Argue Strategy, Not Tactics!

US official: Drone kills senior al-Qaida militant in Pakistan

Targeted strike broke undeclared hiatus of patrols over tribal areas
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46063325/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/#.Txi4qoGwWmI

Yesterday, it was announced by a U.S. official that a Senior Operations Organizer for Al Qaeda, Aslam Awan, was killed in one of two drone strikes across the Pakistani border.  Ten days ago, intelligence identified the target in Miranshah, a border town in North Waziristan.  This strike ended a little discussed eight week break in drone attacks inside Pakistan.

As technology and policy collide, the President of the United States has faced numerous attacks on his prosecution of the war in Afghanistan and its neighbor to the east.  Some of these attacks have come from the right, whose hatred of Obama disallows any support for his foreign policy decisions.  These quips serve as a substantive display of the hypocrisy that has engulfed a party who started Bush’s Wars. 

More interesting and challenging are the attacks that POTUS faces from the left.  I have certainly been described in kind light as holding activist foreign policy beliefs, and in less glowing terms as hawkish, but the President today faces a challenge of executing policy, as opposed to creating it. 

W. authorized action across the border in 2009, shifting a policy of counting on a wavering Pakistani government to deal with the vicious Haqqani Network operating in the lawless tribal areas – a place where the European crafted border between Pakistan and Afghanistan means little.  President Obama is simply executing an established policy more effectively than his troubled predecessor.

Of course, this execution of policy begs the question – is this policy worth pursuing?  I certainly hold sympathy for those on the left who are tired of bombing people, regardless of how antiseptic it might appear from the nose-camera of a hellfire missile.  I, too, have seen the images of damaged civilian bodies posted in media outlets dedicated to showing us the true picture of war – and value the service those outlets provide.  I am also aware that no bomb will ever be smart enough to spare the innocent.  All that being said - I support both the policy of targeting elements of the Taliban in Pakistan and the method by which our President is executing on that mission.

Often when talking with people who hold contrary beliefs, I am perplexed by the notion that some feel we simply have no enemies in this world.  I simply cannot deny existence of an enemy, spurred on by years of inadequate American foreign policy and, yes, a healthy dose of religious extremism, which will never give up their quest to hit us where it hurts.  Maybe it is because I have been to where the USS Cole was bombed, or that I have a younger brother who has chosen to follow his flag, now stationed in northern Afghanistan.  It could be due to the days and weeks of news coverage I absorbed in September of 2001, and every day since.  Maybe it is because I would prefer a hellfire to kick in the door of a far-away hovel than the boots of my brothers and sister, many of whom are simply seeking money for college. This is a bell we cannot un-ring.  We are walking down a predictable path, however harrowing:  Republicans start wars and Democrats end (win) them.

If we want to reexamine our policy in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, let us have that conversation.  After a decade of war, it is probably high time we do.  What we should not do is attack our president for using the latest and greatest technology afforded to our armed forces.  Criticizing the tactical, as opposed to the strategic elements of our foreign policy is akin to saying that our troops should no longer use automatic weapons, lest a stray round find itself off target.  What’s more – it is the fight the left truly wants to have, and a fair fight at that.

What War Does.

New York Times 1/12/12

“Video Inflames a Delicate Moment for U.S. in Afghanistan”

During a critical time as America seeks to begin a dialogue with representatives of the Taliban, a video surfaced showing four United States Marines urinating on several Taliban corpses.  Members of the Karzai government and of the Taliban quickly condemned the video.  The U.S. also condemned the activity and has identified the Marines involved, now stateside.  The Geneva Convention calls upon signatory states to treat the bodies of the fallen “honorably”, and many view this as a violation. 

One notion of this story that is frustrating rests on the notion that four Marines denigrated the service of thousands of Americans – maintaining honor and integrity on the battlefield regardless of brothers and sisters lost or multiple deployments.  That being said, this aspect of war, its ugly underbelly, must be considered prior to our next deployment of forces.  Stories like this one (and others certainly exist) represent the apprehension felt by those of us opposed to the invasion in Iraq.  These same apprehensions were glossed over by an administration and media hell bent to see the exciting parts of war.  “The oil will pay for this thing… we’ll be out in no time… they’ll greet us as liberators…”.  All of the hubris leading up to our decade of war failed to foresee war-weary young Marines losing their humanity, the traumatized vet wreaking havoc on Mt. Rainier, and an economy unable to provide the jobs for a group to whom we owe so much.  There is very little good that might come from such stories, let us ensure that an informed, comprehensive debate leading up to our next ground deployment be that benefit.

Another infuriating angle of this story involves AM Talk Radio coverage of this incident.  Often one must conduct a bit of counter intelligence to hear what the opposition is arguing.  Many on the AM side of the band predictably defended the actions of the Marines – creating jokes around the incident or draping themselves with the flag behind the claim that none of us can understand the stress.  As mentioned previously, this argument simply denigrates the service of those who’ve avoided desecrating bodies during deployments.  I do not expect this group of pundits to see this peripheral argument, and know connecting dots isn’t high on their agenda.  Even more galling were the angry rants as to how the NCO’s could allow this to be filmed and as to how someone could actually post it online!  Forget about the actual act of urinating on the dead – how could they film it and who would tell?!  It saddens me to see that we must still fight to be the good guys – in a country who was instrumental in the creation of the Geneva Convention we now must fight for its legitimacy.  In an attempt to gain understanding regarding conduct in uniform, it is appropriate to listen to one who has actually worn one.  The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, tells us that “Actions like those are not only illegal but are contrary to the values of a professional military and serve to erode the reputation of our joint force”.