Messing with Others

With the exception of territorial claims in its own backyard, China has disavowed military interference in the political systems in other nations. Dictatorships, majority mob rule, anarchy, civil war… it doesn’t matter. China, which rests roughly at the 100 spot in per capital income with well over 100 million people making under $2/day, still tells the world that it is not ready to assume a greater role in multinational military solutions. She has joined with Russia, for example, in vetoing UN military efforts to unseat the brutal incumbent Syrian regime.

With a powerful colonial history, France and England have no such hesitancy. Recent French involvement in Mali, and the UK’s general involvement in Iraq and other Middle Eastern conflicts illustrate this rather well. Occasionally, you will see regional powers – the involvement of many Middle Eastern forces to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War – apply such military solutions.

Sanctions form the next level of interference with the internal policies of other nations. Iran and North Korea are the main recipients of such general pressures. Interestingly, of late, China has approved sanctions against the growing belligerency and saber-rattling from Kin Jong-Un, who believes that long-range rocket and nuclear weapons testing, pulling out of armistice treaties and showing videos of the White House and the Capitol being blown up make for good showmanship for the home crowd. But typically, China votes for a sanction but really is lax about enforcing the ban.

The fact remains that injustice, violence against women, repression, discrimination, brutal war lords and military dictatorships, crushing theocracies, murderous civil wars and religiously based murders, recruitment of children soldiers, forced and child labor, torture (sometimes inflicted by US forces on orders from above!) and random ultra-violent acts of terrorism are massively present all over the world. The same Taliban who put a bullet in the head of a little Pakistani girl who fought for the right of girls to receive an education are the folks who ruled Afghanistan before our post-9/11 attacks. They are also the largest single force in Afghanistan, mostly likely to prevail as the strongest military presence in the country. Perhaps there will be smaller areas where local war lords control their land, but our departure from Afghanistan will most likely result in the repressive Taliban resuming power and control.

While these extremists are likely to prevail as the post-NATO invasion government, they are hardly adored by the local people. In the hotbed of searing violence, southeastern Afghanistan (which borders Pakistan’s Tribal District), the Taliban and NATO forces clash with great frequency. Poor farmers and villagers are caught in the middle. Ideally, they would simply like to be left alone. The Taliban would like the world to think that they are the political power of choice for the Afghanis, but while the locals would accept any government that would allow them just to live their lives in peace, the Taliban are definitely not the solution they remotely want.

“An uprising against the Taliban that began last month in this southern Afghan village has now spread through dozens of others, according to residents and Afghan and American officials, in the most significant popular turning against the Islamist insurgents in recent years… Since early February, when villagers joined with police forces to begin ousting Taliban fighters from this region of rich vineyards and orchards southwest of Kandahar City, hundreds of residents have rallied to support the government. Nearly 100 village elders vowed at a public meeting [March 19^th] to keep the Taliban out as the new fighting season sets in, and Afghan flags are flying from rooftops in the villages, residents said.

“Isolated uprisings against the Taliban have been reported in several different parts of Afghanistan over the past 18 months. But the revolt in Panjwai is considered significant because it is the first in southern Afghanistan, in the spiritual heartland of the Taliban movement, where the group’s influence had endured despite repeated operations by American and NATO forces.” New York Times, March 20^th.

Americans hate repressive regimes. Our massive military is routinely requested and deployed to aid locals seeking freedom and justice. Look at the Syrian rebels screaming for our assistance. And while we prefer interfering in nations with natural resources we need, our efforts in Serbia and Croatia and the attack on Grenada show that we are often deployed for other reasons. As President Obama’s visit to Israel illustrates, we are also bound to military solutions by treaty and emotional ties to other nations.

Unfortunately for us, even when we are invited to help, if we stay “longer than minimal periods,” our presence moves from welcome to the hatred of a foreign invader. Global resentment of the big American bully clearly and vastly overshadows the gratitude of those we have gone in to help. Visions of Abu Graib and Gitmo, pictures of humiliation and torture, the sacrilegious treatment of the holy books/bodies of others undo the benefits that we might have generated otherwise. Our use of drones across international boundaries is deeply resented, even though we would retaliate if, for example, Mexico elected to use drone strikes across its northern border to kill cartel leaders running for shelter into the United States.

Foreign policies with a strong military to enforce our whims are a blessing and a curse. It’s nice to know we can deploy massive force when necessary, but we have been cursed with massive deficits and global resentment for most of such efforts. We have become the target of rage for so many nations around the world, and foreign politicians have made great headway in elections by adopting a strong anti-American/bully stance. By having such a high profile, we have identified Americans and American businesses, even within our own homeland, as targets for angry young men and women hell-bent on making their mark on the world and to enhance their religious and political beliefs. Instead of making our nation safer by such military exploits, we have in fact place an increasing number of Americans, even living here in the States, in harm’s way.

So in an analysis of budgetary limitations, how exactly do we build a military for the future? Do we maintain massive forces and accept global resentment when we use them or do we construct a force that is more appropriate for our actual best interests? Just having such a massive force pretty much insures we are going to use it, but what do we really need to protect our legitimate interests without making us a global target? And does the spread of military bases and vendors into most Congressional districts make a reasonable and appropriate military budget an impossible dream? Will we continue to sacrifice education, infrastructure, environment and research to pay for a military way beyond our greatest needs? Are we the global policeman? What is our role in global matters? How exactly should we be using our military? 

I’m Peter Dekom, and no matter what politicians may say, there is no way for anything near our current military commitment to remain in effect without seriously degrading the balance of our national priorities… no way!