GWOT - Where should we go from here?
On 06 November 2001, President Bush stated, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." This fiery attitude, subsequent direct US action or internal politics brought democracy to Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Ukraine, and Georgia. It also resulted in democratic elections in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to one extent or another.
However, currently it seems that these countries are either not progressing towards further towards democracy, are too unstable to progress further towards democracy, or are on the verge of turning back to darker times. In many respects it seems that Islamists are also gaining an advantage now, especially given the recent truce with the Taliban in Pakistan, Islamists gains in Somalia, and Iranian defiance and continued development of nuclear weapons.
What has happened between November 2001 and November 2006, five years later? Why did this push for democracy stall? Has it stalled?
Given the swift and overwhelming victories first in Afghanistan and then Iraq by US forces in overthrowing evil regimes, most people in the US, if not the world, believed in early 2003, that democracy would rise in the world, peace would come to the Middle East, and evil government would be overthrown in other countries. However, a few years later, we are seeing insurgency and terrorism on the rise and not subsiding. Why?
For the sake of brevity, I will focus on Iraq during this article. In addition, Iraq has become the central front for the war on terror for both the Islamists and America. As Iraq goes, so goes the rest of the Global War on Terror.
First and foremost, the US rested on its sweeping conventional victory believing that all people wanted freedom if only given the chance. The US gave Iraqi's the chance but it was not prepared for actions by other players in the regions.
Sunni Salafists, like Bin Laden, wanted American influence out of the Middle East, namely Saudi Arabia. This is why Bin Laden ordered the 9/11 attacks. He believed a decisive blow to America would turn them inward and reduce their influence in the Middle East. What he got however, was the destruction of his safe haven, Afghanistan, and Americans occupying Iraq in force. Far from persuading Americans to leave the Middle East, he now had almost 200,000 Americans stationed in the Middle East. To counteract this rise in American forces, he sent Sunni Salafists into Iraq to start an insurgency. America, for its part, has done well in countering this insurgency. However, Bin Laden has also done well at keeping it alive. Right now, we are in essentially a stalemate with no end in sight. At times the insurgency is able to strike dynamic blows to American objectives. At other times it appears on its last leg. One major success that Bin Laden has been able to secure is in tying up US forces in Iraq to prevent further attacks elsewhere.
Iran, for its part, did not have an issue with staying out of the fight in Afghanistan in 2001 as the Taliban were a force allong its eastern border it wanted to rid itself of anyway. Similarly, it had no issue with staying out of the fight in early 2003. Iran's Khomeinist regime was counter-balanced by Saddam's secular Sunni government for several years. With Saddam gone, Iraq would become another Shi'ite state. After the fall of Saddam and the establishment of a Shi'ite regime, Iran could diplomatically increase its influence over Iraq. As the US became tied up in an Sunni insurgency, action against Iran (as an Axis of Evil) decreased since US troops were tied up in Iraq. Iran felt it could freely develop nuclear weapons and increase its control over the Middle East.
However, with European nations seeking sanctions against Iran for its nuclear work, the loss of Lebanon after the Cedar Revolution in 2005, and a secular anti-Khomeinist Shi'ite government developing in Iraq, Iran saw its cresent waning and the Sunni Salafists movement strengthening. Iran had to react and react it did.
Between December 2005 and January 2006, Iran strengthened its alliance with Syria, the Islamic Jihad, Hamas' Meshaal, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Sadr. More than anything, it began a chain of events in the Middle East to bring about the rise of the Shi'ite crescent. In this time, Hezbollah withstood a withering attack by Israel after the kidnapping of two of its Soldiers along the Lebanon border. Syria has overtly shunned its other Arab neighbors. Sadr has been able to move the Iraqi government from a secular regime to a more religious one through his political influence and militia. In turn, Sunni Salafist are ramping up their attacks.
During 2006, the unlikely similar objectives of Sunni Salafists and Khomeinist Shi'ites has resulted in the US fighting two insurgencies now instead of just one. As a result, the Shi'ite crescent has risen in the heart of the Middle East and Sunni Salafists power has increase in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And US forces are still tied up battling an insurgency, unable to reposition assets to other areas to prevent this rise.
So, where do we go from here?
2007 will see a continual rise in both Salafist and Khomeinist power as long as their goals are complimentary and as long as the safe havens for both of these groups are not threatened. We cannot change their goals and therefore cannot indirectly impact this area. However, we can threaten their safehavens.
Iran is helping Sadr and the Shi'ite part of the insurgency. While we do not have the ground forces to mount an offensive into Iran, a military strike against Iranian nuclear targets by air forces and a naval blockcade in the Strait of Hormuz with a stern message to Khamenei and Ahmadinejad could significantly quell Iranian involvement in Iraq. By naval blockcage, I am not talking about not allowing shipping into/our of the area, but instead controlling Iranian off shore platforms and prevention of gasoline imports to Iran. A similar air strike in Syria along the Lebanon border to prevent the rearmanent of Hezbollah with a stern message will also prevent this neighbor from supporting the Salafist insurgency in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Similarly, both strikes will show US resolve in the region, would limit Khomeinists from influencing the insurgency in Iraq, and ensure Lebanon stays a democratically elected power without Syrian influence.
These strikes would also remind Pakistan not to play too nice with the Taliban in its own country.
Finally, we should aid Ethiopia in an offensive against Somalia Islamists. This will give Bin Laden many fronts he would have to fight for to save.
What do we need to do to win the Global War on Terror?
First and foremost, we need to think globally. Bin Laden is, so is Iran.
Secondly, we need to fight this war where it is being influenced at, namely, Iran and Syria.
