Pre-Emptive Or Preventive Strikes The Clarion Call To Chaos?
Message 18087480
I agree with the author the doctrine of pre-emption is a mistake. I agree with him for the reasons he gives, which in a nutshell are: if the doctrine applies for the US, then it applies for everybody. I agree with him for other reasons, as well.
In the past fifty years (except in the case of China) pre-emption has been an exception to policy of both major and minor countries.
The pre-emptive action of Vietnam in Cambodia and that of US in Grenada, were in both cases exceptions to their countries' policy. Good idea, good deed, in both cases.
The general policy of reaction was, and is, always open to exceptions. A single policy will always run into situations it can't cope with.
This has always been understood even by those who criticized the exceptional action. Pre-emption is seen as last resort, not first option. Best to keep things that way. I note Bush is moving in this direction.
But there is a middle part of the article I have problems with.. I made notes which might be interesting.
Arnold admits the situation has changed since end of cold war:
The enemy has changed. We struggled through most of the past half century under the enigmatic threat of the Soviet Union. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the dismemberment of the Union, the so-called "evil empire" was gone. But, as James Woolsey said in his confirmation hearings to be approved as Director of the CIA, what we faced in its place was a "pit of poisonous snakes." Those enemies, small, dispersed, sometimes deadly, difficult to detect, but above all lacking in organized structure, imposed brand new requirements on strategy, tactics, equipment, training, and mindset.
The threat of the Soviets was enigmatic because they were confused: they thought they were more advanced or modern than the West which was going to fall apart because of its inherent contradictions. This was a fundamental error. They were in fact looking backward to an era when rulers and revealed belief were the touch stones of power. But communism was big, visible and a clear threat.
The new adversaries aren't confused. They know they're backward and anti-modern, anti-science and anti-democratic and they value rulers and revealed belief. They're decentralized in operation and violent by inclination. Some of them even say they look forward to dying in a nuclear holocaust. A "pit of poisonous snakes," indeed. In some parts of the world they practice a continuous low profile campaign of murdering all non-believers.
The search of our leadership, as bumbling as statements may sometimes seem, is for clarity. Just what specific challenges do these "poisonous snakes" present to us?
The question isn't the right one. It should be: What is the general challenge - what is their goal? They say their goal is to turn us into peasants, priests and nobility. To destroy modernity. Since they say it and act upon it, we should believe them.
The challenge he's looking at is something along the lines of what challenges for our intelligence and forces. How do we locate, destroy, contain them .
Where and when are they likely to attack, or how?
They attack on two levels. One is obvious: murder of non-believers on a continuous basis everywhere they can get away with it - this happens across Africa, South and East Asia and spectacularly, against the assets and home of modernity, the US. The other is less obvious but still quite visible, they've established branches in most modern countries through which they try to use the customs and institutions of the host to subvert democracy and sciernce.
He's asking what is the next WTC attack, and when?
When they attack, will we be ready to repel them, or will our posture be the shocked and reactive one that followed 9-11?
They are attacking us now, and mostly, we do nothing about it because the attacks are so small and decentralized and we deny their importance, (although this may be changing in Europe). Most commonly, the attacks are against the host countries' educational systems as this is the direct way to attack the modernist culture. Now and again they attack a cultural nerve center/icon, military asset or governmental center (US 09/01, India 12/01).
Where and how can we position ourselves globally to do the most good, meaning most effectively defend ourselves?
It's impossible to really make the modern countries' borders utterly secure and thus Rumsfeld's formula of 'drain the swamp' is applicable.
Close down the islamist mosques and madrassas in our countries and deport the islamist mullahs who aren't citizens. Require all immigrants to learn our languages and make it very clear these are the lands of democracy and we intend to keep them that way through separation of government and religion and if this doesn't seem a satisfactory arrangement they should consider living elsewhere.
Take the conflict to them. They're vulnerable. Defend the Israeli democracy, cherish and promote the potential democracies in Iraq and Iran. And this is the sticking point for the US and some of its allies and for the UN because this is where the ideological, military and terrorism fighting requirements come together: The source of the terrorism is Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt and Pakistan. The modern world needs a site there from which to promote democracy and science and the obvious one is Iraq with its decadent government, secular promotion of terrorism, absurd collection of weapons and significant proportion of citizens willing to be democratic. It smells of pure opportunism but so did 9/11 and it's clear the stakes are high.
And on whom can we truly count?
