Secretary of Defense designate Chuck Hagel |
“They say they are Muslims, but I don’t know any Muslim who does not pray,” Mr. Diallo said.
A comment by Boubacar
Diallo, a resident of Gao, after French and Malian forces expelled Ansar al-Din rebels
from the northen Malian city this past January 26th.
The brouhaha surrounding the nomination of Chuck Hagel to
replace Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense has centered around his views on
whether military force should be used to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons and his views on Israel. It
seems clear that attacks on Hagel for his purported unwillingness to be tough
with Iran and assertions that he does not support Israel are unwarranted.
What is lost in the debate over Hagel’s
qualifications to become Secretary of Defense is the new reality of the US’ position
in the Middle East and on the larger world stage. What is the relationship between Hagel’s
nomination, the current conflict in Mali and, going forward, US foreign policy in
the Middle East?
It is clear from the ongoing budget cuts at the
Department of Defense which will result in 46000 layoffs of full-time and
part-time employees, and the general pairing down of expenditures on the
military, especially if the next sequester is not avoided, that the US’ capacity
to deploy troops in multiple theaters of war will be severely constrained in
the future. Clearly, US forces have been
stretched thin in fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone opening
a new front in Mali and north central Africa.
Intuitively, those who want to sustain a robust US
military presence in the Middle East and elsewhere – often subsumed under the
rubric, “neo-conservative” - understand that the Hagel nomination indicates that
the US military policy has turned the corner and is entering new uncharted
waters. While this does not mean that the
US will become isolationist , it does mean that the use of military force will become
a rarity in the future. When military
force is deployed, it will most likely come through a policy of “leading from
behind,” as occurred in the deposing of Libyan dictator, Muammar al-Qaddafi.
Events in Mali indicate the complexities US foreign
policy faces in the Middle East. The first word that must dominate any military
strategic plan is “sustained conflict.”
In other words, the French intervention in Mali, which is backed by US
air support in ferrying troops and supplies,
cannot be limited to a quick “strike and withdraw.” In the face of French and African forces, Ansar al-Din rebels, and their leader, Iyad Ag Ghahl, have faded into their mountain redoubts
in the Adrar des Ifoghas mountain ordering Algeria and Niger. Only
those with knowledge of the local terrain will be able to ferret these
irregular forces out of their caves and other hiding places.
Much of what is happening in Mali is the result of a
volatile mix of young men who lack employment opportunities, groups which have
longstanding ethnic grievances – in this instance the
Tuareg, who have formed the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad
(MNLA) – and a dysfunctional Malian military which overthrew a democratically elected
government but subsequently has been unable to rule the country or secure its
territory.
The large weapons systems that the US has relied
upon in the past will no longer be useful for combating armed insurgencies such
as the ongoing conflict in northern Mali and south western Algeria. Barack Obama is ahead of the curve in
realizing – unlike his neo-conservative critics – that the world has changed,
both in terms of the type of warfare that the US will increasingly in the
future and the capacity of the US to contain such insurgencies such as we see in
Mali, both financially and in terms of (wo)manpower.
Thus Chuck Hagel is emblematic of a new foreign
policy in which the use of massive military force will be limited to dire
circumstances in which the national security of the United States is directly threatened. Reliance on drones, special forces, and
internationally constituted military coalitions, such as those formed in Libya
and now in Mali, will become the new normal.
This policy orientation will be supplemented by “cultural warfare” (the
hackneyed but critical need to “win hearts and minds") as the US trains more of
its college graduates in knowledge of foreign cultures, and critical languages,
such as Arabic, Farsi, Pashto and Chinese, among others, and deploys them as
analysts and embassy personnel where they will need to address conflicts, such as those
arising from ethnic grievances, in a proactive manner.
Of course, those who would like to see the US strike
Iran do not only seek to seriously damage its nuclear weapons program but to also
send a message to other would-be rogue states which seek to become nuclear
powers such as North Korea. Despite
Hagel’s assertions that he would consider an attack on Iran if it acquires
nuclear weapons, the probability that President Obama would authorize such an
attack is extremely low. The Obama
administration knows that such an attack would have disastrous consequences, not only for the stability of the Persian Gulf
and the larger Middle East, but for international energy prices which would
skyrocket in the wake of such an attack, further destabilizing a weak global
economy.
Cultural warfare, in the form of public diplomacy, e.g., increasing educational opportunities for Middle Eastern students in the US and the West, must extend to the political realm. If Kurds in Turkey feel their grievances are being addressed, they will not support the violence-oriented PKK. Sunni Arabs, in the so-called Sunni Arab Triangle of north central Iraq, will not support al-Qa’ida or the Islamic State of Iraq, and the Tuareg in northern Mali and southern Algeria will not fight alongside radical forces (indeed the MNLA has cut its ties with Ansar al-Din because it has come to realize that the organization is not interested in helping the Tuareg address their ethnic grievances).
Once again, Barack Obama has demonstrated his political
savvy in foreign policy decision-making by appointing John Kerry to be
Hillary Clinton’s replacement as Secretary of State and Chuck Hagel to replace
Leon Panetta at Defense. Those who fret
about the US’ reduced military role in the world should be thankful that the
Obama administration is developing a new approach to the Middle East that is not
only be more cost effective in implementing US foreign policy goals in the region,
but, more importantly, will save American lives.
As the quote at the beginning of this post
indicates, those who live under the rule of Ansar al-Din, or other
radical “Islamist” groups (I put Islamist in quotes because these groups really
have nothing to do with Islam), universally reject their authority. Being whipped, mutilated, having fingers cut
off when found smoking, being prevented from watching soccer matches on TV, and
women being forbidden from leaving their homes unless they follow strict dress
codes and are accompanied by male relatives, has thoroughly alienated those who
have experienced such “Islamist” rule.
Groups like Ansar al-Din are, in reality, common criminals operating under a
veneer of an invented religion which they call Islam.
The good news is that the US can, through more effective
cultural, public diplomacy and reconstruction strategies, in cooperation with international and
local partners and UN agencies, win the support of those civilians who are
caught in the cross-fire of the type of conflict currently underway in northern
Mali. The local populace seeks political stability and economic
prosperity, not the sustained violence which leads to the destruction of their
towns and cities.
We need someone like Chuck Hagel who is not afraid
to adapt US military policy to the new realities of long-term insurgent and asymmetric
warfare. The 21st century is
very different from the prior century. US policy-makers and academic analysts are only beginning to realize the nature of the new challenges the
US faces in the Middle East and elsewhere in the non-Western world.
No comments:
Post a Comment