Safe Mode: On
Avoiding the Wars That Never End - January 15, 2013 - Stratfor
 Part of channel(s): Afghanistan (current event)

Another interesting read from stratfor for us politically interested Liveleakers.

Enjoy it!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Avoiding the Wars That Never End


By George Friedman

Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that the United
States would transfer the primary responsibility for combat operations
in Afghanistan to the Afghan military in the coming months, a major step
toward the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Also last week, France began an intervention in Mali
designed to block jihadists from taking control of the country and
creating a base of operations in France's former African colonies.
The two events are linked in a way that transcends the issue of
Islamist insurgency and points to a larger geopolitical shift. The
United States is not just drawing down its combat commitments; it is moving away from the view
that it has the primary responsibility for trying to manage the world
on behalf of itself, the Europeans and its other allies. Instead, that
burden is shifting to those who have immediate interests involved.
Insecurity in 9/11's Wake
It is interesting to recall how the United States involved itself in
Afghanistan. After 9/11, the United States was in shock and lacked clear
intelligence on al Qaeda. It did not know what additional capabilities
al Qaeda had or what the group's intentions were. Lacking intelligence, a
political leader has the obligation to act on worst-case scenarios
after the enemy has demonstrated hostile intentions and capabilities.
The possible scenarios ranged from additional sleeper cells operating
and awaiting orders in the United States to al Qaeda having obtained
nuclear weapons to destroy cities. When you don't know, it is both
prudent and psychologically inevitable to plan for the worst.
The United States had sufficient information to act in Afghanistan.
It knew that al Qaeda was operating in Afghanistan and that disrupting
the main cell was a useful step in taking some action against the
threat. However, the United States did not immediately invade
Afghanistan. It bombed the country extensively and inserted limited
forces on the ground, but the primary burden of fighting the Taliban
government was in the hands of anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan that
had been resisting the Taliban and in the hands of other forces that
could be induced to act against the Taliban. The Taliban gave up the
cities and prepared for a long war. Al Qaeda's command cell left
Afghanistan and shifted to Pakistan.
The United States achieved its primary goal early on. That goal was
not to deny al Qaeda the ability to operate in Afghanistan, an objective
that would achieve nothing. Rather, the goal was to engage al Qaeda and
disrupt its command-and-control structure as a way to degrade the
group's ability to plan and execute additional attacks. The move to Pakistan
at the very least bought time, and given continued pressure on the main
cell, allowed the United States to gather more intelligence about al
Qaeda assets around the world.
This second mission -- to identify al Qaeda assets around the world
-- required a second effort. The primary means of identifying them was
through their electronic communications, and the United States proceeded
to create a vast technological mechanism designed to detect
communications and use that detection to identify and capture or kill al
Qaeda operatives. The problem with this technique -- really the only
one available -- was that it was impossible to monitor al Qaeda's
communications without monitoring everyone's. If there was a needle in
the haystack, the entire haystack had to be examined. This was a radical
shift in the government's relationship to the private communications of
citizens. The justification was that at a time of war, in which the
threat to the United States was uncertain and possibly massive, these
measures were necessary.
This action was not unique in American history. Abraham Lincoln
violated the Constitution in several ways during the Civil War, from
suspending the right to habeas corpus to blocking the Maryland
Legislature from voting on a secession measure. Franklin Roosevelt
allowed the FBI to open citizens' mail and put Japanese-Americans into
internment camps. The idea that civil liberties must be protected in
time of war is not historically how the United States, or most
countries, operate. In that sense there was nothing unique in the
decision to monitor communications in order to find al Qaeda and stop
attacks. How else could the needle be found in the haystack? Likewise,
detention without trial was not unique. Lincoln and Roosevelt both
resorted to it.
The Civil War and World War II were different from the current
conflict, however, because their conclusions were clear and decisive.
The wars would end, one way or another, and so would the suspension of
rights. Unlike those wars, the war in Afghanistan was extended
indefinitely by the shift in strategy from disrupting al Qaeda's command
cell to fighting the Taliban
to building a democratic society in Afghanistan. With the second step,