Good question. It's why I'm against the pre-emptive policy. For sure the British, and the Canadians, (except their government has managed to nearly destroy their armed forces), most European countries, Australia, New Zealand, most South American countries, China, most of the old Soviet block., the Gulf states. Iraq is a radical sticking point for some. Possibly also Algeria, Morocco, Libya and maybe at some point, Sudan. .
On the scale of terrorist challenges of the past few decades, just how much of our blood and treasure should we plan to devote to this enemy?
I'm not sure this question is quite the one needed although this is a far greater terrorism threat than that of 70s or 80s. This terrorism is the most visible part of a vigorous ideology spanning a good part of the world and its terrorists are far less restrained than those sponsored by the old Soviets. They are escalating the size and severity of attacks.
How much blood and treasure was lost on 9/11? How much could have been lost had that last plane hit the Capital? How much would have been lost had the raid on the Indian parliament been successful?
The modern world definitely shouldn't be stingy with treasure
What is our optimum force structure for this?
Don't know but surely more human intelligence, special forces and propaganda vehicles are required.
I gave my own answers to the questions as an exercise. I don't think the way his questions are posed that he is asking the same questions I answered. He wants military answers. This is what he says:
The best answers we can get are derived from honestly played out game scenarios and from hard intelligence on specific threats or events. Neither generates a foolproof set of answers for strategic planning. Everybody, including the terrorist, learns from the past. The answers we do get begin to shift the moment trouble starts, and any plans we have made become less and less well targeted. The best we can do is plan around as broad a range of plausible scenarios as possible, test capabilities against each of them, and make necessary adjustments. Then we should expect that the next real case will somehow be different but still within our ballpark. Perhaps this quandary prompted Winston Churchill to say: "Plans are useless, but planning is essential."
All the above is very good and necessary but it doesn't speak to our greatest need: to shut down the source of the terrorism.
Arnold lists and criticizes assumptions he thinks are behind the desire to pre-emptively attack Iraq.. It's interesting to deal with them.
Each of those assumptions has a problem. The thought that the United States is most threatened would be challenged by the Palestinians, Iraq, East Timor, India, Pakistan, and at least half a dozen other countries
The point is not that the US is threatened, but that the US has been attacked fairly often the last ten years and very severely last year. The likelihood it will be attacked again is high. It should do nothing about it because it's possible the damage may not be relatively great as compared to the damage other countries might suffer if they were attacked? It should do nothing about it because it's capable of responding in a large way?
Because other governments do not share our sense of urgency or importance for attacking Iraq does not mean they lack understanding. It means that so far our arguments have not been persuasive. If we produce convincing evidence, they will listen, and perhaps still disagree that war is the solution
The implication is that the US should not do what it thinks is necessary because other countries don't agree. But they haven't convinced the US government of the lack of necessity, either, have they?
Assumption: don't need international cooperation.Unless we intend to enter Iraq over that short piece of waterfront it has on the Shatt al-Arab, at minimum we need air and overland rights from several countries to get to Iraq
The US does need cooperation but if believes it must undertake the expedition, it could do it, at great cost. It does appear to have some cooperation already from some nations.
If we go it alone, we will forego the support of numerous countries whose leaders can be helpful, and we will be stuck with staying on our own to keep the results together.
Nonetheless there would be some help, both before and afterward. Opportunism alone guarantees this. It's very likely it wouldn't be as great as under some other circumstances.
The enemies we will make are not by any means governments only; the terrorist population aligned against us will increase in many different countries. The risk of a successful attack against us will therefore grow.
It is not clear, at all, that terrorist enemies in the middle east would increase as the result of a successful Iraqi expedition by the US. We are told by terrorists themselves they are much encouraged by US passivity in face of their aggression - "US hasn't stomach to fight back." etc. Right now, it's as easy to make the case terrorism will decrease.
Other countries may do business with us without lifting a finger to help us.
True. Some other countries might.
Attacking Iraq is not an emergency; it is an option.
It may be a least worst option. The west can't seal its borders. It can carry the conflict to its attackers and, if there is a reasonable plan for eventually doing away with the source of the terrorism which is entailed in carrying the conflict forward, then it is the attackers who must work against time. Right now it's the West that has to work against time and that's always a bad option.
We may serve the narrow national interest in removing a presumed threat from Iraq, but at the expense of damaging relations in virtually all parts of the globe.
