So this is your "strategy", eh Jacob?
Let's review it for efficacy and pertinence, shall we?
1. 10% Force; 90% persuasion (instead of the other way around). Economic leverage, HeartsAndMinds campaign.
Sounds good on it's face... But let's apply it to certain select major events the US and UN has faced together..
With regard to Desert Storm, how about the eviction of invading Iraqi from Kuwait in 1991. Your "10% solution" would have meant that only 50,000 US troops would have been amassed around Kuwait, as compared to the 300,000 Iraqi troops directly in (or in close proximity to) to Kuwait.
Very persuasive indeed...
What about Korea?... It would have meant defending the south with 10% of the forces the UN amassed to fend off those invading Koreans and Chinese, with no US invasion of Inchon.
2. Multilateralism. Alone, we lose.
Do you believe the French intransigence towards forcing Saddam's government was "multi-lateral"? Well, maybe it was, since Germany and Russia stood along side them, drooling over those lucrative oil contracts Saddam was dangling in their faces.
But the US applied the multi-lateral approach with regard to obtaining every BINDING UNSC resolution against Iraq. And it obtained a consensus in almost every one of them as to facts related to Iraq's continuing violation of the cease-fire agreement.
But when it came to actually obtaining something the UNSC had never issued previously, a UNSC resolution specifically authorizing use of military force, with the possibility of regime change, the US faced opposition from France, Russia, and Germany, the first two having veto ability. But who can blame them given the debt owed to them by Iraq, and those lucrative oil contracts.
3. Strict Reciprocity (with Intermittent Forgiveness), when dealing with hostile nations/organizations. No preventive wars. Recognize that Containment/Deterrance worked with Stalin and Mao, and will probably work with Iran and N. Korea also.
Ok... so when a nation invades another nation, as in the case of both Korea and Iraq, the UN should IMMEDIATELY AUTHORIZE a counter-invasion? That's sounds like "strict reciprocity" to me..
What about when N. Korea drills invasion tunnels under the border to the south? Should S. Korea build tunnels heading north?
When N. Korea uses mini-subs to place spies in the south, should Seoul reciprocate?
When N. Korea attacks S. Korean fishing vessels, should S. Korea reciprocate?
When N. Korea shoots S. Korean soldiers across the DMZ, should the south reciprocate?
When N. Korea threatens to build nuclear weapons, should Seoul reciprocate?
When N. Korea launches missiles over Japan, should Japan reciprocate?
Should Japan kidnap N. Korean civilians?
And should the US take Iranians hostage and hold them for 444 days?
And does not your concept of "reciprocity" justify Israel's retaliatory attacks against Hamas and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, as well as their attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon?
I think that's enough for this particular response.. I'll respond to your other points in another post..
Hawk |