the U.S. military mission changed its focus and increased its presence
massively, and with the third, the terminal date of the war became very
far away.
But there was a broader issue. The war in Afghanistan was not the
main war. Afghanistan happened to be the place where al Qaeda was
headquartered on Sept. 11, 2001. The country was not essential to al
Qaeda, and creating a democratic society there -- if it were even
possible -- would not necessarily weaken al Qaeda. Even destroying al
Qaeda would not prevent new Islamist organizations or individuals from rising up.
A New Kind of War
The main war was not against one specific terrorist group, but rather
against an idea: the radical tendency in Islamism. Most Muslims are not
radicals, but any religion with 1 billion adherents will have its share
of extremists. The tendency is there, and it is deeply rooted. If the
goal of the war were the destruction of this radical tendency, then it
was not going to happen. While the risk of attacks could be reduced --
and indeed there were no further 9/11s despite repeated attempts in the
United States -- there was no way to eliminate the threat. No matter how
many divisions were deployed, no matter how many systems for electronic
detection were created, they could only mitigate the threat, not
eliminate it. Therefore, what some called the Long War really became permanent war.
The means by which the war was pursued could not result in victory.
They could, however, completely unbalance U.S. strategy by committing
massive resources to missions not clearly connected with preventing
Islamist terrorism. It also created a situation where emergency
intrusions on critical portions of the Bill of Rights -- such as the
need to obtain a warrant for certain actions -- became a permanent
feature. Permanent war makes for permanent temporary measures.
The break point came, in my opinion, in about 2004. Around that time,
al Qaeda was unable to mount attacks on the United States despite
multiple efforts. The war in Afghanistan had dislodged al Qaeda and
created the Karzai government. The invasion of Iraq -- whatever the
rationale might have been -- clearly produced a level of resistance that
the United States could not contain or could contain only by making
agreements with its enemies in Iraq. At that point, a radical rethinking
of the war had to take place. It did not.
The radical rethinking had to do not with Iraq or Afghanistan, but
rather with what to do about a permanent threat to the United States,
and indeed to many other countries, posed by the global networks of
radical Islamists prepared to carry out terrorist attacks. The threat
would not go away, and it could not be eliminated. At the same time, it did not threaten the existence of the republic.
The 9/11 attacks were atrocious, but they did not threaten the survival
of the United States in spite of the human cost. Combating the threat
required a degree of proportionality so the fight could be maintained on
an ongoing basis, without becoming the only goal of U.S. foreign policy
or domestic life. Mitigation was the only possibility; the threat would
have to be endured.
Washington found a way to achieve this balance in the past, albeit
against very different sorts of threats. The United States emerged as a
great power in the early 20th century. During that time, it fought three
wars: World War I, World War II and the Cold War, which included Korea,
Vietnam and other, smaller engagements. In World War I and World War
II, the United States waited for events to unfold, and in Europe in
particular it waited until the European powers reached a point where
they could not deal with the threat of German hegemony without American
intervention. In both instances, it intervened heavily only late in the
war, at the point where the Germans had been exhausted by other European
powers. It should be remembered that the main American push in World
War II did not take place until the summer of 1944. The American
strategy was to wait and see whether the Europeans could stabilize the
situation themselves, using distance to mobilize as late as possible and
intervene decisively only at the critical moment.
The critics of this approach, particularly prior to World War II,
called it isolationism. But the United States was not isolationist; it
was involved in Asia throughout this period. Rather, it saw itself as
being the actor of last resort, capable of acting at the decisive moment
with overwhelming force because geography had given the United States
the option of time and resources.
During the Cold War, the United States modified this strategy. It
still depended on allies, but it now saw itself as the first responder.
Partly this could be seen in U.S. nuclear strategy. This could also be
seen in Korea and Vietnam, where allies played subsidiary roles, but the
primary effort was American. The Cold War was fought on a different set
of principles than the two world wars.
The Cold War strategy was applied to the war against radical
Islamism, in which the United States -- because of 9/11 but also because
of a mindset that could be seen in other interventions -- was the first
responder. Other allies followed the United States' lead and provided
support to the degree to which they felt comfortable. The allies could
