Sunday, June 22, 2014
Responsibility To Protect Doctrine And Iranian Dissidents In Iraq
The responsibility to protect (R2P) is an emerging norm in international relations. It modifies the inviolability of state sovereignty and allows the international community to intervene in a state's internal affairs to prevent genocide. The UN system has two special advisers developing this norm within the Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. Determining how well states are enforcing this norm is now a worthy US foreign policy objective. Let's pick a test case from the Middle East.
The People's Mojahedin of Iran (aka Mojahedin-e-Khalq, or MEK) are a longstanding Iranian dissident group that first opposed the Shah and later opposed the Islamic revolutionary government. MEK had a history of causing trouble in several countries but cleaned up its act in recent years. It convinced a critical mass of prominent Americans to lobby for its removal from the US State Department's list of designated terrorist organizations. Its exile within Iraq left the Shiite-led government with both a bargaining chip and a humanitarian responsibility.
Iraq could have used MEK's status as a showpiece for its commitment to human rights. Keeping the group disarmed and safeguarded was a no-brainer opportunity to show the Middle East that Iraq was serious about not interfering in its neighbors' affairs. The Al-Maliki government instead squandered this opportunity by allowing armed elements, with the alleged collusion of its armed forces, to raid MEK's enclaves in 2013. The influence Tehran now possesses in Baghdad may have been an enabling factor in the attacks against MEK. The mechanisms of anti-MEK action are less important than the precedent they set. Baghdad's inability or unwillingness to ensure fair treatment of a dissident group was a clear signal to Sunnis that they could expect no better treatment from a Shiite-dominated regime in Baghdad.
The international community can easily assemble pretexts for renewed intervention in Iraq under R2P doctrine. The anti-MEK violence was the beginning. ISIS has begun imposing sharia law in Mosul and other cities it has taken hostage in the last few weeks. The Sunni tribes who acquiesced to ISIS's advance will soon regret their "inshallah" nonchalance toward that group's power grab. The Al-Maliki government in Baghdad has proven itself unable to protect expatriate dissidents and its own minority populations. That is a clear breach of R2P. The human cost of nonintervention under R2P grows progressively worse with delay. Ron Capps' Seriously Not All Right describes the horror of genocide in the face of the international community's delayed intervention in several conflicts. UN invocation of R2P would signal to Iraq's Sunnis and stranded MEK activists that help is justified.
The People's Mojahedin of Iran (aka Mojahedin-e-Khalq, or MEK) are a longstanding Iranian dissident group that first opposed the Shah and later opposed the Islamic revolutionary government. MEK had a history of causing trouble in several countries but cleaned up its act in recent years. It convinced a critical mass of prominent Americans to lobby for its removal from the US State Department's list of designated terrorist organizations. Its exile within Iraq left the Shiite-led government with both a bargaining chip and a humanitarian responsibility.
Iraq could have used MEK's status as a showpiece for its commitment to human rights. Keeping the group disarmed and safeguarded was a no-brainer opportunity to show the Middle East that Iraq was serious about not interfering in its neighbors' affairs. The Al-Maliki government instead squandered this opportunity by allowing armed elements, with the alleged collusion of its armed forces, to raid MEK's enclaves in 2013. The influence Tehran now possesses in Baghdad may have been an enabling factor in the attacks against MEK. The mechanisms of anti-MEK action are less important than the precedent they set. Baghdad's inability or unwillingness to ensure fair treatment of a dissident group was a clear signal to Sunnis that they could expect no better treatment from a Shiite-dominated regime in Baghdad.
The international community can easily assemble pretexts for renewed intervention in Iraq under R2P doctrine. The anti-MEK violence was the beginning. ISIS has begun imposing sharia law in Mosul and other cities it has taken hostage in the last few weeks. The Sunni tribes who acquiesced to ISIS's advance will soon regret their "inshallah" nonchalance toward that group's power grab. The Al-Maliki government in Baghdad has proven itself unable to protect expatriate dissidents and its own minority populations. That is a clear breach of R2P. The human cost of nonintervention under R2P grows progressively worse with delay. Ron Capps' Seriously Not All Right describes the horror of genocide in the face of the international community's delayed intervention in several conflicts. UN invocation of R2P would signal to Iraq's Sunnis and stranded MEK activists that help is justified.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Whom To Call For Help In Stability Operations
The United States has taken a decisive swing away from armed interventions of all sorts since pulling back from military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other actors will fill the empty space left by Uncle Sam's absent forces. The US cannot afford to cede the mitigation of instability to others. Count on the deep state elite to keep America's head in the stability operations game. The roll call of miscellaneous entities doing that work is worth a look-see.
