National Security Strategy and the Global War on Terror

[Eric Hall]

I just wanted to discuss some ideas with regard to our National Security Strategy and the Global War on Terrorism(GWOT). Notably two of our highest priorities with regard to the NSS is to promote democracy and fight the GWOT. Since 911 GWOT has taken even a greater role in the NSS.

Most terrorist operations are located and operate out of third world poor countries. The U.S. government has handed out much foreign aid to some of these third world countries in the form of money, training, and sometimes equipment, to help strengthen their ability to combat terrorist organizations. As a general rule a stabile government and a strong security force makes for dificult operations for an extreemist group wishing to set up and carry out operations. So the aid helps fight the GWOT and may help establish or strengthen a democracy.

So, in theory a stabile communist government with a strong security force is also good for the GWOT. Obviously some of the third world countries do not have a stabile government and given the option, we would certainly pursue a democratic form of government. Does the US still give aid to the poor countries who desire or currently have a communist governement? Should we give aid to poor communist countries in order to fight terrorism? How far do we go with these handouts? It may be easier to set up a stabile communist government than to attempt to make a long potentially unsuccessfull democratic transformation on the road to the same ends. Unforunately, I think this will be the route we have to take to help stabilize other areas of the world. With, that being said, there is no guarantee that any of the countries we help will be future allies or future enemies with regards to a conventional war. There is also no guarantee that a future enemy will not have a democratic form of government. Probably, the only real guarntee is that the foreign aid will not be directing helping the hard-working citizens of the United States. Hopefully, we will be preventing another 911.

For any intended reader of this blog. I am not pro communism. I simply used communism as an easily identifiable atternate form of government to convey my message in this blog.

LTC Eric A. Hall ILE SGA Ft Gordon Class 009-02

 

[OPSSG]

I just wanted to discuss some ideas with regard to our National Security Strategy and the Global War on Terrorism(GWOT).

1. Sir, this is an international forum and it would be useful to say that it is US's National Security Strategy, rather than 'our', unless you are writing for a purely internal US debate and seeking to restrict participation to a US audience.

Notably two of our highest priorities with regard to the NSS is to promote democracy and fight the GWOT. Since 911 GWOT has taken even a greater role in the NSS.

2. It is important to keep in mind that correlation is not causation. The conflation of the ideas that 'democracy' will lead to greater 'US security' is not a strong thesis (if you consider certain abhorrent examples).

3. The promotion of the ideal of 'democracy' (often used to mean elections within a geographical area) is more strongly correlated to the US internal domestic political narrative on the use of military force but the mere fact that elections occur does not mean that the regime that was elected into power will be supportive of US interests.

(i) IMO, Hamas and its affiliates is: one, a political movement, two, an armed organisation, and three, has been labeled as a 'terrorist' organisation by the US/EU countries. The mere fact that Hamas was 'elected' by the people of Gaza in 2006 does not change their armed warfare capabilities or their political warfare agenda. Their political ideology of hate will not change not matter how much the US aid is given the Palestinians. This is because Hamas (or even Fatah) as an organisation has no capacity or vision to generate a win-win two state solution for Israel and Palestine.

(ii) The violent agenda between the various Middle Eastern groups existed even before US involvement and is unlikely to change no matter what the 'moderate' Arab states say. The active supporters of Hamas are the Iranians and the Syrians, who are fighting a proxy war with Israel.

(iii) This war by proxy is a planned state strategy for the Iranians and the Syrians. No effective 'moderate' voice for the Palestinians is likely to occur in the current political environment. More elections will only cloth Hamas with legitimacy, which suits the Iranian and the Syrian agendas. Fyi, in another thread, I provided a link to an article called 'Under Cover of War: Hamas Political Violence in Gaza', which documents the alleged Hamas extra judicial killings of suspected collaborators.​

4. Even after free elections are held, like in East Timor, sporadic violence between internal interest groups (or ethical groups) has occurred. This sporadic violence (read the article called 'Ewok Army') occurred even after the Indonesian military had left and their supported militia was disarmed. This is because the political norms of the newly created country are primordial and there is no tradition of non-violence in the political culture of the country or the 'mores' (i.e. norms) that Tocqueville wrote about when observing early American political culture.

Most terrorist operations are located and operate out of third world poor countries.

5. This is a problematic statement as it is not self evident. Osama bin Ladin (OBL) is from Saudi Arabia, which is a rich country. OBL and his ilk (such as the Real IRA) provides technical support to enable disaffected groups to engage in armed struggle. There is no necessity for poverty to exist before this sort of martyr ideology can be exported.

The U.S. government has handed out much foreign aid to some of these third world countries in the form of money, training, and sometimes equipment, to help strengthen their ability to combat terrorist organizations. As a general rule a stable government and a strong security force makes for difficult operations for an extremist group wishing to set up and carry out operations. So the aid helps fight the GWOT and may help establish or strengthen a democracy.

