Some time following the elections taking place tomorrow, a bipartisan commission examining the war in Iraq will present their findings and conclusions. They are expected to devise a new strategy in Iraq in order to secure victory for the United States and the Iraqi people. The commission leader, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, has repeatedly said that the commission has “not ruled anything in” nor “ruled anything out” in its deliberations and recommendations. The commission’s ideas on the topic have remained largely secret, to be revealed after the partisan elections. In weighing what they will say, there are some things that the American people should consider in listening to the commission’s report.
Iraq is indeed part of the wider conflict in the Middle East. There is a direct relationship between Iraq to the war on the terrorists taking place world-wide. But the conflict has far larger dimensions, from energy security concerning Persian Gulf oil, to the Israeli-Arab problem, to the Palestinian question. Even deeper, the war in Iraq involves the millennial crisis taking place in Muslim civilization, a problem that will rend all Muslim countries into a conflict between faith to its past and confronting its destiny.
U.S. political strategy in this area of the world (both the diplomacy and the military side of politics) has failed to secure vital national interests since the end of the Cold War. The problems for U.S. foreign policy seem to grow hourly: A Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan; open sectarian civil war in Iraq; Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology. Currently, America’s favoritism for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and U.S. support for oppressive dictators in the region have alienated Muslims all over the world.
In short, the U.S. has not given its best ideals to the problems facing the countries in the greater-Indian Ocean Area. The best America has to offer, things like information, education, globalized prosperity, democracy and self-government, and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, have been largely overshadowed by 61 years of economic exploitation, political pressure, militarism; and recently, support for Israel’s use of excessive force in Lebanon, the war in Iraq, arrogance, and support for president’s and royal families who torture, jail and murder their people. There has and even been racism, the obvious impression given during the Dubai Ports controversy in early 2006.
Long-term, Muslim civilization is teetering. With the challenges that the poor, under-connected, and oppressed Muslims have to confront now and very shortly, it is no wonder that more and more people in these countries turn to the wrong solution offered by the radical, murderous, and equally oppressive terrorists. The Muslim countries see looming, if not already at their front door, demographics (the number of people), economic reality, and cultural sterility combining for a perfect storm. The large number of young people, growing larger all the time, and the backward economic foundations mean that these countries will remain poor. They will fight over ever scarcer wealth and resources, and they will beonly more likely to fall further behind the standard of living of the West and Far East.
While terrorist themselves come from well-educated, well-off families, the reason they probably join is why the middle classes rise in revolutions throughout history: They see the injustice happening around them and want to have the power to change it. This is a law of rebellion against any established order. It is common in history. This sort of revolution from the middle, where all revolutions start, is currently seeking to control the politics of the Muslim countries. It is in the form of terrorist who offer the people something new, not necessarily better, but certainly different. The masses in the Muslim world are tired of dealing with the ancien regime. These masses could eventually become the fodder of mass revolutionary armies. It is this short-term crisis which the U.S. must confront now.
The crisis in the Muslim countries will bring that civilization to the turning point in the not too distant future. One choice of Muslim peoples is to find those who would find a better, more peaceful way to lead their societies to sovereign independence, peace, prosperity, and enlightenment. The alternative is the leadership and ideology of militant Islam. History is on the side of the peaceful and enlightened. The first Muslim country to confront these problems was Turkey following World War I. Kemal Mustafa Ataturk was a visionary. His reform is still a successful modern Muslim country 80 years later. The challenge for the alternative to the terrorists is to act like Ataturk did: with bold vision, political willpower, and hard work. This millennial “mid-point” for Muslim civilization is similar to the Reformation, Counter-Reformation and the religious wars over Christianity in 16th and 17th Century Europe. The questions are: Will the war of the terrorist lead to the Islamic equivalent of the Thirty Years War? Will the conflicts within Islam and between Islam and the rest of the world result in some sort of stability and peace within Islam? And peace and amity with other civilizations?
For the U.S., which HAS limited material and human resources, along with flighty political will, economics determines strategy. How we use our wealth, people, and other assets in a military campaign should be largely based on our advantages and the opponent weaknesses. But the higher, political-level of “grand strategy,” needs to be formulated which will align our emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual power in ways that will lead to long-term victory in the war on the terrorists, and success in Iraq by default. Tinkering with tactics in Iraq will not change the situation there. Operationally shifting units from province to province in Iraq and Afghanistan is not the answer to winning this “Long War.”