The Institute for Defense and Business is one of those entities that pops up to fill a market demand. Their curriculum reminds me of the US Army offerings vetted through TRADOC schoolhouses. The difference is the hybridization of course offerings that bridge knowledge gaps between the public and private sector. There's also an interesting nexus of events and projects between the Center for Advanced Logistics Management and the Association for Enterprise Information. National policymakers lean on these quasi-private organizations when their whole-of-government efforts need a boost.
The US government has its own interdisciplinary research programs touching stability operations. The NDU Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP) helps run the Sharing To Accelerate Research - Transformative Innovation for Development and Emergency Support (STAR-TIDES) project. That kind of research on how disasters drive socioeconomic disruption will eventually underpin doctrinal approaches to humanitarian intervention. The relief sector is leveraging Big Data; CrisisMappers and Geeks Without Bonds allow tech pros to gather around Big Data approaches. Expect USAID's Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance to use lessons from these projects in its future development programs.
There's enough interagency and public-private work among those projects to keep plenty of government and non-profit workers busy for the rest of their careers. If enough of them join the International Stability Operations Association (ISOA), they will have a critical mass for trade shows and other reasons to hang out together. Armed humanitarian intervention shouldn't happen by accident. It's no accident that the deep state makes room for deep thinking in stability operations.
The Institute for Defense and Business is one of those entities that pops up to fill a market demand. Their curriculum reminds me of the US Army offerings vetted through TRADOC schoolhouses. The difference is the hybridization of course offerings that bridge knowledge gaps between the public and private sector. There's also an interesting nexus of events and projects between the Center for Advanced Logistics Management and the Association for Enterprise Information. National policymakers lean on these quasi-private organizations when their whole-of-government efforts need a boost.
The US government has its own interdisciplinary research programs touching stability operations. The NDU Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP) helps run the Sharing To Accelerate Research - Transformative Innovation for Development and Emergency Support (STAR-TIDES) project. That kind of research on how disasters drive socioeconomic disruption will eventually underpin doctrinal approaches to humanitarian intervention. The relief sector is leveraging Big Data; CrisisMappers and Geeks Without Bonds allow tech pros to gather around Big Data approaches. Expect USAID's Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance to use lessons from these projects in its future development programs.
There's enough interagency and public-private work among those projects to keep plenty of government and non-profit workers busy for the rest of their careers. If enough of them join the International Stability Operations Association (ISOA), they will have a critical mass for trade shows and other reasons to hang out together. Armed humanitarian intervention shouldn't happen by accident. It's no accident that the deep state makes room for deep thinking in stability operations.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Saturday, May 17, 2014
US Conservatives Ally With Boko Haram And Refuse to #BringBackOurGirls
Boko Haram, a radical Islamist terror gang, abducted hundreds of Nigerian girls several weeks ago. The women of the US Senate gathered in support of the #BringBackOurGirls social media meme. This is so obviously a good idea that you'd think every decent American could see the wisdom in claiming the moral high ground. Alas, America's loudest conservative pundits registered their objections to the photo below.
Leading voices on the Right have denounced the photo and its meme as weak and pointless. They have no idea how wrong they are. Napoleon Bonaparte said it best: "The moral is to the physical as three to one." He meant that claiming the moral high ground is an absolute advantage in fighting a conflict. It clarifies strategic goals to allies and gives domestic morale a boost. The West is in a multi-decade struggle with radical Islam. Every time we demonstrate the moral clarity of Western Civilization, we rally neutral people in the developing world to our cause and force jihadis to explain their atrocities.
The anti-female rhetoric I've heard from my conservative colleagues on this photo is disgusting. They sound pathetic by trotting out old misogynistic stereotypes that working women have tried hard to banish. The language some Americans have used to describe the Senators is the kind of verbiage a Salafist sheikh might use to describe his harem. That is not the face America should present to the world.
These hashtags aren't just photo ops anymore. Social media that goes viral now drives strategic decision making. This is the power of "information operations" and I assure you that plenty of people in the US national security establishment take crafting these narratives very seriously. If you disagree, consider how the US will benefit once we share credit for the girls' safe return.
