[blind-democracy] A War the West Cannot Win

  • From: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:34:45 -0500

A War the West Cannot Win
Published on
Monday, November 16, 2015
by
The Boston Globe
A War the West Cannot Win
by
Andrew Bacevich

People observe a minute's silence at the Le Carillon cafe, where 15 people
were killed. (Photo: Eric Feferberg/AFP/Getty)
President Francois Hollande's response to Friday's vicious terrorist attacks
in France, attributed to the Islamic State, was immediate and
uncompromising. "We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless," he
vowed.
Whether France itself possesses the will or the capacity to undertake such a
war is another matter. So too is the question of whether further war can
provide a remedy to the problem at hand: widespread disorder roiling much of
the Greater Middle East and periodically spilling into the outside world.
It's not as if the outside world hasn't already given pitiless war a try.
The Soviet Union spent all of the 1980s attempting to pacify Afghanistan and
succeeded only in killing a million or so Afghans while creating an
incubator for Islamic radicalism. Beginning in 2003, the United States
attempted something similar in Iraq and ended up producing similarly
destabilizing results. By the time US troops withdrew in 2011, something
like 200,000 Iraqis had died, most of the them civilians. Today Iraq teeters
on the brink of disintegration.
Perhaps if the Russians had tried harder or the Americans had stayed longer,
they might have achieved a more favorable outcome. Yet that qualifies as a
theoretical possibility at best. Years of fighting in Afghanistan exhausted
the Soviet Union and contributed directly to its subsequent collapse. Years
of fighting in Iraq used up whatever "Let's roll!" combativeness Americans
may have entertained following 9/11.
Today, notwithstanding the Obama administration's continuing appetite for
military piddling - airstrikes, commando raids, and advisory missions - few
Americans retain any appetite for undertaking further large-scale
hostilities in the Islamic world. Fewer still will sign up to follow
Hollande in undertaking any new crusade. Their reluctance to do so is
understandable and appropriate.
The fact is that United States and its European allies face a perplexing
strategic conundrum. Collectively they find themselves locked in a
protracted conflict with Islamic radicalism, with ISIS but one manifestation
of a much larger phenomenon. Prospects for negotiating an end to that
conflict anytime soon appear to be nil. Alas, so too do prospects of winning
it.
In this conflict, the West generally appears to enjoy the advantage of
clear-cut military superiority. By almost any measure, we are stronger than
our adversaries. Our arsenals are bigger, our weapons more sophisticated,
our generals better educated in the art of war, our fighters better trained
at waging it.
Yet most of this has proven to be irrelevant. Time and again the actual
employment of that ostensibly superior military might has produced results
other than those intended or anticipated. Even where armed intervention has
achieved a semblance of tactical success - the ousting of some unsavory
dictator, for example - it has yielded neither reconciliation nor willing
submission nor even sullen compliance. Instead, intervention typically
serves to aggravate, inciting further resistance. Rather than putting out
the fires of radicalism, we end up feeding them.
In proposing to pour yet more fuel on that fire, Hollande demonstrates a
crippling absence of imagination, one that has characterized recent Western
statesmanship more generally when it comes to the Islamic world. There,
simply trying harder will not suffice as a basis of policy.
It's past time for the West, and above all for the United States as the
West's primary military power, to consider trying something different.
Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a
defensive one. Instead of attempting to impose its will on the Greater
Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect itself from the violence
emanating from that quarter. Such barriers will necessarily be imperfect,
but they will produce greater security at a more affordable cost than is
gained by engaging in futile, open-ended armed conflicts. Rather than vainly
attempting to police or control, this revised strategy should seek to
contain.
Such an approach posits that, confronted with the responsibility to do so,
the peoples of the Greater Middle East will prove better equipped to solve
their problems than are policy makers back in Washington, London, or Paris.
It rejects as presumptuous any claim that the West can untangle problems of
vast historical and religious complexity to which Western folly contributed.
It rests on this core principle: Do no (further) harm.
Hollande views the tragedy that has befallen Paris as a summons to yet more
war. The rest of us would do well to see it as a moment to reexamine the
assumptions that have enmeshed the West in a war that it cannot win and
should not perpetuate.
C 2015 The Boston Globe
Andrew Bacevich

A War the West Cannot Win
Published on
Monday, November 16, 2015
by The Boston Globe
A War the West Cannot Win
by
Andrew Bacevich
. 5 Comments
.
. People observe a minute's silence at the Le Carillon cafe, where 15
people were killed. (Photo: Eric Feferberg/AFP/Getty)
. President Francois Hollande's response to Friday's vicious terrorist
attacks in France, attributed to the Islamic State, was immediate and
uncompromising. "We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless," he
vowed.
. Whether France itself possesses the will or the capacity to
undertake such a war is another matter. So too is the question of whether
further war can provide a remedy to the problem at hand: widespread disorder
roiling much of the Greater Middle East and periodically spilling into the
outside world.
. It's not as if the outside world hasn't already given pitiless war a
try. The Soviet Union spent all of the 1980s attempting to pacify
Afghanistan and succeeded only in killing a million or so Afghans while
creating an incubator for Islamic radicalism. Beginning in 2003, the United
States attempted something similar in Iraq and ended up producing similarly
destabilizing results. By the time US troops withdrew in 2011, something
like 200,000 Iraqis had died, most of the them civilians. Today Iraq teeters
on the brink of disintegration.
. Perhaps if the Russians had tried harder or the Americans had stayed
longer, they might have achieved a more favorable outcome. Yet that
qualifies as a theoretical possibility at best. Years of fighting in
Afghanistan exhausted the Soviet Union and contributed directly to its
subsequent collapse. Years of fighting in Iraq used up whatever "Let's
roll!" combativeness Americans may have entertained following 9/11.
Today, notwithstanding the Obama administration's continuing appetite for
military piddling - airstrikes, commando raids, and advisory missions - few
Americans retain any appetite for undertaking further large-scale
hostilities in the Islamic world. Fewer still will sign up to follow
Hollande in undertaking any new crusade. Their reluctance to do so is
understandable and appropriate.
The fact is that United States and its European allies face a perplexing
strategic conundrum. Collectively they find themselves locked in a
protracted conflict with Islamic radicalism, with ISIS but one manifestation
of a much larger phenomenon. Prospects for negotiating an end to that
conflict anytime soon appear to be nil. Alas, so too do prospects of winning
it.
In this conflict, the West generally appears to enjoy the advantage of
clear-cut military superiority. By almost any measure, we are stronger than
our adversaries. Our arsenals are bigger, our weapons more sophisticated,
our generals better educated in the art of war, our fighters better trained
at waging it.
Yet most of this has proven to be irrelevant. Time and again the actual
employment of that ostensibly superior military might has produced results
other than those intended or anticipated. Even where armed intervention has
achieved a semblance of tactical success - the ousting of some unsavory
dictator, for example - it has yielded neither reconciliation nor willing
submission nor even sullen compliance. Instead, intervention typically
serves to aggravate, inciting further resistance. Rather than putting out
the fires of radicalism, we end up feeding them.
In proposing to pour yet more fuel on that fire, Hollande demonstrates a
crippling absence of imagination, one that has characterized recent Western
statesmanship more generally when it comes to the Islamic world. There,
simply trying harder will not suffice as a basis of policy.
It's past time for the West, and above all for the United States as the
West's primary military power, to consider trying something different.
Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a
defensive one. Instead of attempting to impose its will on the Greater
Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect itself from the violence
emanating from that quarter. Such barriers will necessarily be imperfect,
but they will produce greater security at a more affordable cost than is
gained by engaging in futile, open-ended armed conflicts. Rather than vainly
attempting to police or control, this revised strategy should seek to
contain.
Such an approach posits that, confronted with the responsibility to do so,
the peoples of the Greater Middle East will prove better equipped to solve
their problems than are policy makers back in Washington, London, or Paris.
It rejects as presumptuous any claim that the West can untangle problems of
vast historical and religious complexity to which Western folly contributed.
It rests on this core principle: Do no (further) harm.
Hollande views the tragedy that has befallen Paris as a summons to yet more
war. The rest of us would do well to see it as a moment to reexamine the
assumptions that have enmeshed the West in a war that it cannot win and
should not perpetuate.
C 2015 The Boston Globe


Other related posts:

  • » [blind-democracy] A War the West Cannot Win - Miriam Vieni