What One American Soldier Thinks
One of the greatest benefits I have reaped from the internets is learning what the rest of the world thinks. I use Watching America for that. Today's foray presented a really interesting situation: a foreign view of an American soldier's view on the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT). The article was published January 16, 2008 in Lebanon's Daily Star.
The author refers to a short paper written by an American soldier which appeared in a publication of the US Army War College at Carlysle, Pennsylvania. The article itself is available in PDF format here. What struck me, however, was not just Col. Dobrot's opinion, but what the Lebanese columnist considered important in that paper.
[President George W. Bush] and others in Washington would profit from reading a sensible and timely short paper by Colonel Laurence Andrew Dobrot, the deputy director of the US Missile Defense Agency's Airborne Laser Program. Published in November of last year by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, the paper is titled "The Global War on Terrorism: A Religious War?"
It makes a cogent case for a change in strategy in the American-led global war on terror. It sees the existing strategy as having limited impact, and even argues that "the nation's current policies and actions may, in fact, be creating more, not fewer, terrorists."
Those in the US who are fed up with hearing people around the world point out the flaws in American foreign policy may be more inclined to listen to an American soldier who speaks from experience. Dobrot served in Afghanistan and understands the strengths and limits of military power. After five years of participating in the global war on terrorism (GWOT), with the loss of over 3,000 Americans, Dobrot writes, "many people question whether the US strategy is working, and whether the United States understands how to combat an enemy motivated by a radical revolutionary religious ideology."
Dobrot suggests three root causes of the terror problem as manifested by Al-Qaeda and other such groups: the lack of wealth-sharing in Islamic countries; resentment of Western exploitation of Islamic countries; and a US credibility gap within the Islamic community. Comparing the ends, ways and means of Washington's war on terror with those of Al-Qaeda and other such groups, he concludes that the US is not achieving its long-term strategic objectives in the war on terror, and recommends that "US strategy focus on the root causes of Islamic hostility."
...[Two] recommendations are proposed to help shape that future: First, the United States must be seen as 'just' to re-establish its credibility and legitimacy in the Islamic world. Second, the United States must communicate and promote democracy in terms that the Islamic world understands and respects. To achieve its long-term objective of creating an inhospitable environment for violent extremists through the creation of democratic institutions in nation-states, the United States must consistently focus its reform efforts on those predominately Islamic nations with which it already has relationships ... To repair its credibility, the United States must focus on applying just practices. The United States must hold the Israelis, the Saudis, the Egyptians, and itself accountable to standards and policies perceived among mainstream Muslims as being consistent. Specifically, the United States must recognize democratically elected governments such as Hamas and actively engage them in public diplomacy, even if it disagrees with them."
Clearly the Lebanese writer, a gentleman familiar with the American military, has a unique view of the American policy on terrorism, if only because his own country has been wracked by violence. However, what he clearly appreciated was the skewed American policy which allows those Arab nations who go along with whatever the US wants are given a pass when it comes to human rights and democratic ideal. His selection of certain parts of Col. Dobrot's paper makes that clear.
Many Americans, and not just those in the progressive community, have also urged such a change in American policy. In the past seven years, however, those voices have been muffled by the ridicule of those who saw such an approach as coddling the terrorists, offering them therapy, a hug, and a chorus of "Kumbaya" when what was really needed was bombing the offenders (and whatever country was on "the list") into submission. Nearly five years later, we not only are no closer to solving the problem of international terrorism, we have effectively swelled its rolls with our cowboy diplomacy and ruined our reputation internationally to the point that we can find no real allies willing to contribute substantively to the solution.
Maybe the conclusions of one American soldier will get a better hearing, if not before January 19, 2009, then perhaps after. I certainly hope so.
366 days to go.
The author refers to a short paper written by an American soldier which appeared in a publication of the US Army War College at Carlysle, Pennsylvania. The article itself is available in PDF format here. What struck me, however, was not just Col. Dobrot's opinion, but what the Lebanese columnist considered important in that paper.
[President George W. Bush] and others in Washington would profit from reading a sensible and timely short paper by Colonel Laurence Andrew Dobrot, the deputy director of the US Missile Defense Agency's Airborne Laser Program. Published in November of last year by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, the paper is titled "The Global War on Terrorism: A Religious War?"
It makes a cogent case for a change in strategy in the American-led global war on terror. It sees the existing strategy as having limited impact, and even argues that "the nation's current policies and actions may, in fact, be creating more, not fewer, terrorists."
Those in the US who are fed up with hearing people around the world point out the flaws in American foreign policy may be more inclined to listen to an American soldier who speaks from experience. Dobrot served in Afghanistan and understands the strengths and limits of military power. After five years of participating in the global war on terrorism (GWOT), with the loss of over 3,000 Americans, Dobrot writes, "many people question whether the US strategy is working, and whether the United States understands how to combat an enemy motivated by a radical revolutionary religious ideology."
Dobrot suggests three root causes of the terror problem as manifested by Al-Qaeda and other such groups: the lack of wealth-sharing in Islamic countries; resentment of Western exploitation of Islamic countries; and a US credibility gap within the Islamic community. Comparing the ends, ways and means of Washington's war on terror with those of Al-Qaeda and other such groups, he concludes that the US is not achieving its long-term strategic objectives in the war on terror, and recommends that "US strategy focus on the root causes of Islamic hostility."
...[Two] recommendations are proposed to help shape that future: First, the United States must be seen as 'just' to re-establish its credibility and legitimacy in the Islamic world. Second, the United States must communicate and promote democracy in terms that the Islamic world understands and respects. To achieve its long-term objective of creating an inhospitable environment for violent extremists through the creation of democratic institutions in nation-states, the United States must consistently focus its reform efforts on those predominately Islamic nations with which it already has relationships ... To repair its credibility, the United States must focus on applying just practices. The United States must hold the Israelis, the Saudis, the Egyptians, and itself accountable to standards and policies perceived among mainstream Muslims as being consistent. Specifically, the United States must recognize democratically elected governments such as Hamas and actively engage them in public diplomacy, even if it disagrees with them."
Clearly the Lebanese writer, a gentleman familiar with the American military, has a unique view of the American policy on terrorism, if only because his own country has been wracked by violence. However, what he clearly appreciated was the skewed American policy which allows those Arab nations who go along with whatever the US wants are given a pass when it comes to human rights and democratic ideal. His selection of certain parts of Col. Dobrot's paper makes that clear.
Many Americans, and not just those in the progressive community, have also urged such a change in American policy. In the past seven years, however, those voices have been muffled by the ridicule of those who saw such an approach as coddling the terrorists, offering them therapy, a hug, and a chorus of "Kumbaya" when what was really needed was bombing the offenders (and whatever country was on "the list") into submission. Nearly five years later, we not only are no closer to solving the problem of international terrorism, we have effectively swelled its rolls with our cowboy diplomacy and ruined our reputation internationally to the point that we can find no real allies willing to contribute substantively to the solution.
Maybe the conclusions of one American soldier will get a better hearing, if not before January 19, 2009, then perhaps after. I certainly hope so.
366 days to go.
Labels: Foreign Policy, Terrorism
posted by Diane at 12:46 PM
1 Comments:
I have forsaken any hope for a solution to Middle East problems because I believe resource and religious wars will continue there until both sources of conflict are exhausted.
Oil will run out before religious delusion is overcome. The East and the West are ideologically driven by scriptures that cannot abide peace. It's a very sad situation.
Post a Comment
<< Home