Alternative Insight

Politics of the Moment
A Strategy of Opportunity?


In the practice of diplomacy, nations do not usually make forcible Bushdemands upon one another. An initial diplomatic request requires comfortable words that do not provoke. Unequivocally demanding something from a nation is a definite path to a refusal. If the country complies with the demand, then the ante is usually raised. It's a trap.

An immediate response to the September 11 terrorist attacks could have been a request to Afghanistan to close the Al-Queda training camps, isolate Osama bin Laden and make certain that neither he or his cohorts left the country or had any visitors. Containing those suspected of being associated with the terrorist acts would have been a desirable first step in combating terrorism.

The Politics of the Moment
Aside from gathering the usual coalition to support its proposed actions, the U.S. didn't start its "war on terrorism" with foreign policy initiatives or diplomatic approaches. Actually, the Taliban independently claimed they were restraining and isolating bin Laden, and the U.S. government disregarded their initiatives. By immediately demanding that Afghanistan surrender Osama bin Laden to American authorities, the United States guaranteed that the stubborn Taliban would not comply--which is obviously what the United States wanted. What would the American government have done with bin Laden and his associates, except to face a "bomb a day in order to keep the prosecution away?" Events indicate that the United States wants, as a prerequisite to further actions, to eliminate the Taliban. The military attacks on Afghanistan satisfy the public's overwhelming demand for a vigorous response to the terrorist attacks on America. They also satisfy President Bush's political instincts, mainly shaping objectives and strategies to a political moment.

The politics of the moment require that the country be united and not question the tactics of its leaders. War divides the country into "patriots" and "non-patriots." Few want to be identified with the latter classification. Uniting the country in a war-time mobilization stifles debate and dissension. It has already thwarted discussions on previous war-like policies and intelligence failures that might have provoked the terrorist actions. It's inconceivable that the government has not examined and considered the failures of previous policies and intelligence services before instituting the present policies-- a sure method for compounding failures.

The wartime circumstances have permitted commentators, such as Michael Kelly to state, Washington Post, September 26:"The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murderers of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist."

Evidently, Michael Kelly is not aware of the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations promoted by pacifists A.J. Muste and David Dellinger during the early 1960's, before it became universally popular to be against the Vietnam war. Perhaps, if these people had been more highly regarded, America would have saved itself from 53,000 dead, hundreds of thousands wounded and a humiliating defeat. Perhaps, Michael Kelly should question the "objectively pro-terrorist" contributions of previous aggressive policies, such as the constant bombing of Iraq and the supplying of arms and one-sided support to Israel that offends Arab peoples. Kelly is comforted by knowing that an eager American government will defend America. It might be more comforting to know that a thoughtful American government will defend its people.


By not considering basic foreign affairs initiatives and by not showing how the bombings are related to an overall strategy for eliminating international terrorism, the administration has created confusion of its intentions. Does the government' have a thoughtful strategy for eliminating terrorism?

Opportunities in an unfolding scenario
Bombing of AfghanistanThe United States could have attempted to overthrow the Taliban prior to an excessive bombing campaign. If the CIA equipped Mujahideen could chase a highly potent Soviet army from Afghanistan without a massive bombing campaign, then another CIA equipped anti-Taliban Afghan force, assisted again by U.S. special forces, could easily overthrow an ill-equipped and a relatively impotent Taliban. Strategic bombing could be used only when required.

Why didn't the U.S. coordinate Afghan rebel land and U.S. air tactics before bombarding Afghanistan? The unfolding scenario indicates that Bush's bombing campaign provided opportunities for several cabinet officers to promote what each officer considers are the needs of the nation.

The Defense Establishment
The complex nature of the bombing campaign, which has B-2 bombers flying almost 24 roundtrip hours with 2 man crews from the American mid-west to the Asian continent, while tomahawk missiles and 5000 pound laser guided bombs
Afghan Fighter seek their targets, above and below ground, has elevated warfare to a new global level. Feeding upon the experiences from the Gulf and Yugoslav wars, the U.S. military is now testing 21st century concepts for a global military system. The canyons, cities and mountains of Afghanistan might not be an average "testing ground" for a 21st century military strategy, but the attacks are certainly being framed with testing in view. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is contemplating a sweeping overhaul of the way U.S. armed forces are organized to fight, moving from regional commands to a new global command system. At the same time, the Defense Secretary has revived the military-industrial complex and a reinvigorated defense effort that assist in stimulating the economy.

The high-tech and globally commanded air war against Afghanistan does not stand-alone. For ten years, America and Great Britain have been bombing Iraq's infrastructure and defenses. In these attacks, in which Iraq is not permitted to defend itself, the United States has been testing and refining its countermeasure techniques, originating new acronyms such as JDAM (Joint Directory at Ammunition). The Washington Post, October 25, 2000 reported that National Guard airmen from commercial airlines take two weeks duty in Iraq and fly the missions to learn the new techniques and capabilities of the high tech hardware. During one raid "a mistake killed many Iraqi civilians on May 12, 1999. In that incident, an F-15E launched a 3,000 pound bomb into a shepherds camp."

American UN ambassador John Negroponte's prophetic statement: "We may find that our self defense requires further actions with respect to other organizations and states," and a rash of British government statements forecasting doom for Saddam Hussein have made it obvious that the United States and Great Britain intend to extend the global war and its new concepts into Iraq and eliminate the Iraqi leader. The fact that iraq has a secular regime that is anathema to the Radical Fundamentalists doesn't change the situation. Only those who cared about the sanction induced deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children (1999 study by the United Nations Children Fund) will care about the new Iraqi deaths resulting from the impending attacks.

The Intelligence Agencies
The most important part of the "war on terrorism" has the intelligence services doing the grueling work of ferreting out and eliminating international terrorists and their networks in countries from the Philippines to Algeria. The CIA has to make amends for the inadequate intelligence that failed to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist bombings. The agency will have sizeable budgets and "carte blanche" to search and research for years and liquidate terrorist faces without trial or compunction, eliminating all lapses and evidence to their previous intelligence failures.

The Department of State
After the United States exerts its power and subdues those whom it believes threaten Middle East stability, its State Department
Arab woman and child can start the efforts for finalizing peace in the Middle East. Secretary of State Powell might "quietly" work out solutions to Mid-East conflicts and assure the solutions are acceptable to the Arab world.

Close to victory in the war on terrorism
By stabilizing the Middle East, and by adequately responding to the complaints voiced by the Arab states and many opponents of U.S. policies, the U.S. will come close to total victory in its war on terrorism. Surprisingly, without admission and attention, the U.S. will also have fulfilled some of the earlier demands of the more extremes of the Arab world.

alternative insight
october
16, 2001

HOME PAGE MAIN PAGE

alternativeinsight@earthlink.net