6. In limited circumstances, US aid can indeed promote stability (like US aid to Indonesia after the Dec 2004 Tsunami) but it will not work in other circumstances. It is important to remember that it is the locals who determine their own destiny - not the US.

So, in theory a stable communist government with a strong security force is also good for the GWOT. Obviously some of the third world countries do not have a stabile government and given the option, we would certainly pursue a democratic form of government.

7. The world is a diverse place. The American world view, is just that - one world view. There are other view points.

Unfortunately, I think this will be the route we have to take to help stabilize other areas of the world. With, that being said, there is no guarantee that any of the countries we help will be future allies or future enemies with regards to a conventional war.

There is also no guarantee that a future enemy will not have a democratic form of government. Probably, the only real guarantee is that the foreign aid will not be directing helping the hard-working citizens of the United States. Hopefully, we will be preventing another 911.

8. Yes, there are no guarantees. The only thing I am absolutely certain of is that terrorist attacks against soft civilian targets in many parts of the world will continue, with the Mumbai terrorist incident being a recent example.

9. Further, democracy (by way of elections) in of itself does not necessarily lead to the creation and development of a capable government. The communist governments of China and Vietnam (who have historical animosity) are but two examples of moderately capable communist governments, who have of late become focused on the economic development of their respective countries/economies. In yet another thread, I provided a link to a RSIS working paper called 'The Implementation of Vietnam-China Land Border Treaty: Bilateral and Regional Implications', which provides a useful backgrounder on deescalation by both parties.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

Notably two of our highest priorities with regard to the NSS is to promote democracy and fight the GWOT. Since 911 GWOT has taken even a greater role in the NSS.

Aside from the fact this discusses the disputed idea that the U.S. should act as the world's policeman only now with regards to terrorism, promoting democracy does not promise an easing of radicalism. The first major example of this was the Islamic Salvation Army's victory in '92 Algerian elections, leading to a bloody decade-long civil war between them and the Algerian military. Hamas won in '06 Palestinian elections - something U.S. President G.W. Bush pushed Israel to permit. Fatah fought Hamas for control of the government, Fatah kicked out Hamas, and then Israel invaded in December '08. If anything we don't get the chance to see the long-term results of free elections in areas with radical Islam.

Most terrorist operations are located and operate out of third world poor countries. The U.S. government has handed out much foreign aid to some of these third world countries in the form of money, training, and sometimes equipment, to help strengthen their ability to combat terrorist organizations. As a general rule a stabile government and a strong security force makes for dificult operations for an extreemist group wishing to set up and carry out operations. So the aid helps fight the GWOT and may help establish or strengthen a democracy.

Yes most terrorists operate out of third world countries, but they can receive support from other, more financially stable and even democratic countries that are sympathetic to their cause. The U.S. supplied the Taleban to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, and a decade later they harbor al-Qaeda. The Taleban and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda received significant help from Pakistan's gov't and ISI in the form of intelligence and freedom of movement in FATA, SWAT, and NWFP. The U.S. has given lots of military and economic aid to Pakistan, undoubtedly some of which has reached the two aforementioned groups. You are correct that states that truly and uniformly do not want domestic terrorist elements are generally good at getting rid of them. The Muslim Brotherhood helped the Free Officers kick out Egypt's King Faruq. But Nasser wanted a secular, pan-Arabic state free of radical Islam, contrary to the MB's goals. So in response to an assassination attempt, Nasser locked up members of the MB and shut them down. So yes funding certain governments can help the West's cause, but it can also easily end up in the wrong hands, at least until Middle-Eastern governments realize it is in their best interest to shut out radical groups completely.

It's important to note that when addressing how to stop terrorism, you have to address the underlying reasons for why it exists and flourishes. I don't think they expected the U.S. to be so forcefully committed to Afghanistan. Part of UBL's reasoning for 9/11 was to push the U.S. to attack the Arab world, which would serve as a rally call for Muslims to take up arms against it and bleed it out in a war of attrition - similar to what they did against the Soviets in the '80s. So OEF-A was successful to a decent degree for the U.S. in pushing back stronger and staying longer than AQ and the Taleban thought it would, though the mission is still far from finished. The invasion of Iraq is what radicalized more people, especially in Iraq. Invading countries, especially with no post-invasion plans of reconstruction, no reconciling of religious and ethnic groups, and little support for new and changing institutions sows hatred among the populace. Direct-action ops, like U.S. UAV attacks in Pakistan are very effective at killing terrorists, but education is also very important to change fundamental beliefs like extremism. It's hard to tell people Hamas is a terrorist organization when it provides most of the services for Palestinians. If the West is trying to actually bring stability to the region, it should try involving itself more in the politics and understanding why they act why they do instead of simply doing what needs to be done for its own security interests.

 

[cavalrytrooper]

The United States has given money to tyrants so they could have stability in areas of interest. An example, the shah of Iran. Our government even helped Sadam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war. They even spent a lot of money in South America. Right now I feel like the world is a pot of soup on a high flame and it's about to boil over.