Fighting smarter, not harder
By Rob Asghar
Editorial
The Chicago Tribune
Published January 31, 2003
Victory in the debate between American hawks and doves has been won by the hawks. This is bad news because our hawks are a scrawny bunch and our national security will suffer as a result
To build a better hawk, let's go back to heyday of the Soviet empire. On a November afternoon in 1979, I and a few dozen other terrified teenagers took shelter in the locker room of our American government school in Islamabad, Pakistan. Classmates wailed as we hid from anti-American attackers who were shattering windows and wrecking the school grounds. We emerged unscathed, but we went home to learn that a large mob had destroyed the sprawling American embassy campus on the other side of town. The U.S. evacuated its citizens from Pakistan a few days later.
I later wondered, "Why doesn't this sort of thing ever happen to the Soviets?" The best answer I could come up with then is the best answer I can come up with now: Because the Russians on their best days fought more skillfully than our noisiest hawks do--more ruthlessly, more stealthily, far more likely to scare away another attack.
Soviet citizens and diplomats generally traveled the world free of harassment or threat. This is because of a simple reason: the godless communists could put the fear of God in others. They were "Machiavelli in motion," terrifyingly effective in protecting their interests.
As an editor for leadership gurus who pontificate widely on the art of management, allow me to offer a speculative excerpt of what the great guru Machiavelli would say to a meeting of senior U.S. military officials:
First, fight smarter, not harder. Don't kid yourself. You've got a struggling economy on your hands, you've got homeland security to worry about, and it's hard even to know which allies will be threats to you tomorrow. In other words, you can't invade every nation, you can't pre-empt every threat and you can't convert every rowdy and downtrodden citizenry into a liberal free-market democracy. So here's my solution: Go on about your business, live your lives--and promise massive retaliation whenever you're struck.
Remember that concept? It kept both you and the Soviets in check for four decades. Some of your hawks wanted to pre-emptively bomb the USSR before its nuclear capability caught up to yours. But smarter hawks prevailed, and "mutually assured destruction" preserved order. Soberly threaten Saddam Hussein with the incineration of everything within five miles of him if he takes (or helps others take) American lives. He's crazy, but most crazy people are not suicidal. The only way he'll become a suicide bomber is if you back him into a corner.
When you were attacked on Sept. 11, you should have bombed Afghanistan on Sept. 12, not waited weeks for opposition to mount. You should have followed the advice of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf--an excellent Machiavellian--who urged you to bomb quickly, then go underground and use your intelligence to round up terror suspects. A sensible leader inflicts damage quickly, all at once, as it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Better still, a quick limited strike would have been cathartic for your citizenry.
Pick your battles wisely. Get your people ready for more anarchy to hit home. Retaliate hard, but remember that every other civilization became use to losing some citizenry here and there. Don't let sentiment dictate policy--if you avenged every single insult to your family you'd never get anything else done.
And, dear hawks, don't be so deaf to the concerns of those Europeans and Arabs. After all, men must be cajoled or crushed; if you don't plan to crush them, then be respectful of them. Still, you'll find that your fickle European and Arab allies and semi-allies would find it far easier to swallow my approach than yours.
_______________________________________________________
Rob Asghar is a freelance writer and editor based in Los Angeles
Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune
chicagotribune.com |
