In yesterday's blog I mainly discussed Iran and its growing influence in the Middle East. Ironically, in last night's evening news on Al Jazeera, Iran's growing influence was one of the topics. In fact, the news footage even showed the "Shadow General" Qasem Soleimani, who recently led the Iranian troops in Iraq, now in Syria involved in the new "Russian" alliance! Al Jazeera claimed that there were many more Iranian troops in Syria than indicated by most news reports. Interestingly, none of the three big networks or CNN made any mention of Iran's increasing role in Syria.
This morning, President Obama announced that the drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will be slightly delayed and that the troop reduction will not be as severe as originally planned. According to Obama, next year 5500 U.S. troops will remain on three bases in Afghanistan to train and help Afghan National Army conduct counterinsurgency operations against Taliban, Al Qaeda, and now, ISIS as well. To me, that sounds like a delaying action. If we didn't get rid of the Taliban when we had over 100,000 troops on the ground, how are we going to do it with 5500 advisors and trainers, and, according to Pentagon itself, inadequately prepared Afghan National Army! It makes no sense!
There was another bit of news this week that unfortunately probably went unnoticed by most Americans. It is that the U.S. put boots on the ground to engage Boko Haram in Africa. Now the Boko Haram is a nasty group of Islamic terrorists, every bit as bad as ISIS and supposedly allied with the Middle Eastern counterpart. So, something should be done about getting rid of Boko Haram. But, we can ill afford to send troops to Africa only to get mired as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Theoretically, that is the reason that we stayed out of Syria which has now become even a bigger mess.
The last time we sent troops to sub-Saharan Africa was back in early 1990s when we dispatched a Ranger Battalion and Special Forces teams to Somalia. Unfortunately the American public has a short memory and probably does not remember how we abruptly pulled out of Somalia after two Blackhawk helicopters were shot down and the Rangers were involved in a nasty fire fight. The videos of the dead American soldiers' bodies being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu was too much for the American public and Clinton ordered a complete and abrupt U.S. pull out.
We left Somalia in a mess and are still paying for it. All those pirates operating out of Horn of Africa are from Somalia. Somalia is a haven for terrorists and it is in utter chaos. So, although we have not gone back to Somalia, we seem to stick our nose in other African countries. We have a permanent joint service base in Djibouti, and several other bases scattered about in Mali, Uganda, and couple other countries. Although these are mostly small bases for launching drones, they are still bases with U.S. military personnel. Additionally, the 3rd Special Forces Group out of Ft. Bragg, N.C., has been deployed to Africa since the fiasco in Somalia some quarter of a century ago!
We are deeply involved in Africa and thousands of U.S. troops have been sent to that continent periodically throughout the last couple of decades. Yet, the public never hears anything about it and the news coverage is minimal! The U.S. Africa Command (yes, we do have a command, like Central Command for Middle East, that is specifically charged with Africa) is very tight lipped and does not give the press much access. Pentagon will only provide vague, general responses when asked about our involvement in Africa. So, we are reluctant to put boots on the ground in the Middle East but we are doing that now in Africa!
Our entire strategy or policy around the world (if we have one!) appears to be completely reactive, not proactive! You cannot defeat terrorist groups or guerrilla organizations fighting reactively! By being "reactive," all we are doing is delaying the inevitable, which is the take-over by the terrorist/guerrilla movements. By being "reactive" in Afghanistan and Iraq (which is what we are doing after the pull out!) we are simply delaying the total collapse of the fragile regimes that we support. Perhaps they will last a decade, who knows, but they will fall if we simply continue to support them only reactively. In the meantime, billions upon billions of tax payers' money is spent on these no-win situations!
The only way to defeat terror groups such as Taliban, Al Qaeda, or ISIS in the Middle East or Boko Haram in Africa is to go in full force with military and at the same time provide economic support, education, health care, in other words, heavy on the humanitarian aide! Obviously we can't do this alone, the cost would be prohibitive. What we need to do as the world "leader" is to convince other developed nations to pitch-in and provide the needed economic and medical aide to these countries. Military action alone will not do it, but to abandon the military option and simply provide reactive support is a huge mistake.
I hate to be so pessimistic, but unless there is a dramatic shift in our foreign policy and leadership in Washington, all these countries where we are involved, will eventually succumb to the terrorist groups. As long as we continue to be just "reactive" in places where terror groups pop-up, we might manage to stave them off for a time, but eventually will lose to them, especially when we pull out!
Our leaders in Washington are too short-sighted. It seems that their thinking is based on four year terms, but then again, that seems to be the gold standard in Washington! It almost seems like there is a "let the next guy worry about this or that" attitude among some politicians. We should stop looking for quick fixes to problems and try to figure out what the root of the problem is in a particular situation. In most countries where there is trouble, it is poverty, injustice, and corrupt governments that are the cause of insurgent movements. Although some of these insurgencies are supposedly religion based, the so-called Islamic Terror groups, nevertheless, they got their start by telling people that they will cure the poverty, the corruption, etc. We should always approach solving problems in troubled countries with non-military support in mind as well. Unfortunately, we go in heavy on the military side and then end up supporting new leaders that are corrupt. This does not solve the problem but rather make it worse!
No comments:
Post a Comment