withdraw without fundamentally undermining the war effort. The United
States could not.
The approach in the U.S.-jihadist war was a complete reversal from
the approach taken in the two world wars. This was understandable given
that it was triggered by an unexpected and catastrophic event, the
reponse to which flowed from a lack of intelligence. When Japan struck
Pearl Harbor, emotions were at least as intense, but U.S. strategy in
the Pacific was measured and cautious. And the enemy's capabilities were
much better understood.
Stepping Back as Global Policeman
The United States cannot fight a war against radical Islamism and
win, and it certainly cannot be the sole actor in a war waged primarily
in the Eastern Hemisphere. This is why the French intervention in Mali
is particularly interesting. France retains interests in its former
colonial empire in Africa, and Mali is at the geographic center of these
interests. To the north of Mali is Algeria, where France has
significant energy investments; to the east of Mali is Niger, where
France has a significant stake in the mining of mineral resources,
particularly uranium; and to the south of Mali is Ivory Coast, where
France plays a major role in cocoa production. The future of Mali
matters to France far more than it matters to the United States.
What is most interesting is the absence of the United States in the
fight, even if it is providing intelligence and other support, such as
mobilizing ground forces from other African countries. The United States
is not acting as if this is its fight; it is acting as if this is the
fight of an ally, whom it might help in extremis, but not in a time when
U.S. assistance is unnecessary. And if the French can't mount an
effective operation in Mali, then little help can be given.
This changing approach is also evident in Syria, where the United States has systematically avoided anything beyond limited and covert assistance,
and Libya, where the United States intervened after the French and
British launched an attack they could not sustain. That was, I believe, a
turning point, given the unsatisfactory outcome there. Rather than
accepting a broad commitment against radical Islamism everywhere, the
United States is allowing the burden to shift to powers that have direct
interests in these areas.
Reversing a strategy is difficult. It is uncomfortable for any power
to acknowledge that it has overreached, which the United States did both
in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is even more difficult to acknowledge that
the goals set by President George W. Bush in Iraq and Obama in
Afghanistan lacked coherence. But clearly the war has run its course,
and what is difficult is also obvious. We are not going to eliminate the
threat of radical Islamism. The commitment of force to an unattainable
goal twists national strategy out of shape and changes the fabric of
domestic life. Obviously, overwatch must be in place against the
emergence of an organization like al Qaeda, with global reach,
sophisticated operatives and operational discipline. But this is very
different from responding to jihadists in Mali, where the United States
has limited interests and fewer resources.
Accepting an ongoing threat
is also difficult. Mitigating the threat of an enemy rather than
defeating the enemy outright goes against an impulse. But it is not
something alien to American strategy. The United States is involved in
the world, and it can't follow the founders' dictum of staying out of
European struggles. But the United States has the option of following
U.S. strategy in the two world wars. The United States was patient,
accepted risks and shifted the burden to others, and when it acted, it
acted out of necessity, with clearly defined goals matched by
capabilities. Waiting until there is no choice but to go to war is not
isolationism. Allowing others to carry the primary risk is not
disengagement. Waging wars that are finite is not irresponsible.
The greatest danger of war is what it can do to one's own society,
changing the obligations of citizens and reshaping their rights. The
United States has always done this during wars, but those wars would
always end. Fighting a war that cannot end reshapes domestic life
permanently. A strategy that compels engagement everywhere will exhaust a
country. No empire can survive the imperative of permanent, unwinnable
warfare. It is fascinating to watch the French deal with Mali. It is
even more fascinating to watch the United States wishing them well and
mostly staying out of it. It has taken about 10 years, but here we can
see the American system stabilize itself by mitigating the threats that
can't be eliminated and refusing to be drawn into fights it can let
others handle.


Added: Jan-15-2013 
By: AngryAryan
In:
Afghanistan
Tags: America, Europe, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Syria, Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Obama, Barrack, Ron Paul, Ron, Paul, Rand Paul, Rand, Paul, Joe Biden, Biden, Joe, Congress, Senate, corruption, currency, dollar, markets, war,
Views: 2433 | Comments: 39 | Votes: 1 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 8 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE