America the Arbiter?

[fatman17]

DAVIS: America the arbiter?

Hubris has no place in foreign relations

Daniel L. Davis

Friday, December 12, 2008

OP-ED:

Robert Kagan is one of the most influential and well-known authors and opinion-influencers on foreign affairs in the United States. He is a former speech writer for Secretary of State George Shultz, is a member of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, and was most recently a foreign policy adviser to presidential candidate John McCain. His views are given serious weight by many decision-makers in America and it is for this reason his latest work should be countered and firmly opposed, as it contains concepts and ideas that could prove to be antithetical -- and therefore dangerous -- to the interests of the United States.

In a December 2nd Washington Post article entitled "The Sovereignty Dodge," Mr. Kagan begins by addressing a very serious issue, pointing out legitimate concerns regarding the growing and dangerous rift developing between India and Pakistan over the tragic terrorist attacks in Mumbai. It is very likely that the terrorists who planned and executed those attacks had some degree of assistance from organizations operating in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), an essentially ungoverned region bordering Afghanistan. There is widespread and legitimate concern from the governments of several nations -- including the United States -- regarding the ability of terrorist organizations to operate outside effective government control in Pakistan. Mr. Kagan's prescriptions for this serious problem, however, would almost certainly do more harm than good, potentially resulting in a major regional war.

He suggests that if Pakistan can't adequately police its territory, the international community should declare parts of Pakistan "ungovernable and a menace to international security" and send in a military force to "root out" terrorists. Mr. Kagan then bizarrely suggests that Islamabad might "save face" with its people by supporting a plan to bring in European Christian armies to conduct combat operations on Pakistani soil against Muslims.

If the Western world has learned anything over the past seven-plus years of war in the Muslim-dominated countries of Afghanistan and Iraq, it's that they despise "occupation" forces and will not hesitate to use violence to force them out. How he imagines a foreign military force "rooting out" terrorists from the mountainous region of the FATA -- which is even more treacherous than the lawless areas of Afghanistan -- is not explained. As significant, he doesn't explain how this idea for Pakistan would succeed when NATO and American forces who have been conducting just such a mission in Afghanistan for the past seven years, have not.

But apparently Mr. Kagan isn't concerned with how his plan might be received by the people or government of Pakistan, as he rhetorically asks: "Would such an action violate Pakistan's sovereignty? Yes, but nations should not be able to claim sovereign rights when they cannot control territory from which terrorist attacks are launched… Either way, it would be useful for the United States, Europe and other nations to begin establishing the principle that Pakistan and other states that harbor terrorists should not take their sovereignty for granted. In the 21st century, sovereign rights need to be earned."

These comments are not made by someone considered to be a right wing radical, but by a man generally regarded as an enlightened, sophisticated intellectual, but the arrogance and imperial hubris saturating these statements is as breathtaking as it is reprehensible.

Such thinking does not represent the United States I know. We Americans generally consider ourselves defenders of freedom, respecting the rights of others, even willing to shed our blood in defense of those from other nations. I believe in an America that is noble, honorable, and humble; a nation of great power, bowing to no man or nation, but refusing to bludgeon others into submission if they do not do as we would like. It is this nation that has been admired and respected by the global community for centuries. This reputation was built upon the backs and blood of our forefathers on the fields of battle and in diplomatic halls around the world.

Words and actions of the sort written by Mr. Kagan -- as well as a growing number of other influential opinion-makers in recent years -- pushes our country in a direction that puts our own security at risk. Talk of setting ourselves up as the sole and global arbiter over who is and who is not worthy of sovereignty leads us down a dangerous path. It would not only continue to dissipate our military strength, compromising our ability to respond should real and substantial threats arise, but perversely make the world less, not more, stable. America's image would transform from one engendering admiration and respect, to one of fear and hatred.

It is a simple matter of the historical record that the imperial hubris of Europe's great powers in the 18th and 19th centuries spawned international hatred of the various governments, leading to the loss of prestige and power. Once lost, not one of them ever returned to the height of their Great Power status.

Let not our country follow that self-destructive pattern. Let us instead push the pendulum back in the direction of honor, respect, and nobility. We will find not simply the restoration of our international image, but a safer and more secure future for succeeding generations.

Army Maj. Daniel L. Davis, a cavalry officer, has fought in Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

 

[Energon]

The author is certainly correct in saying that Kagan isn't some right wing radical... which is why this topic is of such great importance.

This matter was actually heavily discussed and debated within the American military and security community a while back and led to the policy of bombing Pakistan's western tribal areas.

It is understandable that this would make many Pakistanis feel upset, demoralized and humiliated; but the truth of the matter is that for the US/NATO, violating Pakistan's sovereignty was more of a desperate- last resort act than some right wing evil expansionist scheme. What worries me is that India will now be convinced of the same.

Despite all the conspiracy theories within Pakistani circles and the jingoistic hyperbole in the conservative Indian ones, what most people fail to realize is that the Indian military and intelligence agencies do not have the capabilities, resources or the training to carry out the sort of operations: the west and the Israelis do commonly, many Indians would like to (or think they can) and what many Pakistanis are convinced they already do. The problem now is that there will be a concerted movement within India under the auspices of the world to actually change this.

