Reactions

I didn't dare to open a newspaper today. Not a single one drew my interest. I already knew the gist, and I don't care for the finer details. No two papers had the same headline, but they all screamed the same nauseating exuberance of a false victory. Some were a bit more explicit, as with the New York Post's "Got Him! Vengeance at Last! US Finally Nails the Bastard!", or the New York Times' hilariously objective "Bin Laden Killed By US Forces In Pakistan, Obama Says, Declaring Justice Has Been Done." I didn't read any article today. I simply didn't want to. I didn't want to read about the minutiae of planning the operation while coordinating with all the relative intelligence agencies, or reactions from Congress, or anything diverting attention away from the reaction of the American people. How are we to feel?
If I were anyone else reading this post, I would snort haughtily and say "I'm to feel incredible! A blow for justice in the world has been dealt, and we are now vindicated!", but I'm not anyone else. I can't celebrate death, even in the taking of someone described as "enemy number 1." I can't, and I won't. A man was killed who, believe it or not, was fighting for his convictions and his way of life, however strange that way of life would seem when juxtaposed with ours. Here was a man who witnessed American and Israeli forces killing Lebanese civilians without so much as a second thought, and so to him, his actions were justified. Above all, he was a man, not a monster.
To him, the United States was the monster. It was a monster constituted of avarice and disregard for human life, one composed of demons and only a modicum of respectable people. He was not evil, he was not, as a rather ignorant classmate of mine so eagerly spouted today, a "dirtbag," and he was not so different from every American in the wake of 9/11. His unfortunate experiences colored his perspective on life, just like our experience did for us. If you cannot understand that, I express my condolences.

Turning someone into an object is easy; all it takes is a certain disregard for their past and their personality. It requires a lack of empathy and understanding that is so easy to elicit when in times of duress, as we are so eager to ease the pain of any inflicted wound.

To celebrate the killing of an enemy is to condone death to those we deem as "enemies." Could this lead to a belief that the world is monochromatic, that everything is simply good and evil and that we are always on the side of righteousness? I don't know. Somehow, I'd rather not find out.

That's all.

Death of Bin Laden

I decided to interrupt my intense (/hyperbole) studying to talk about this most recent and surprising development: Osama bin Laden, the most wanted man in the world for the last 10 years, has been killed by United States operatives in Pakistan. I'd just like to say that it doesn't matter. (Read on before you decide to vilify me.)
Osama Bin Laden, contrary to popular belief, was a reasonable man. No, I do not condone terrorist attacks, but I understood Bin Laden's reasoning behind his malice towards the United States. For a bit of historical context (very brief), Bin Laden hated the United States (and, of course Israel) because of their involvement in supporting Israel in the first Lebanon War (in 1982). Nearly 18,000 Lebanese civilians were killed by Israeli forces, and the United States never chastised Israel for the massacre. Thus, during this war, in Bin Laden's eyes, the United States and Israel declared war on Islam.
Some may choose to bring up the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and how the CIA financed the Mujahideen as to the US' "friendly relations" with Bin Laden; this is an example of Sun Tzu's "enemy of my enemy is my friend" axiom. The Soviet Union was the immediate threat, and in Bin Laden's view of Sharia Law, defense of the Islamic state (in this case, Afghanistan) was of the utmost priority. Bin Laden was by no means stupid.
Of course, nearly all those in the US who have barely paid attention to news and past history will trumpet the name of the United States, brandishing flags and nationalistic pride unto every orifice of the country. I choose not to celebrate the death of anyone, even an enemy, especially an enemy made out of the policies of my own home country. It is hubris at its worst, a kind of arrogance that will ultimately be the downfall of any person, as many will feel indestructible, believing that vengeance has been enacted against a man who plotted what he believed was justified retaliation. In this hubris, we doom ourselves to a self-fulfilling prophecy: we ignore history, we ignore contexts, and instead we only choose to see ourselves as inviolable and blindingly moral. Yes, an "enemy" of the US was killed, yes, this invokes a sense of victory, but do not be so ignorant as to believe that this is the end.
Because of Bin Laden's retaliation, George Bush launched his own sort of retaliation into not one but two Islamic countries; he reinforced US support of Israel and their oppression of Palestine, furthering the image of the US as anti-Islam; he doomed thousands upon thousands of people to death, blaming all of it on terrorism rather than accepting the consequences of past actions. What would have been a just retaliation against Bin Laden after 9/11? I don't know, but certainly invading 2 countries would not be it.
Many will cheer. FOX will tout the policies of the Bush-era as the main factor contributing towards Bin Laden's death, while others will likely discuss the CIA's missions and their logistics, expeditions, etc.; none of that really matters. Bin Laden was a symbolic figure, largely given the entirety of the blame for an attack that killed 3,000 US citizens. He was a scapegoat, and I do concede the symbolic victory for the United States in this action, but a victory it is not; a death does not a victory make.
We must accept that there will always be those who do not agree with government policies towards the Middle East (largely in its affirmation of Israel's statehood), and we must accept the consequences of the actions that those policies create. It is difficult not to desire vengeance, not to desire to have a declared enemy's body hanging from a town square, not to desire to kill every single supporter of those who support our declared enemy; however, we must always realize that we may actually create our own enemy without the common knowledge of citizens, and perhaps it would be best to reflect on that possibility before engaging in bloodthirsty retribution.

I suppose that's my position on all this brouhaha. It's not popular and it's not the same chest-thumping nationalistic attitude that many will brandish in the wake of this event. I don't celebrate death. I don't celebrate vengeance. I don't celebrate hubris.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Point of Ire

A group of Muslim radicals are attempting to rubs America's face in the tragedy of 9-11 by building a mosque in Ground Zero.

--EDIT--

Sorry, a Tea Party "enthusiast" hacked into my blog and wrote that. What it should say is "Xenophobia is spreading as a massive smear campaign is being waged to stop a Muslim community center and mosque from being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero."

This is a story that has caused many to revert to "American pride," where the mightiest fist thumping the hairiest chest is always right. How dare they infringe upon this hallowed ground where the mighty lay fallen?

"They." There seems to be this notion that all Muslims are secret terrorists hoping to undermine the well-being of every American. In reality, an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the United States are very moderate and/or liberal, and actually oppose the rhetoric of the extremist Muslims who are to blame for the many atrocities. The Imam heading up the building of the community center, for example, worked in an interfaith outreach program, attempting to bridge the gap between the different religions. But of course, it could all be part of his nefarious and beguiling cover.

Of course, if all Muslims are terrorists, then all Catholic priests are pedophiles, all Jews are embezzlers, all Christians are manic depressives, all Chinese people are emotionless, all black people are criminals, etc. See where stereotyping fails? If not, get glasses.

I would talk about the freedom of religion allowed in the US Constitution, but I'm sure that's been beaten to death. What I'd rather talk about is the rhetoric used by Muslim extremists to recruit young people. The common perception is that the US is at war with Islam as a whole, evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its support of Israel, aerial drone bombings, etc. As that is the case, what better way is there to show solidarity with the Islamic world than to support the construction of this mosque and community center? Why not show the world that the United States upholds the values elucidated in the Constitution to every demographic equally?

Perhaps people don't realize that the best way to completely win a war is not with guns, but with overwhelming support.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Afghan War, Part III: Return of the Jedi

Now that my midterm week is over and I have some time to relax, I thought it prudent to update my blog with the final part of my analysis of the war in Afghanistan. This part will be my opinion of a viable improvement to the current strategy.

The strategy:
2010 is becoming a bloody year for troop deaths in Afghanistan. There have been 74 American deaths (icasualties.org) in the first 3 months of combat which, if figures continue in the current trend, leads to approximately 230 American troops killed in the 2010 year (accounting for 12 months of full combat). The troop surge enacted by the president may kill members of al Qaeda and the Taliban, but it certainly won't end the war.
There are several key components to winning a war against a non-state actor; one of the ingredients is the use of combat troops on the ground, but the largest fight should be for the support of the Afghani people as a whole and the creation of a stable Afghanistan. I'll dole this out in bullet form:

• Reduce the number of troops to below 100,000; for the strategy I will propose, this number is more than sufficient.
• Industrialize the nation- Afghanistan suffers from an inordinately high unemployment rate of 40% (according to CIA World Factbook). That 40% is extremely attractive to al Qaeda and the Taliban, as both can promise that those who fight will be well compensated for their actions and their families will be taken care of. A possible solution to reducing the unemployment rate would be to offer incentives to companies that can build factories and offer other types of low-training jobs in the less affluent regions of Afghanistan. Reducing the number of available soldiers for the insurgent groups is a key component to success. Also, troops should be divided into even contingents to protect the new workforce, as these new industries will be a tempting target.
• Public works- This is both a source of employment and a necessity to Afghanistan. The Taliban left the country in shambles after many years of rule, and many parts of the country lack the simple amenities that most countries in the first world take for granted. The beautification of the country not only improves standard of living, but also improves morale and raises the pride of the average citizen. If, suddenly, a building is attacked by the Taliban which had been built by 50 native Afghanis, then the public would turn against the Taliban overwhelmingly.
• Schools- Schools are of the utmost importance to success in Afghanistan and building them should be one of the top priorities for the US strategy. Building schools and hiring teachers and faculty would not only bolster employment, but would allow for a new generation of Afghanis to spurn the Taliban and al Qaeda. The current literacy rate, as reported by UNICEF, is 28%, which is well below any current standard. Teaching children at least the basics of society, mathematics, and literature would make them more informed and educated. Children are typically targets for indoctrination by militants, and educating them would be the best solution. The issue of books for these schools can be solved simply by having schools in industrialized nations across the world donate their old (but not outdated) textbooks. I know from personal experience that many schools put old textbooks in storage; they might as well be used.
• Hospitals- This might seem obvious, but Afghanistan is in dire need of hospitals and doctors. Doctors in Doctors Without Borders are always willing to insert themselves in dangerous situations and help those in need.
  
• Farms-The opium trade in Afghanistan is ghastly. It is extremely profitable, but it deters from American progress in the country. This is possibly the one of the more haphazard problems, as almost no farmers are willing to give up their opium crop. Somewhat luckily (for farmers, not for those in need), food prices are continually rising, especially in the wakes of the recent earthquakes in Chile, Haiti, Taiwan and Turkey. With some convincing, supplying of resources and lessons in horticulture, farmers in Afghanistan could instead grow food staples. This would also enliven Afghanistan's economy.
• Military action- Continue pushing al Qaeda and the Taliban towards Pakistan, and with increased Pakistani support, military operations would be more effective. The military must also be cognizant of the insurgent groups hiding among villages of civilians, lest they be reckless and culpable for the deaths of non-combatants. The insurgents are the perceived enemy by all, and that perception must stick.
• Tribes- Don't pay them to fight the war. The US might end up funding another al Qaeda by providing weapons to tribes which have no accountability under the Afghan government.
• The Afghan army- Training a new army and police force is tedious but necessary. The recruits need to be educated, or else the army will suffer from a severe case of abandonment.
  

• Pakistan- One of the larger pieces to the puzzle is Pakistan. They have recently arrested Taliban leaders, likely holding them until the United States removes its troops. Pakistan wants to utilize the Taliban, according to numerous reports, as a resource to use against India. This is why the constant influx of funding from the United States into Pakistan should come with a catch: Islamabad will only receive funding if troops are diverted from the Indian border to the Afghan border. This would serve to hopefully ease tensions between India and Pakistan, whose relationship has been less than genial. Doing this would likely convey the message that Pakistan does not plan to attack India in any way; hopefully the Indian government will accept this message and could be a first step towards a more amiable relationship between the two. Either way, both countries have nuclear weapons, so a war is somewhat unlikely (though not impossible). Diverting troops would also make military action against the Taliban and al Qaeda more efficient and effective.

These solutions act to build the country from the ground-up. The country will likely become more efficacious, more unified, and relatively free of a corrupt government. With an educated and overwhelmingly employed populace, the insurgent groups will likely become less able to recruit new soldiers. Over time, the groups will likely evaporate completely. This is a strategy that will unfold over time, since no winning formula can be achieved in the short-term. Let's just hope that someone is listening.

I am willing to hear any comments/questions/criticisms to my opinion. Ask away!

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Afghani War, Part II: The Empire Strikes Back

^Good one, eh?

Part II:
Current US strategy (a general overview)
This comes directly from the White Paper released by the White House (from whitehouse.gov):
"• Disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan to degrade any ability they have to plan and launch international terrorist attacks.

• Promoting a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan that
serves the Afghan people and can eventually function, especially regarding internal
security, with limited international support.

• Developing increasingly self-reliant Afghan security forces that can lead the
counterinsurgency and counterterrorism fight with reduced U.S. assistance.

• Assisting efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan and a vibrant economy that provides opportunity for the people of Pakistan.

• Involving the international community to actively assist in addressing these objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan, with an important leadership role for the UN."