Thirdly, we need to fight it with resolve. If we are not showing resolve, it is hard for our allies too.
However, currently it seems that these countries are either not progressing towards further towards democracy, are too unstable to progress further towards democracy, or are on the verge of turning back to darker times. In many respects it seems that Islamists are also gaining an advantage now, especially given the recent truce with the Taliban in Pakistan, Islamists gains in Somalia, and Iranian defiance and continued development of nuclear weapons.
What has happened between November 2001 and November 2006, five years later? Why did this push for democracy stall? Has it stalled?
Given the swift and overwhelming victories first in Afghanistan and then Iraq by US forces in overthrowing evil regimes, most people in the US, if not the world, believed in early 2003, that democracy would rise in the world, peace would come to the Middle East, and evil government would be overthrown in other countries. However, a few years later, we are seeing insurgency and terrorism on the rise and not subsiding. Why?
For the sake of brevity, I will focus on Iraq during this article. In addition, Iraq has become the central front for the war on terror for both the Islamists and America. As Iraq goes, so goes the rest of the Global War on Terror.
First and foremost, the US rested on its sweeping conventional victory believing that all people wanted freedom if only given the chance. The US gave Iraqi's the chance but it was not prepared for actions by other players in the regions.
Sunni Salafists, like Bin Laden, wanted American influence out of the Middle East, namely Saudi Arabia. This is why Bin Laden ordered the 9/11 attacks. He believed a decisive blow to America would turn them inward and reduce their influence in the Middle East. What he got however, was the destruction of his safe haven, Afghanistan, and Americans occupying Iraq in force. Far from persuading Americans to leave the Middle East, he now had almost 200,000 Americans stationed in the Middle East. To counteract this rise in American forces, he sent Sunni Salafists into Iraq to start an insurgency. America, for its part, has done well in countering this insurgency. However, Bin Laden has also done well at keeping it alive. Right now, we are in essentially a stalemate with no end in sight. At times the insurgency is able to strike dynamic blows to American objectives. At other times it appears on its last leg. One major success that Bin Laden has been able to secure is in tying up US forces in Iraq to prevent further attacks elsewhere.
Iran, for its part, did not have an issue with staying out of the fight in Afghanistan in 2001 as the Taliban were a force allong its eastern border it wanted to rid itself of anyway. Similarly, it had no issue with staying out of the fight in early 2003. Iran's Khomeinist regime was counter-balanced by Saddam's secular Sunni government for several years. With Saddam gone, Iraq would become another Shi'ite state. After the fall of Saddam and the establishment of a Shi'ite regime, Iran could diplomatically increase its influence over Iraq. As the US became tied up in an Sunni insurgency, action against Iran (as an Axis of Evil) decreased since US troops were tied up in Iraq. Iran felt it could freely develop nuclear weapons and increase its control over the Middle East.
However, with European nations seeking sanctions against Iran for its nuclear work, the loss of Lebanon after the Cedar Revolution in 2005, and a secular anti-Khomeinist Shi'ite government developing in Iraq, Iran saw its cresent waning and the Sunni Salafists movement strengthening. Iran had to react and react it did.
Between December 2005 and January 2006, Iran strengthened its alliance with Syria, the Islamic Jihad, Hamas' Meshaal, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Sadr. More than anything, it began a chain of events in the Middle East to bring about the rise of the Shi'ite crescent. In this time, Hezbollah withstood a withering attack by Israel after the kidnapping of two of its Soldiers along the Lebanon border. Syria has overtly shunned its other Arab neighbors. Sadr has been able to move the Iraqi government from a secular regime to a more religious one through his political influence and militia. In turn, Sunni Salafist are ramping up their attacks.
During 2006, the unlikely similar objectives of Sunni Salafists and Khomeinist Shi'ites has resulted in the US fighting two insurgencies now instead of just one. As a result, the Shi'ite crescent has risen in the heart of the Middle East and Sunni Salafists power has increase in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And US forces are still tied up battling an insurgency, unable to reposition assets to other areas to prevent this rise.
So, where do we go from here?
2007 will see a continual rise in both Salafist and Khomeinist power as long as their goals are complimentary and as long as the safe havens for both of these groups are not threatened. We cannot change their goals and therefore cannot indirectly impact this area. However, we can threaten their safehavens.
Iran is helping Sadr and the Shi'ite part of the insurgency. While we do not have the ground forces to mount an offensive into Iran, a military strike against Iranian nuclear targets by air forces and a naval blockcade in the Strait of Hormuz with a stern message to Khamenei and Ahmadinejad could significantly quell Iranian involvement in Iraq. By naval blockcage, I am not talking about not allowing shipping into/our of the area, but instead controlling Iranian off shore platforms and prevention of gasoline imports to Iran. A similar air strike in Syria along the Lebanon border to prevent the rearmanent of Hezbollah with a stern message will also prevent this neighbor from supporting the Salafist insurgency in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Similarly, both strikes will show US resolve in the region, would limit Khomeinists from influencing the insurgency in Iraq, and ensure Lebanon stays a democratically elected power without Syrian influence.
These strikes would also remind Pakistan not to play too nice with the Taliban in its own country.
Finally, we should aid Ethiopia in an offensive against Somalia Islamists. This will give Bin Laden many fronts he would have to fight for to save.
What do we need to do to win the Global War on Terror?
First and foremost, we need to think globally. Bin Laden is, so is Iran.
Secondly, we need to fight this war where it is being influenced at, namely, Iran and Syria.
Thirdly, we need to fight it with resolve. If we are not showing resolve, it is hard for our allies too.
posted by Lieutenant Colonel Caveman at Sunday, November 26, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home