Reflection: Oh The Places We'll Go

Congratulations!

Today is your day.

You're off to Great Places!

You're off and away!

You have brains in your head.

You have feet in your shoes.

You can steer yourself 

any direction you choose.

The United States government has reached a critical junction that will decide the future of the nation: do we continue down the slippery slope of national security overreaction, or do we deal with the domestic problems that we face here at home?  After our trips to Christ House, and then to the Pentagon, it was obvious that the United States has chosen the former, at least for now.

There comes a point where the government is too involved in the security of their nation.  I'm not saying the United States is there yet, or we should just open our borders or end scanning in airports, but I find it odd that people are so frightened by any hint of government intervention in the economy, yet those same people are perfectly fine with the government monitoring every part of their lives from the day they're born until the day they die.

It's interesting to wonder why the US has clearly sided with the military/security end of this growingly one-sided dichotomy.  For those who say that we can have both, I would cite LBJ's problems keeping together the Great Society while fighting a massive war in Southeast Asia.  Still, though, the budget appropriated to the Vietnam War was smaller than the budget of the Defense Department today, even after being adjusted for inflation.

Perhaps the government is to blame for this problem.  After all, nobody has ever lost an election by looking tough on terrorism, yet countless members have been unfortunately voted out of office or barred from entering office due to their "extreme" belief that domestic matters should take precedence over involvement in foreign affairs.

In 1979/1980, every night, you would hear Walter Cronkite, after he concluded each of his evening news broadcasts about the update on the hostage situation in Iran.  While the securement of the American diplomats was a serious issue and the Carter administration should be praised for bringing them home safe, you never would hear him say how many people died due to drug overdose on that day.  You would never hear how many kids went to bed hungry lastnight.  Or how many citizens live below the poverty line.  Are they not important?

Perhaps it's because when discussing security there is a clear enemy.  We see them on television, denouncing the United States and promising retribution for American occupation of land abroad.  The economy isn't going to go on CNBC one morning and say, "hey, sucks to be you guys, but I'm increasing unemployment another half a percent.  Oh yeah, and 4 million more Americans are now below the poverty line."  While it's obviously unclear what reaction would be in such a bizarre situation, one would imagine that it would bring the problems of economic instability to the forefront of American concerns, even more so than it is currently.

Neither problem is going to be "solved."  There isn't a magic solution of government programs and regulations that is going to solve the problem of economic insecurity in this country.  Likewise, the national security of the United States is   Poverty is always going to continue: so long as there are rich people there will be "poor" people.  Terrorism will live on anyway you look at it.

America's "day" is now, and for all we know, the sun may be setting on this day sooner than we realize.  What direction should we choose?  Should we secure our people from the ravages of economic and social neglect, or secure ourselves from those who will never like us anyway?  The economy is certainly not a friendly apparatus, but it is not malevolent.  Squashing terrorism is a futile exercise.  It's like a rash on your skin.  Keep scratching it, and it will get worse.  Let it alone, and it will eventually fade away.  Again, neither of these problems is going to be fully solved, but in my opinion the decision on the future priorities of the United States should be clear.  It's up to you.

You're off to Great Places!

Today is your day!

Your mountain is waiting.

So...get on your way!

Reflection: The Pentagon and the war on terror

Don’t judge a book by its cover. That’s the theme that came into my head when we toured the Pentagon. From first glance the Pentagon looks like a really scary place. The very first personnel you’re likely to see is a security guard with a serious looking gun. Mind you this isn’t the typical pistol you see police officers carrying all the time. After having to show two IDs, we walked passed another security check point. Eventually what appeared to be an officer called our group in a semi-militaristic tone. That’s when everything changed. The officers giving the tour were very friendly and joked often. The biggest surprise was that there are so many stores and restaurants within the Pentagon. There were even paintings and pictures all along the hallways to keep the place from looking shabby. I felt like I was walking around a mall. Maybe the Pentagon isn’t such a scary place if you work there. I found it interesting that the only actual room we went inside was the 9/11 memorial. When I remember 9/11, I usually only think about the World Trade Center. However, plenty of people died crashing into the Pentagon and Pennsylvania that day too.

Unlike car crashes and diseases, we have universal faces to blame when we talk about terrorism. If we didn’t have figures like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, I think U.S. actions would be significantly less justifiable. There are probably terrorists in every corner of the world, so the U.S. needed a compelling target to explain the invasion of Afghanistan. The attempt to capture Osama bin Laden and the capture of Saddam Hussein represent quantifiable goals. The war on terror, as discussed in class, can never be won. Even if we capture Saddam Hussein, there will be other extremists who’ll take his place. Because there will always be people who hate the U.S. and western ideals, we are never truly secure as we might want to be.

Reflection on the Pentagon

Our visit to the Pentagon, made me think about national security a little bit more. Erin asked the question of since 9/11 how has security at the Pentagon changed? Our tour guide answered that additional security checkpoints were added and the entrance to the Pentagon no longer was directly connected to the Metro.

After every incidence of breached security, security measures change to protect against another breach. But because security evolves, won't threats to that security evolve too? Can we really completely deter and avoid threats and attacks as these may evolve to breach reinforced security? It's like creating a vaccine to protect against a virus, but the creation and administration of the vaccine only prompts the virus to evolve and become immune to the vaccine.

In that case, the nation may never be completely secure, only aware of threats and how to deter them.

Afghanistan, staying there makes us less secure

The fact that the United States has troops deployed in Afghanistan right now makes me feel less secure. For one thing, we don’t even know if Osama Bin Laden is even in Afghanistan. He could be somewhere else plotting his next attack. I think deploying spies and gathering intelligence across the Middle East would be a lot more cost effective. The military spending used to station troops in Afghanistan could be used more efficiently. Secondly, having an American presence there in the form of military presence sends a terrible image to the people of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda persuades the locals to join them by saying America is a major threat to them. When you have American troops walking around with guns in the neighborhood, I doubt Afghans feel a friendly vibe from it. Add in the fact that innocent Afghans are sometimes killed from Drone attacks, and it doesn’t take Al Qaeda much to come up with a convincing argument that America is evil.

Keeping troops in Afghanistan not only makes us less secure from terrorists, but it also makes us more vulnerable to other global threats. There is the obvious fact that the troops in Afghanistan could be stationed somewhere where they could keep us safe better. I think the U.S. showed an imperialistic side to the world when it decided to keep troops there even when the rest of the world withdrew their troops. The other countries saw no need to stay in Afghanistan. While the attacks were definitely more personal for the U.S., Europe has been dealing with terrorist attacks for a long time prior to 9/11. Having other nations, especially allies, question U.S. motives can never be good for U.S. security.

The long-term presence of American troops in Afghanistan also shows the world that the U.S. may not be the all-powerful hegemon the world may thought it was. Had the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, found the criminals, and left swiftly, that would have left a strong impression of U.S. military might. I think if terrorists saw that they would be crushed if they mess with the U.S., they would be considerably less inclined to threaten it. The continued presence of American troops show weakness and inability to accomplish goals. At a time when the U.S. is trying to hold on to its economic power, showing military weakness only worsens its security in the global society.

The Difference between Security and Small Victories

Does the U.S. presence in Afghanistan make us more or less secure? It’s hard to say. On one hand, it seems to be human instinct to feel better when you are doing something to solve a problem, like securing against a terrorist threat, because then you know that at least you’re trying to do everything you are capable of and not needlessly endangering yourself by not acting. On the other hand, this does not mean that taking action for the sake of action will actually solve the problem -- sometimes, it just makes people feel better. However, given the fact that the nature of “security” is disputed, to say the least, how exactly can we tell if our actions make us more secure? One idea about the nature of security is the extent to which people feel secure, because there is no way to know about every single possible danger that could easily crop up at any moment. Another similar idea is that security involves dealing with any danger at hand, because if we cannot be safe from unknown unknowns, we should at least guard against what we know to be a danger, lessening the amount of danger however slightly. Do either of these idea apply to the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan?

First of all, it is true that in Afghanistan, the U.S. is seeking out a real, tangible danger to U.S. citizens, unlike the operations in Iraq, where the dangers to the U.S. were speculative at the very best. The Taliban in Afghanistan were responsible for supporting and giving sanctuary to Al Qaeda, and therefore are a direct threat to the U.S.’s security. However, and this is a rather large “however”, how exactly do we mitigate that threat? The Taliban is not a nation-state that can surrender and “lose” a war, and Al Qaeda is not a single entity that can be defeated by a strong enough push from the U.S. Fighting the threat in Iraq has greater similarities to fighting organized crime than to fighting a war, and we measure the success of fighting crime by fewer deaths due to crime, lower crime statistics, fewer criminal convictions. Organized criminals do not all stand up, organization by organization, and surrender to the police. The same concept applies in Afghanistan. Just because the criminals are foreign, it does not mean they are the work of a foreign state. Therefore, while having troops in Afghanistan can make us “feel” safe, we cannot really expect to have a single clear-cut victory, because for one, unlike in domestic affairs, the U.S. cannot police the whole world simultaneously and indefinitely; and for another, terrorist attacks on the U.S. are not nearly frequent enough to provide reliable statistics.

In addition to this, given this idea that we cannot completely win against a danger that is not a single entity but simply a series of actions stemming from the same general idea, there’s the question of whether, if we cannot possibly foresee all the dangers that could arise, if simply feeling safe and secure means security. I believe that sometimes it does, but only if it does not influence our actions that could raise the total number of seen and unforeseen threat even higher. As discussed in class, it frequently is true that if we act as though we are at war, we tend to induce actual war. If we are sure that we are at war in (the distinction between “in” and “with” does not have as much meaning to the people in Afghanistan who are affected by our presence as it does to us, far away in the United States) Afghanistan, the obvious reaction in Afghanistan would be to react accordingly. Therefore, in theory, having troops in Afghanistan could actually be seen as making us less safe in the long run.

Of course on a smaller scale, this is much more complicated. The fact that our problems in Afghanistan were caused by what we did more than what we, at this moment, are doing makes a lot of difference. On a small scale, we are technically lessening dangers of more 9/11s by weakening and disrupting the organizations who caused it. However, our troop presence in Afghanistan does not make us, as a nation, in the long run, more “secure”, because there is no discernible, naturally-occurring, obvious end in sight, no victory like the toppling of the Nazis in World War II. The only way to solve this overarching threat is to allow the ideas and social conditions that fermented the ideas to die off. In the meantime, we are racheting up resentment towards us by acting (or at least being perceived as acting) as though we are at war in a situation where conflict cannot be framed in terms of war. Also, in the meantime, we may prevent some particular American deaths by weakening our strongest enemies and derailing specific plans, but to say that these few acts actually makes us more secure, as a nation and in the long run, is a gross oversimplification.

The Facade of Security

The United States having troops deployed in Afghanistan does not necessarily make me more secure, but I do believe that it is supposed to make me think and feel like I am secure.

Deploying troops in Afghanistan after the September 11th attacks was a way for the United States to target the terrorists that carried out the attacks and eliminate the threat they posed. It was also a way for the United States to show they were actually doing something about these attacks on the American people and securing the safety of the nation. It was a way to persuade the American public that the nation is secure because the government has deployed military force into the territory of the enemy. Having troops deployed may have the effect of reassuring Americans and making them feel like they are secure.

War, however, does cause conflict (obviously) and creates opposition at home and abroad which can make citizens, in reality and regardless of how they feel, not secure, but rather vulnerable to attack.

Securing Ourselves, but Keeping Promises Abroad

It's difficult to discern the true threat that various militant groups in the Middle East pose to US security, and also to my individual personal security.

I have mixed feelings about the war in Afghanistan.  I'm pleased that this administration has placed more focus on the country in its national security strategy, which was sorely lacking in the previous administration.  Afghanistan certainly is more of a threat to the security of the United States than was Iraq, and it only seems fair that more military emphasis be placed on a country that was actually a threat to the US than was just a threat to itself (I'm not putting down the unparalleled effort our troops exhibited in Iraq, and they deserve all the praise they get and more).

However, I have to keep asking myself, what is a "win" in Afghanistan?  There isn't going to be a signing of a surrender by the Taliban or Al Qaida on an aircraft carrier, or a white flag being raised from their headquarters.  Because, think about it, what is the "headquarters" of these organizations.  They aren't nation-states, and therefore it's more difficult to gauge success against a group that (for the most part) doesn't have a clear leader, finite military forces, and a known area of influence.  It's easy to have the standard bearer of an enemy in war or conflict be the Nazis in WWII.  It had a clear leader, it had a finite military in the German forces, and it was known what territory it was taking or already occupied (to as best extent as it could be known).  So what's a win?  The Taliban or Al Qaida isn't going to surrender as it's not a nation-state, and it's certainly feasible to think that continued influence by the United States in an effort to suppress a terrorist organization would only embolden those who are fighting against us.

It brings up the question of how these terrorist organizations cause the US such a problem in the first place.  And when you think about it, the policy of intervention in foreign affairs on the part of the United States seems to have dug the US its own grave.  While protecting US interests is important, we have tended to overreach into foreign conflicts.  Korea, Vietnam, and various proxy wars have shown that there hasn't been much success in proving to the world of the US hegemony over global affairs.

But how has this foreign policy caused the problems we face today?  Terrorist and fringe organizations tend to arise from certain socioeconomic factors: income inequality, exploitation, corruption, and downtrodden and war-torn economic conditions.  That's why the US was eager to aid Western Europe following World War II, because the State Department was sure that various left-wing organizations would gain more steam among the disposed population of Europe.  The United States, however, has provided the Middle East with not a solution to those problems, but the actual problems.  Beginning with the Eisenhower administration, the US has acted strategically with regards to the Middle East, due mainly to the vast and valuable oil reserves that are prevalent there.  In places like Iran, the CIA ousted a democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq, and installed a corrupt government which eventually cracked in 1979.  And to this day we wonder why the Iranian and US governments have not always seen eye to eye.  Same goes for Iraq.  In the 1980s, the Reagan administration sold weapons to both the Iraqi and Iranian governments in order to essentially have the two militaries destroy themselves in order for the US to exert more control over the region without a hard opposition.  The Reagan administration was also not averse to propping up regimes in foreign countries with our military, much to the detriment of the population in those countries.  We have ourselves to blame for the rise of these radical groups in the Middle East.  It's not a coincidence that our increased involvement in the affairs of the Middle East has been met with the increased membership of those populations with terror networks.

It reminds me of an episode from the West Wing, where a former president who can be easily be seen to reflect Ronald Reagan dies, and the current president's speechwriter Toby can't find any good things to say about what the Lassiter administration did for his eulogy, especially in regards to foreign policy:

"And I look at these great....and terrible old men, and I think: these men spent the better part of the late twentieth century trying to play God in other countries.  And the regimes they anointed...are the ones that haunt us today."

Think about it: if you were living in Afghanistan, and you saw how much oppression foreign governments brought to your country, how would you react?  Would you willingly go through your life without food, water, housing, schools, infrastructure, etc?  Joining a terrorist organization may seem like an inevitable fate, so long as you don't want to starve.

The deploying of troops in Afghanistan seems to perfectly reflect the internationalist spirit the United States has embodied in recent decades following WWII.  But has this spirit really made us safer?  Being the hegemon is nice and all, but it provides dissident nations and populations with something to be united against.  So long as there are terrorist or non-state organizations, the realist world model will live on.  There will continue to be a balance of power act against the United States, so long as we continue to "meddle" (that's a strong word) in the affairs of other nations.

We have been placed in a tough situation: do we move forward, have a potential insurgency in Afghanistan, and reclaim our identity as the infallible hegemon?  Or do we move in a more isolationist direction, possibly decreasing the influence of our nationalism over time, but also decrease the nationalism of other rogue nations/organizations?  If we stay, we will be seen as the country that isn't able to secure a win in the War on Terror, assuming the present course is stayed.  If we leave, we'd be seen as giving up on our friends (although Karzai is no friend) and set a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.

Overall, when you weigh the real current and potential future costs of the presence of US troops in Afghanistan to the potential benefits of a "victory" in that nation, it seems that there aren't enough pros to continue our mission in Afghanistan.  In the short term, we will lose more troops, while gaining little in terms of international recognition and support.  In the long term, we will make ourselves less safe, as we would create more resentment toward us abroad.  You never know, the dissidence may not be limited to the Middle East.  Europe and Asia could begin to spark an anti-American revolution soon.  It's unlikely, but not impossible.

I realized that there's another quote from the same West Wing episode that is pertinent to this, so I'll close with it:

"Why do they hate us?  Because we support their oppressors...we ARE their oppressors.  You start saddling up camels in every country in the Middle East, you better be prepared to spend the next 50 years sifting through sand.  Because this isn't some run on the beach.  This is the new world order."