The bottom line is that nobody outside Pakistan is willing to tolerate the consequences of what arises from within it, and no amount of reassurances from a powerless Pakistani leadership can change this. This position is of course by no means new to India. In the past, India's isolationism and affiliation with the Soviet bloc always prompted the West to disregard it's concerns and ensure that India didn't take any measures against Pakistan. But now everything has changed; the rest of the world actually has a stake in India and the Western governments can't afford to be seen as hypocritical in front of their already frustrated populations who now relate to what happens in India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but the arrogance and imperial hubris saturating these statements is as breathtaking as it is reprehensible.

I have to completely agree, and it was just as reprehensible when exercised by the US in carrying out the lone SF operation gone bad earlier this year.

There isn't any doubt over the fact that the US/NATO have the capability to carry out operations in Pakistani territory, but as the author correctly points out, the polarization such an act would cause, and support for, and legitimization of, the Taliban, AQ or any other group that would purport to 'fight the occupiers', are repercussions that are rarely discussed when advocating fanciful and poorly thought through strategies such as these.

We saw a glimpse of the opposition and consequences from that one raid that occurred, with the entire tribal belt inflamed and joining ranks in choosing to fight any non-Pakistani entity setting foot in Pakistan. Kagan's suggested policies would expand the conflict significantly in terms of both territory and people, and inflame opinion far beyond what it is now, and therefore ultimately fail horribly.

In fact calling the plan outlined by Kagan (and others before him) a 'strategy' is giving it entirely too much credit - its a recipe for disaster. Perhaps identifying an end goal for the region, since it is a regional problem, would be a fine idea for Kagan and his ilk, before pushing absolute disasters as policy suggestions.

 

[S-2]

"Bizarre" is indeed an appropriate description of Kagan's "plan". Less so is his underlying rationale.

Earlier this fall a border outpost was attacked by insurgents eminating from within the boundary of a neighboring nation-again. Over twenty of the outpost's soldiers were killed. The insurgents again retreated back behind the border following the assault. Any American (or others) who follow the news beyond their own nation know of this attack. The region from which this assault occurred is, at best, loosely controlled.

The locale of the attack? Aktutun, Turkey.

Kagan is deserving of criticism for his prescription. I certainly don't want American forces operating as part of a multi-national operation within Pakistan. However, I also point to THIS comment by Major Davis as salient today-

"We Americans generally consider ourselves defenders of freedom, respecting the rights of others, even willing to shed our blood in defense of those from other nations."

Indeed we do. You can find Americans of that ilk today in Nangahar, Kunar, Paktika, Paktia, and other border provinces of Afghanistan. Those American troops and our allies aren't crossing borders but are daily absorbing assaults directed at the Afghan gov't, it's people and themselves from across the Afghan-Pakistani border and have been since early 2002.

Pakistan is only now awakening to the consequences of harboring these men. Whether we attack with PREDATOR/REAPER or not will not change the gauntlet now tossed by these "miscreants" who operate now, openly, as far east as the periphery of Peshawar and do so with an impunity that's astounding.

Major Davis certainly has his points, and his right to express them. Whether they are central is highly questionable at best. More important is whether his thoughts hold the decisive ground in any debate regarding the sovereignty of Pakistan given the preparedness of so many within Pakistan's government and military to willfully ignore the consequences of selectively exercising the writ of responsibility accompanying sovereignty.

The precedents of North Vietnam and Cambodia once, and now Turkey and the Colombian-Venezuelan border likely weigh more greatly. As such, there will be no multi-national force patrolling the border from within Pakistan. There, however, will be no ceasing of PREDATOR/REAPER any time soon either.

In my view, rightfully so.

Should greater force be needed to compel these attacks to cease, that force should be accompanied by a declaration of war. Such a declaration will require the full engagement of the American people in the debate and an act of Congress to underwrite such action.

Or, if in disagreement, our Pakistani friends can provoke such a discussion now. The assaults from Pakistan are daily clear to all. Four British Royal Marines died today. So too, the underlying reasons. They likely died at the direction of men operating with support from Quetta.

Less clear are the solutions and the time required for them to take hold. One thing certain, those "solutions" won't include Mr. Kagan's prescription. Not yet anyway.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Again, one cannot prescribe policy solutions without comprehending what the end goal is. The end goal cannot be anything but stability and the rule of law for the region. While the death of the 4 Marines is tragic, bravado driving a 'protect our troops at any cost' policy is no substitute for clear thinking and staying focused on the end goal.

It would be incorrect to suggest that the 'Quetta Shura' was specifically and personally responsible for the series of attacks carried out in Afghanistan, just as it would be for suggesting the same about B Mehsud. Mehsud has reportedly been sick for close to a year now. His function, as of OBL's, is more figurehead than some sort of leader, and that applies to the Quetta Shura as well.