Will the Japanese, and for that matter the Chinese, really be all that upset? Or the Russians, even - Iraq will still be a market for them. What does the writer suppose would have been the reaction if the 09/11 stunts had been played in Moscow and St Petersburg? They'd be after the ultimate source in the Middle East, I'm sure, with allies or not.
Can someone help me with this following?
Is there, under this convoluted spectrum, a pot of gold? There truly isn't. We can assume that with our far superior forces we will surely win, but it would be foolish to consider this an easy campaign. The Gulf War was said to be a slam-dunk, and battlefield casualties numbered less than 800, but in a Veterans Administration report of May 2002 Gulf War casualties were reported to include 8306 veterans dead and 159,705 veterans injured or ill. When personnel still on active duty are included, the VA indicated in the May 2002 report that a total of 262,586 individuals are "disabled veterans" due to duty in the Gulf and that 10,617 veterans have died of combat related injuries or illnesses since the initiation of the Gulf War. That represents a casualty rate of more than 30% for combat related duties between 1990 and 1991.
What's the story behind these 'post battle' casualties? Was this unique to the Gulf War? I can understand a tank or artillery person being poisoned by uranium dust and fumes from firing and handling the sabots. Was there exposure to other chemicals? My understanding is that the actual number of wounded was relatively low. What counts as "disabled"? What sort of numbers have come from other wars?
One thing the Gulf War did achieve, which Arnold doesn't mention, is deny Saddam his nuclear weapon. I think this is very important and probably saved many lives.
If Saddam has only the help of his Republican Guard divisions, estimated at 120,000 strong, and they defend Baghdad as they are setting up to do, our casualties could be far greater than in the Gulf War.
So take the country and leave Baghdad. It's not going anyplace. Work out means for the civilians to escape. The Iraqi forces don't have the means to both defend and supervise civilians and they can't count on ordinary police who will be intent on getting their own selves and families out.
Even the deterrent may be uncertain. For any rationale for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq to have real credibility, it is essential to get rid of the hypocrisy of the double standards that are implicit in many Bush Administration statements. In addition to Iraq, US leaders have talked about going after Libya, Syria, Iran, Sudan, and North Korea to pre-empt their acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.
Sudan?!! The rationale for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq is unfortunately never completely articulated and it's actually very clear in the case of Iraq. The particular nexus of the country's very nasty ruler and WMDs is what drives the desire to strike there rather than other places - he is a hell of a lot more dangerous than the folk running other countries.
But those countries are well aware that the United States has not threatened the actual owners: ourselves, Britain, France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Israel who, among them, have enough weapons today to return the earth to the stone age.
Apart from possibly Pakistan, these countries don't pose a threat to the US or their neighbours and they aren't run by incredibly dangerous people.
Bush core team members have said repeatedly that Saddam must be made to live up to the 19 or more United Nations resolutions he has not observed. Israel, on the other hand, has ignored more than 30 to date virtually without US comment.
They aren't the same kind of resolutions. He hasn't done his homework or omitted this.
Whatever might be going on behind the scenes, if anything, to get the Israelis to shape up, the public posture of the United States on this issue must be even-handed.
Israel is a democracy struggling with unfortunate people who are proxies for backward non-democracies. The US is being attacked by people who come from these non-democracies which might, politely, be called failed states. Why the hell should it be even handed? The US is the exemplar of modernity (which is why it, and Israel are being attacked) and Israel is the representative of modernity in the ME. It's in the interest of the US and the modern world that Israel triumph. The real threat to the failed states in the region is not Israel but the Palestinians, because they are modernists. And if they ever get out from under the sway of the failed states and make a decent arrangement with the Israelis, it's curtains for the backward bunch.
As a final example of double standards, Saddam has not threatened to use nuclear weapons that he may or may not have. The Israelis have threatened to use them against Saddam, however, and we know the Israelis have the weapons.
With a gun in my hand I'd tell Jeffrey Daumer I will kill him if I even catch him looking at a child of mine. And I would. Arnold doesn't get it. Some regimes are thoroughly bad in just that way.
Nonetheless, I agree with him that pre-emption as a primary policy is a mistake. I also agree that most pre-emptive strikes create horrible problems for attacker and defender.
Nevertheless, pre-emption as an exception is necessary, because without it, at the margins as with Saddam, conventional policy won't be respected and won't work.
Arnold advocates pre-emption be the sole prerogative of the UN, not the US. I don't think the US should be the world policeman, either. But what do you do when you call the cops and they still have not arrived 12 years later? |
