Time Magazine’s Mideast Blog cites an Oliver Roy op-ed that argues that the U.S. overreacted to 9/11. According to the blog, “[W]hatever happens in Iraq, whatever choices the next American president makes about George Bush's military commitment in that country, al-Qaeda will not take power and establish an Islamic state in Iraq.”
Certainly, Al-Qaeda and radical Islamic terrorism is the greatest short-term threat to American interests. Given the relatively low costs of engaging in acts of terrorism, another attack on U.S. soil is sadly almost inevitable during our lifetime. Yet, exclusively focusing our foreign policy around attacking Al-Qaeda will do serious disservice to our long-term interests. The protracted war in Iraq arguably led to North Korea’s development of a nuclear capability, as they likely believed that the U.S. was too distracted to pose a credible threat for military retribution. Since 9/11, China has quietly expanded their weapons capability and now possesses the ability to destroy our satellites. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan within the next 30 years is far from implausible. The U.S. will then be faced with a choice of defending the island against an enemy with far more military capability than our opponents in every modern war since Vietnam or ceding the island and likely ceding our sole super power status.
Given these largely challenges, the U.S. should reconstitute our foreign policy to balance our short-term need to protect the country and our allies from terrorist attack with our long-term military interests. To do so, I suggest the following shifts in our foreign policy:
1. Reenergize the so-called “Bush Doctrine.”
If a country harbors a radical Islamic organization dedicated to using terrorist tactics to harm our interests domestically or abroad we should use military force against them. Afghanistan, despite its poorly funded reconstruction, still serves as a strong example of how military force can be effectively used within the context of the so-called “war on terror” to destroy radical Islamic havens and deter regimes from harboring "terrorists." Absent such official sanction of terrorist bases, the U.S. should do no more than use limited military force to surgically attack radical Islamic targets. Under this theory, the U.S. would never have invaded Iraq.
2. Continue to expand domestic counterterrorism measures.
Despite the relative ease for someone intent on taking his own life in order to kill others, the U.S. should continue to focus bringing our domestic counterterrorism capabilities up to speed.
3. As soon as practicable, withdraw a significant amount of forces from Iraq and/or significantly expand the size of our military.
Since engaging in the war on Iraq, the United States has ceded all credible deterrent threats against our enemies. The opportunity cost of continuing our presence in Iraq without a corresponding increase in our armed forces prevents the U.S. from reacting quickly to emerging threats. And it is also clear that the fight in Afghanistan is being unnecessarily prolonged due to resources that have been diverted to Iraq.
4. Develop long-term military capabilities that can deter China from taking aggressive moves in the South Pacific.
While I’m no expert on military technology, it seems that the lessons our military planners are taking from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is to develop capabilities to prevail in asymmetrical conflicts against weaker enemies will to use guerilla tactics. The U.S. should not pursue this goal while ignoring long-term threats that have the potential to cause widespread destruction within the U.S. For example, the U.S. should develop countermeasures to protect our satellites and as a contingency, the capability to conduct warfare in the absence of help from satellites.
While the U.S. should not give up the “war on terror” completely, our leaders must recognize that more frightening long-term challenges await if we continue a myopic foreign policy focused only on winning asymmetrical conflicts.
-Law Dude
No comments:
Post a Comment