What is this proper and realistic grand strategy, the political strategy in other words, that people should consider in listening to any solution to the problems of the current war?
First, the U.S. cannot afford to take any side but its own in the world, especially in the Middle East. Our interests are not served by Israel bombing Lebanon or Gaza long after political reality takes leave. Neither are U.S. interests served by Hamas or Hezbollah taking hostages. On all things in the Middle East, the U.S. needs to present itself and address the issues from the viewpoint of the most powerful player in world politics willing to use its power and leverage for fair, just, and equitable settlements between peoples and nations in conflict. Such an attitude toward the United States would undermine any opposition.
Second, U.S. political policy concerning leadership in Muslim countries should be to endorse the people’s chosen (not necessarily elected) governments.. There cannot be any outside interference or coercion on the part of the U.S. or anyone else in any nation’s selected form of government, as long as that government has the consent of the majority and minority rights are ensured. While radicals, or even terrorist, may win some power or elections, the reality of governing changes everything. Furthermore, if radicals are brought to power by the ballot box by eager, impressionable first-time voters, the responsibility of voting and holding leaders accountable will in the end moderate even support for even the most radical positions. History guarantees this result of peaceful, free nations.
Third, the U.S. must lead the entire world in an economic transformation of the Muslim countries. Prosperity, or even maintaining the basic “comforts” of life like plentiful food, safe water, and basic health, are keys to connecting this region with the rest of the world. Globalized economic opportunity in diverse free-markets solidifies personal satisfaction and removes causes for societal grievances. In addition, there must be in the long-term alternatives to the fossil economic systems. The future of the world and the future workers of Muslim countries require this important step. Development of economic alternatives to oil and the oil economy are a must for economic growth so that everyone can share in the prosperity. Oil has mostly benefitted the royal families who are dictators over their people. It is time for democratizing energy.
Fourth, for a “pure”military grand strategy, U.S. military policy in the Indian Ocean Area should be based on a “maritime” strategy, not the long-term, exhaustive and expensive ground occupation of the region. The U.S. should use its superior sea, land and air mobility and expeditionary power; its superiority in space, cyberspace, and the laboratory; and its incredible leadership and training. The strategy would be for quick, decisive action, not for a “slobberknocker” of ground combat that chews up people and machinery. Information, targeting, maneuver, and firepower delivered from long-distances, penetrating to the core of our enemies, that destroy and disrupt their centers of gravity, should be our method of defeating any enemy in the 21st Century. Land wars in Asia cannot become the norm. Already, U.S. military transformation is getting toward this. Iraq is tripping the military’s steps in this direction
As part of this military strategy, re-groupment to the Kurdish north and Shi’a south of Iraq may be necessary to begin stabilizing these areas. The areas in the middle of Iraq should be cut off: isolated, contained, and patrolled. The U.S. should secure the north and south of Iraq, ensure the clearing and holding of these areas, and then move incrementally into central and western Iraq. This sort of methodical and patient pacification and stabilization would take a shorter number of years with the limited manpower the U.S. can continue to commit to Iraq. It would take far shorter than the current strategy, which is failing more every day. The eventual peace of Iraq is not guaranteed. Eventual U.S. disengagement from Iraq is necessary. Is there a better idea?
And fifth, as part of the “maritime” strategy for the U.S. in the Middle East, the United States should lead the nations in the Indian Ocean Area, along with the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council, in a large security and cooperation organization for the region. Instead of the only military decision-maker in the region, the U.S. should offer itself only as a balancer of power among all nations with interest in the region. The organization should prevent and fight aggression. It should also work for economic development in the Indian Ocean nations. Most of all, allies, locally and from around the world, are necessary for the U.S. Help is better than unilateral action in this part of the world.
In the strategy for solving the Iraq war, a broader grand strategy approach is needed. To solve Iraq we must address the far larger, epochal issues at stake. A grand strategy is required before anything else is done. Victory will only come when the United States adopts a more realistic, less partisan view of what are the problems, and only if it adopts a more logical framework to solving them.
posted by Scipio Cepicanus @ 3:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home