The president says, "[F]reedom fighters, struggling for liberty and independence, inspire the West with their courage in the face of a powerful enemy. . . . And let no one mistake this for a conflict between the Western Democracies and the Arab world. Those who condone making war by cowardly attacks on unarmed third parties, including women and children, are but a tiny minority. Arab nations themselves have been forced to endure savage terrorist attacks from this minority. We hope and pray the Arab world will join with us to eliminate this scourage of civilization."
A leading Democratic expert on foreign policy warns that the administration "wants to resume covert military aid . . . To its proponents, the [] approach represents an unusual fusion of power politics and morality. To doubters, it is neither practical nor proper. . . . [I]n this case, top Administration officials do not seem to want to be tied down to a specific label and commitment. Nonetheless, other lower-level Administration officials and . . . neo-conservatives or neo-internationalists have embraced it and elevated the words and actions to doctrinal status . . . To many of the critics, more aid to these forces is not likely to force compromises out of their adversaries at the negotiating table. Rather, as they see it, it could end up spurring further . . . aid to their allies and getting many more people killed in the process."
But the New York Times reports that according to Charles Krauthammer, "who is a foremost defender of the doctrine and who is widely credited with its christening, there should be no apologies for its 'universalism and moralism.' That, he argues, is the way to combat the ideological underpinnings . . ."
A Heritage Foundation analyst further argues that we need to give more than just monetary support: "Washington must do more than increase its aid . . . A more creative policy would include: Modern weapons: [Our allies] need more modern air defense weapons, accurate 'standoff' weapons, mine detectors, radio communications equipment and field hospitals staffed by trained medical personnel. Training: Military training is needed to enhance the effectiveness [], conserve ammunition and improve operational planning. [...] Improving organizational abilities: [G]roups should be encouraged to organize and mobilize the people of the areas where they are strongest.
So is it a good idea to give a bunch of money and arms to Pakistani tribal groups in the mountains of Waziristan? The above statements won't help you decide, since they were all about giving a bunch of money and arms to resistance fighters
in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That would be President Reagan at the top; the Democratic warnings come from Les Gelb. Irritatingly, Heritage is still Heritage and Krauthammer is very much still Krauthammer. This debate played out over twenty years ago.
Heritage, Krauthammer, and the rest carried the day, of course, funding a resistance made up of militant religious fundamentalists who we decided to take onto our side for the
War on Terror Cold War. One of the people for whom the Heritage analyst recommended more modern weapons, training, and improved organizational abilities was, of course, Osama bin Laden (who is, it's worth noting, as alive and well after killing thousands of Americans as he was 20 years ago when conservatives were all for funding and armies his ideological compatriots because they were the enemy of our enemy).
I'm no isolationist. I like foreign policy, and I like foreign engagement. But when I read
that "A new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against an expanding militancy," I want to light myself on fire. Haven't we seen this movie before? I mean, it's even some of the same actors (literally!). And it's not even like we're talking about the Pakistani army -- these are tribal groups. Are they even friendlies? NYT says, "The training of the Frontier Corps remains a concern for some. NATO and American soldiers in Afghanistan have often blamed the Frontier Corps for aiding and abetting Taliban insurgents mounting cross-border attacks."
Well, then. Emulating a policy that helped create the most significant global terrorist group currently in operation seems like a bad idea to me, but I'm just a stoopid blogger. Still, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that blowback might be a slight possibility.
[Note: The above quotes are behind the Times pay wall (research is expensive!) but the original articles are
here,
here, and
here.]
Read More......