As can be seen with the TTP in Pakistan, it is a diffused and decentralized organization, with various local commanders owing loose allegiance to the 'Taliban concept', and local criminal gangs joining in the fray for material gain. Centralized leadership is for the most part non-existent except perhaps when it comes to initiating operations or ceasefires - beyond that it pretty much seems a free for all. What allows this to thrive is instability and lack of government control - so, one would rationally have to conclude that the end goal has to be establishing government control and stability (self evident but bear with me) .

Kagan's polices do nothing of the sort, nor will they at any point in the future, regardless of what discussion the American people and legislature want to have. The one single guaranteed outcome of foreign forces on Pakistani soil is complete chaos and anarchy, and an exponential expansion of the war and extremism, bred out of the chaos of war and instability.

As such, the policy prescriptions suggested by Kagan would move away even further any hopes of stabilization in the region, if that is to be a definition of 'victory'. That said, policy suggestions such as his do serve one purpose, they continue to maintain pressure upon the GoP and PA towards continuing to attempt to regain control of certain areas, and continuing to crack down on certain groups. Any potential for forcing positive change in Kagan's policy prescriptions remains in their continued lack of implementation.

With that said, there is still a dearth of analysis and policy suggestions that seek to deal with the underlying issues behind halfhearted Pakistani support in FATA.

 

[fatman17]

I think the level of co-ordination and co-operation between the tri-lateral armies, NATO/ISAF,ANA and PA is showing results as the "miscreats" are being squeezed from both sides of the border. you will see occassional "raids" of the sort mentioned by S-2 but they will be fewer and fewer as the armies ratchet up the tempo against the miscreats. 3 more brigades of US troops are due in afghanistan just for this purpose. drone strikes will continue to target the "foreign-elements" embedded within the miscreants (which is fine with the PA for now).

We will not see a lull in the ops as winter has already arrived and these bands of miscreants will have no other option but to retreat to the high lands where they will find harsh cold conditions, making survival difficult.

Let not our country follow that self-destructive pattern. Let us instead push the pendulum back in the direction of honor, respect, and nobility. We will find not simply the restoration of our international image, but a safer and more secure future for succeeding generations.

this IMO is a very clear-cut message not only to the new US admn but also to the US population at large.

further, one needs to measure the strategy discussions with what is actually taking place in the theater of operations

 

[TruthSeeker]

Kagan's writings on the Middle East show a heavy bias against the legitimate grievances of Palestinians. He a Jewish American born in Greece. He is associated with William Kristol in the neo-conservative group that pushed for the American invasion of Iraq. I wish that Americans would understand his pro-Israeli bias and not listen to his advice.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

TS,

Thanks for that perspective.

First on Thomas Friedman and now Kagan. I don't always trust myself to make those calls given how biased I am towards one side already.

 

[fatman17]

Kagan's writings on the Middle East show a heavy bias against the legitimate grievances of Palestinians. He a Jewish American born in Greece. He is associated with William Kristol in the neo-conservative group that pushed for the American invasion of Iraq. I wish that Americans would understand his pro-Israeli bias and not listen to his advice.[/QUOTE]

i could be wrong but americans in general dont look at things through the prism you are advocating. religious background!

 

[TruthSeeker]

TS,

Thanks for that perspective.

First on Thomas Friedman and now Kagan. I don't always trust myself to make those calls given how biased I am towards one side already.

AM, perhaps I will take the time, sometime, to make a list for the PDF of the prominent American "journalists" who write for the NY Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Time, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN that are ethnically Jewish. Some are secular and are not overtly Jewish. If you read their writings for a few years you see their bias in favor of Israel in spite of a piece, here and there that is mildly negative to Israel, probably written to maintain an aura of "balance and fairness". Unfortunately, this would be a very long list and would be a big project for me.

 

[TruthSeeker]

QUOTE]

i could be wrong but americans in general dont look at things through the prism you are advocating. religious background!

This is true. But one major reason for the very strong tilt of American ME policy toward Isreal is the clever, biased writings of ethnically Jewish American journalists. They are very adept at proposing analyzes and policy solutions that are in the "best interest" of America (and, also, surprise, surprise of Israel).

 

[S-2]

That's an ad hominem attack and ignores the locale, cause, and recommended prescription.

Criticize based on the merits or otherwise without drawing to ethnicity, religion, or positions on other issues.

Kagan's not off in discussing the issue of sovereign control. He misses the mark on his solution. None of this has anything to do with elsewhere.

 

[TruthSeeker]

That's an ad hominem attack and ignores the locale, cause, and recommended prescription.

I agree, S-2 that it is an ad hominem "point" (not an attack, per se). Nonetheless, it is my opinion. And I think that in judging opinion writings on editorial pages, it is fair game to assess what may be the inherent human frailties and biases of the writers.

And, anyway, I must bid you all good night!

 

[S-2]

"it is fair game to assess what may be the inherent human frailties and biases of the writers."

And following four straight posts by you, might we do the same for one who'd critique so stridently without, again, comment to locale, cause, and proposal and only the writer's views on issues elsewhere?

Bias indeed.

Stay on task, please, lest an agenda by you be evident beyond Kagan's assertion/proposal and Major Davis' retort.

I'm not jewish and have long argued the issue of sovereignty and done so without need of the advice of a jewish columnist or think-tanky type. Off the mark.