I'd like to know if any of my fellow conservatives see the irony in all of these anti-hashtag comments in light of the Democratic Party's charge that the GOP engages in a "war on women." I've seen a bunch of comments criticizing women for wanting girls to be safe. Meanwhile, the US is doing what it can to help Nigerians bring them back. Do any of you see how getting behind this message sends a powerful signal to Africans who wonder whether the US stands with their hopes? Seriously, I'd like some answers.
Do any of you conservatives know what millions of Africans are saying right now? They are openly questioning the radical Islamic groups that have grown throughout the continent. They do that specifically because of this incident's notoriety. Getting Americans on the right side of that message is a powerful adjunct to our diplomacy. Do you people really not see this?
This isn't about Benghazi. I'm less interested in placing blame for past oversights than in solving a present problem. American leaders made plenty of missteps in the Cold War but our bipartisan foreign policy won in the end partly because our messaging to the world was based on a morally sound foundation. Messages of freedom, dignity, and prosperity matter, just as Ronald Reagan taught us with "Morning in America." Ronald Reagan also taught us that America would not tolerate Islamic terrorists getting away with the Achille Lauro hijacking; he told other would-be murderers, "You can run, but you can't hide." I believe the Gipper would be totally on board with hunting down Boko Haram fighters and rescuing their captive girls.
I'm throwing it down right now, people. Anyone who disagrees with what these women Senators have to say in their hashtag should put up a photo of themselves with a #Don'tBringBackTheGirls tag. I dare you to do something that stupid. See how well that plays in 2016 when Hillary's operatives run the "GOP anti-women" canard all over again. I am amazed that Republicans are willing to cede the moral high ground to both Democrats and Boko Haram out of pure spite. Conservatives should be better than this if they are to convince Americans that the GOP is fit to govern.
It is true that US foreign assistance programs are sometimes messy. It is difficult to advance a freedom agenda in authoritarian countries. We succeeded in countries like South Korea and Thailand even though they had military governments for part of their modern history. Engagement is hard. The alternative is to cede contested countries to powers that have clear anti-West agendas. I'll take the 50% solution if I think it can get to 100% with continued US involvement.
Republicans can't seem to say anything positive about Administration figures who have this crisis on their radar. Hmmm, the Democrats are doing nothing but tweeting? I guess the Democratic President who directed our national security team to work with the Nigerians doesn't count. I know exactly how capable the US can be and that's why all of the partisan criticism I'm seeing here is handcuffing the GOP.
Partisanship during the Cold War stopped at the water's edge, and our bipartisan foreign policy won that competition with the Soviet Union. Today's conservatives (thanks to some Tea Party nutcases) have so little positive news to offer America that they can't resist harassing our own female political leaders. American conservatives have done a whole lot more than make themselves look like fools. They have missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate American resolve in the face of the violent jihadi movements they claim to hate so much. The conservative loudmouths criticizing the #BringBackOurGirls meme have a profoundly immature understanding of information operations. They have in fact aligned themselves in support of Boko Haram.
Leading voices on the Right have denounced the photo and its meme as weak and pointless. They have no idea how wrong they are. Napoleon Bonaparte said it best: "The moral is to the physical as three to one." He meant that claiming the moral high ground is an absolute advantage in fighting a conflict. It clarifies strategic goals to allies and gives domestic morale a boost. The West is in a multi-decade struggle with radical Islam. Every time we demonstrate the moral clarity of Western Civilization, we rally neutral people in the developing world to our cause and force jihadis to explain their atrocities.
The anti-female rhetoric I've heard from my conservative colleagues on this photo is disgusting. They sound pathetic by trotting out old misogynistic stereotypes that working women have tried hard to banish. The language some Americans have used to describe the Senators is the kind of verbiage a Salafist sheikh might use to describe his harem. That is not the face America should present to the world.
These hashtags aren't just photo ops anymore. Social media that goes viral now drives strategic decision making. This is the power of "information operations" and I assure you that plenty of people in the US national security establishment take crafting these narratives very seriously. If you disagree, consider how the US will benefit once we share credit for the girls' safe return.
I'd like to know if any of my fellow conservatives see the irony in all of these anti-hashtag comments in light of the Democratic Party's charge that the GOP engages in a "war on women." I've seen a bunch of comments criticizing women for wanting girls to be safe. Meanwhile, the US is doing what it can to help Nigerians bring them back. Do any of you see how getting behind this message sends a powerful signal to Africans who wonder whether the US stands with their hopes? Seriously, I'd like some answers.