These goals seem ideal, but are untenable at the moment. I will go through these point by point:

• Terrorist networks: Al Qaeda operatives are extraordinarily elusive, and the Taliban insurgency has gained in strength and size since 2008. Currently, Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, is pursuing negotiations with the Taliban for a greater protection of Afghanistan from Al Qaeda insurgents. The U.S. has not engaged in these negotiations, as these negotiations would seem to be both self-destructive and murky in their possible results. The United States government does not trust the Taliban, as they are a non-state actor and are not accountable under any laws.
• Government in Afghanistan: This is a contentious and confusing issue, as the U.S. continually berates the Karzai government with accusations of corruption (which may be well-founded; see the August 2009 elections) and negligence. The U.S. has also supported tribal militias, often paying them upwards of 1$ million for their assistance in fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda. This is a multi-faceted problem: each tribe has its own interest in Afghanistan and not every tribe is sympathetic towards the Karzai government. Along with that is the fact that many civilians view the tribes unfavorably, as the tribes often have very little sympathy for accident casualties of war. Arming them now may mean an unstable, war-plagued Afghanistan after the U.S. leaves.
• Afghan security forces: The U.S. wants to build-up the Afghan Army and police up to 134,000 and 82,000 in the next year, which is an extremely unrealistic number. The current number of combat-ready servicemen stands at 60,000 with turnover at only 25%. Also, this is an uphill struggle ideologically: al Qaeda and the Taliban purport to defend the highest Muslim ethics and are often more lucrative enterprises than joining the armed forces.
• Government in Pakistan: This is a troubling issue; though the United States does require Pakistan's help with Afghanistan, intervening too much in Pakistan may cast the United States with the visage of puppeteer. With current President Zardari's approval numbers sinking faster than the Titanic, any U.S. intervention that is intended to change the political sphere in Pakistan would turn whatever support there is against the United States. Pakistanis are a highly proud people, as they showed during the vehement protests against former President Musharraf. The U.S. should allow the citizens of Pakistan to change their government democratically, without any outside assistance.
• International community: Afghanistan is a terribly difficult area for any international access aside from military. With its multiple tribal militias, rampant corruption, an extremely low education level and a growing anti-occupational mindset, other international assistance is difficult to garner.

Part III will have my opinion on what strategy the U.S. should execute in Afghanistan. It might be long enough to split into two parts; if it is, don't worry. I won't name the last part "Attack of the Clones."

Das Flüg

A matter of sternness

It has been a decently long time since I last posted anything related to politics, so I suppose I'll get back on track with that and keep myself in practice. This will be about military strategy in Afghanistan.

I won't be presumptuous and say that this is the best strategy for the United States to follow, but it is the one that would likely foster the most ideal results.

Part 1 (of however many parts)
Current predicaments:
Currently in Afghanistan, the United States is fielding near 70,000 troops on the ground. As of recently, they have been working to isolate the Taliban (and subsequently, al Qaeda) to the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan and have been waging successful campaign against al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds in Waziristan, a mountainous region in northern Pakistan. The United States fields the vast majority of troops in Afghanistan, with Canada fielding around 3,000 and Germany around 1,000. Recently, Pakistani intelligence (ISI) has captured two top-tier Taliban leaders; however, there are several problems that go along with this.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the ISI have been working with a tenuous relationship to further secure Afghanistan. The two agencies are distrustful of each other, as many in the American government have the view that Pakistan wants to keep some of the Taliban tangible in order to exert a greater influence in Afghanistan after American forces leave. There has also been suspicion on the side of the ISI that several anti-Pakistani militants who have been killed of late (according to the ISI) may have been American spies. Along with this is the ever-prevalent Pakistani fear that the Americans are secretly working with the Indian government to somehow undermine Pakistan. At this time, the relationship is professional and far from intimate.
This war is also relatively unpopular at home, as with its counterpart war in Iraq. As of January 12th, according to a CBS poll, only 46% of respondents approved of his handling of Afghanistan, opposed to upwards of 60% in the late summer of 2009. This is typical in any war, however, as popular opinion for a war typically wanes with an increase in troop deaths. Obama's announcement of a troop surge did not help his poll numbers, as is typical with an engagement of this length. Many people attribute the two wars as having some part in the current economic downturn (though the current proposed budget has $159.3 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq out of a total $3.8 trillion).
This war (both wars, in my opinion) has been poorly handled since former president Bush authorized military operations in Afghanistan. There are a plethora of different, less-lethal strategies that the United States could have pursued and could still pursue, many of which would reduce the number of American and Afghani deaths and foster cooperation and give a positive view of America in the Muslim world. I will go in-depth into one of these strategies in my next segment, Part II.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg