The War on "The War on Terror"

Building on the point of false narratives (below), this is Scott Ritter's sweeping indictment of the "WOT" narrative. Pretty compelling stuff. The full article is definitely worth a read, but here's a snapshot:

"The “war on terror” into which Obama seems to have thrust himself (the most recent manifestation being Yemen) remains the largest obstacle for any rational resolution of America’s problems in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Simply put, so long as the United States seeks an enemy that does not exist, it will always be looking for an enemy in its stead. The “war on terror” has the United States combing the world in search of enemies, and because American policymakers are responsive not to the reality that exists in the world today, but rather the perceptions of an American people largely ignorant of the world in which they live, and paralyzed by the fear such ignorance generates, there will always be countries and causes America will anoint as foe."

... the solution to these problems rests not in defining new parameters for action, but rather in the definition of the basic problems faced. From an overarching perspective, the United States needs to realize that there is no “war on terror,” and as such no “enemy” for us to close with and destroy. The human condition has always produced those who would seek to do harm to society. Norms and standards have been adopted, in almost universal fashion, that define how humans, organized into communities and nations, should interact in dealing with such deviations. This body of rules and regulations is collectively “the rule of law,” the principle of which defines modern society.

Deviations from the “rule of law” are best dealt with in collective fashion by those who share not only common values but also a common interest in such a resolution. Giving a criminal element, whether in the form of al-Qaida or a drug lord, the status of community or nation by waging “war” against it represents a failure to define the problem properly, leading inevitably to solutions that solve nothing. The answer to 9/11 is not war, but rather the “rule of law.” Until this underlying premise is recognized and adopted by U.S. policymakers, the psychosis of war will continue to corrupt American policy, and with it American society."

His solution in a nutshell: drop the WOT BS and deal with Palestine and Kashmir- the real issues.

Full Article

Preach this Evangel

Anatomy of Obama's Defining Moment

In case you missed it over the weekend:

NY Times piece on Obama's decision-making process.

And an excellent PBS Frontline documentary on the AfPak realities including poignant coverage of the US Marines and their experience in Helmand Province:

Afghanistan: A "Defining Moment"

Over the last few days I've been reading a paperback from the Harvard Business Review entitled On Leadership. The book is just one publication in a long series "designed to bring today's managers and professionals the fundamental information they need to stay competitive in a fast-moving world"- according to the inside flap anyway. As someone relatively detached from the formal world of business and management, I've found most of the book's entries (written by various "esteemed" authors) pleasantly succinct and insightful. Most pieces are eminently digestible and quite relevant to the world at-large. In my reading, one in particular jumped out at me: "The Discipline of Building Character."

I usually skip over any literature that prominently features the word "discipline" or "character", but upon reading the ever-handy "executive summary", I found myself intrigued by the author's conception of a "defining moment." Written by a renowned Business Ethics professor at HBS, the article makes a fundamental distinction between an "ethical decision" and a "defining moment". In the former case, the decision typically involves choosing between two options, one we know to be right and the other to be wrong (in an ethical sense). The later, more interestingly, involves making critical decisions where there is no "right" answer, but rather a number of difficult alternatives with varying and often imperceptible degrees of "rightness". In such cases, the author explains: "no matter which option we choose, we feel like we've come up short." The author's argument is that these so-called defining moments, taken cumulatively over one's life, form the basis of an individual's character.

I like this assertion. Over the course of all our lives, the crucible of character building is more often than not a catalogue of painstaking, introspective decisions. These moments challenge and reveal our core values, our integrity, and our identity. Fundamentally, they are a critical test of authenticity. Who am I? No facade, no bullshit. I think it's fair to say that Afghanistan presents Obama with such a moment writ large. I've followed the so-called AfPak policy making process very closely, and I still struggle haplessly with the search for a profoundly superior course of action. Of course, I'm not privy to the entire US national security apparatus, but I think most candid observers will acknowledge that our options are "not good", "bad", and "worse". I dismiss the knee-jerk capitulation of many politicians to McCrystal's troop request. It wreaks of typical party politics and unvirtuous expediency. In the end, this may be the "best" course of action, but the gravity of this decision demands intense, conscientious deliberation attended by all relevant parties. My hope is that this is what has occurred over the past few weeks.

The unfortunate reality is that we've painted ourselves in a corner in Afghanistan. Like the proverbial red-headed step child, we've ignored it, under-fed it, and starved it of any discipline. Our policy has been adrift for years without any clear sense of military vision or attainable objective. Is it really surprising that the situation has deteriorated drastically? The constellation of serviceable policy options that once existed has now shrunk to a handful of pathetically dour alternatives. I have absolutely no envy for the President's position, but a fine respect for his character. Solemnly, he will do what he thinks is right.

On a final note, it is my sense that the AfPak problem is virtually unmanageable as far as the US is concerned. However, when you are dealing with nuclear weapons (as we are in Pakistan), the risk of simple withdrawal is too high given the current level of instability. The question is, then, can we leave when things are "stable" (whenever this is), or will our leaving cause renewed instability? Are we in for a semi-permanent occupation? And if the long-term goal of this occupation is some sort of stability provided by pseudo-democratic governance and economic development (which is the real problem, along with education/literacy), can this be achieved with our presence. Maybe, but not at the barrel of a gun. Any sustainable solution will involve extraordinary cultural and economic changes that will take generations to occur and will require the involvement of a dedicated multinational coalition. Are we ready, as a global community, to commit trillions more dollars and hundreds more lives? Or will we lose our collective interest (again) once the issue has escaped the media spotlight?

Preach this Evangel