Do any of you conservatives know what millions of Africans are saying right now? They are openly questioning the radical Islamic groups that have grown throughout the continent. They do that specifically because of this incident's notoriety. Getting Americans on the right side of that message is a powerful adjunct to our diplomacy. Do you people really not see this?
This isn't about Benghazi. I'm less interested in placing blame for past oversights than in solving a present problem. American leaders made plenty of missteps in the Cold War but our bipartisan foreign policy won in the end partly because our messaging to the world was based on a morally sound foundation. Messages of freedom, dignity, and prosperity matter, just as Ronald Reagan taught us with "Morning in America." Ronald Reagan also taught us that America would not tolerate Islamic terrorists getting away with the Achille Lauro hijacking; he told other would-be murderers, "You can run, but you can't hide." I believe the Gipper would be totally on board with hunting down Boko Haram fighters and rescuing their captive girls.
I'm throwing it down right now, people. Anyone who disagrees with what these women Senators have to say in their hashtag should put up a photo of themselves with a #Don'tBringBackTheGirls tag. I dare you to do something that stupid. See how well that plays in 2016 when Hillary's operatives run the "GOP anti-women" canard all over again. I am amazed that Republicans are willing to cede the moral high ground to both Democrats and Boko Haram out of pure spite. Conservatives should be better than this if they are to convince Americans that the GOP is fit to govern.
It is true that US foreign assistance programs are sometimes messy. It is difficult to advance a freedom agenda in authoritarian countries. We succeeded in countries like South Korea and Thailand even though they had military governments for part of their modern history. Engagement is hard. The alternative is to cede contested countries to powers that have clear anti-West agendas. I'll take the 50% solution if I think it can get to 100% with continued US involvement.
Republicans can't seem to say anything positive about Administration figures who have this crisis on their radar. Hmmm, the Democrats are doing nothing but tweeting? I guess the Democratic President who directed our national security team to work with the Nigerians doesn't count. I know exactly how capable the US can be and that's why all of the partisan criticism I'm seeing here is handcuffing the GOP.
Partisanship during the Cold War stopped at the water's edge, and our bipartisan foreign policy won that competition with the Soviet Union. Today's conservatives (thanks to some Tea Party nutcases) have so little positive news to offer America that they can't resist harassing our own female political leaders. American conservatives have done a whole lot more than make themselves look like fools. They have missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate American resolve in the face of the violent jihadi movements they claim to hate so much. The conservative loudmouths criticizing the #BringBackOurGirls meme have a profoundly immature understanding of information operations. They have in fact aligned themselves in support of Boko Haram.
Friday, April 18, 2014
The Difference Between Staging And Massing
I am tired of American media reports that describe Russian forces "massing" east of Ukraine. The unclassified aerial photos NATO released from DigitalGlobe show Russian forces staged, not massed. Massing involves fire and maneuver directed at a decisive point. The Russian forces are in a "sitzkrieg" awaiting the outcome of partisan contests inside Ukraine.
The SACEUR says the masked men are playing for keeps. Those masked men are doing their own sort of massing at various decisive points, and the firing they've done so far has been mostly non-lethal. BTW, the "mass" principle of war is clear in US doctrine. Other military traditions have their own principles of warfare. Massing means concentrating forces in action, not sitting around, but the American media approaches military commentary without any nuance.
Partisan action against the Ukrainian government is focused on a few highly visible urban centers. This presents Ukraine with multiple opportunities to show media observers what massing really means if they ever get their act together. A sufficiently bloody recapture of a city hall or police station from the mysterious masked men of "Novorossiya" will give Russia the pretext it seeks to . . . mass its forces against Ukraine's forces.
The SACEUR says the masked men are playing for keeps. Those masked men are doing their own sort of massing at various decisive points, and the firing they've done so far has been mostly non-lethal. BTW, the "mass" principle of war is clear in US doctrine. Other military traditions have their own principles of warfare. Massing means concentrating forces in action, not sitting around, but the American media approaches military commentary without any nuance.
Partisan action against the Ukrainian government is focused on a few highly visible urban centers. This presents Ukraine with multiple opportunities to show media observers what massing really means if they ever get their act together. A sufficiently bloody recapture of a city hall or police station from the mysterious masked men of "Novorossiya" will give Russia the pretext it seeks to . . . mass its forces against Ukraine's forces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)