CENTCOM thinks outside the box on Hamas and Hezbollah
Red Team
CENTCOM thinks outside the box on Hamas and Hezbollah.
Foreign Policy Magazine
BY MARK PERRY | JUNE 30, 2010
Quote:
While it is anathema to broach the subject of engaging militant groups like Hizballah and Hamas in official Washington circles (to say nothing of Israel), that is exactly what a team of senior intelligence officers at U.S. Central Command -- CENTCOM -- has been doing. In a "Red Team" report issued on May 7 and entitled "Managing Hizballah and Hamas," senior CENTCOM intelligence officers question the current U.S. policy of isolating and marginalizing the two movements. Instead, the Red Team recommends a mix of strategies that would integrate the two organizations into their respective political mainstreams. While a Red Team exercise is deliberately designed to provide senior commanders with briefings and assumptions that challenge accepted strategies, the report is at once provocative, controversial -- and at odds with current U.S. policy.
Among its other findings, the five-page report calls for the integration of Hizballah into the Lebanese Armed Forces, and Hamas into the Palestinian security forces led by Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The Red Team's conclusion, expressed in the final sentence of the executive summary, is perhaps its most controversial finding: "The U.S. role of assistance to an integrated Lebanese defense force that includes Hizballah; and the continued training of Palestinian security forces in a Palestinian entity that includes Hamas in its government, would be more effective than providing assistance to entities -- the government of Lebanon and Fatah -- that represent only a part of the Lebanese and Palestinian populace respectively" (emphasis in the original). The report goes on to note that while Hizballah and Hamas "embrace staunch anti-Israel rejectionist policies," the two groups are "pragmatic and opportunistic."
...
I know you don't understand, I wrote this for others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Sorry Bob, none of that computes. Anyone thought about the Lebanese and Palestinians who are violently opposed to Hamas and Hezbollah?
Unless you get both organisations to dismantle their armed wing, and thus cease to exist, this is pure naiveté.
Dismantling the armed capability of two terrorist organisations is what helps - including equipment. Making them more dangerous by giving them access to national instruments of power does not. It does not make them more accountable either. How would it?
Don't feel sorry that you disagree, disagreement is ok. We are all entitled to our perspectives.
The very fact that much of the populace of these two states does not condone the actions of the two "terrorist" organizations functioning within them, that are allowed the freedom of manuever that this sanctuary of status allows them, is the very point.
Once this artificial sanctuary is reduced the right minded people of these comunities will have to take responsibility for the actions of these groups and will work internally to hold them to account. Currently they have no consequences, so take little action. Once their entire state is threatened by the acts of a few, the many will hold those few to task. No longer will the fiction of Hezbollah waging war with a neighboring state be possible; the reality of the entire state being held to task is fundamental to the working of the state system.
The terrorist list actually weakens the state system and empowers these organizations in many ways. After all once outside the law, the law has no deterrent effect. Similarly a populace able to shirk responsibility for the state-like acts of war of organizations made up of their citizens has little to fear from the law either, so is less apt to restrain them.
The world is changing, and our approaches to the world must evolve as well. Dusty texts written in eras long past provide keen insights, but they are not prescriptive manuals for how to operationalize those concepts in the environment that exists today.
unassessed implicit assumptions...
...are the bane of analysis everywhere. I know its a RED TEAM product and therefore is meant to be challenging and not taken too seriously (nothing wrong with thinking outside the box) but some propositions (and their implicit unexamined premises) caught my eye:
#1 Hamas and Fatah to work together? So what's been stopping them (AFIAK they hate each others guts). Fatah is a broadly speaking secularist organisation (this doesn't mean they are anti-Islamic or belive in separation of church and state but equates rather more to a pragmatic approach) whereas Hamas wants to destroy Israel in toto (if they don't, and the policy statement in their charter is just bunkum then ...why don't they delete it?:cool:). Fateh equates to a nationalist movement whilst Hamas equates to the political expression of the Ikwan's goals (and thus only the first step in a larger regional project). The one wants territorial co-existence (after a fashion) the other annihilation of Israel as the first step to the recreation of a regional Islamic re-awkening (Utopian, yes, but that doesn't mean they won't try; i.e., Bolshevism, Nazism, the French Revolution); hardly compatible policy positions. Getting the rival leaderships (and their international partners who manipulate things behind the scenes and risk losing influence/face) is another rquestion entirely.
#2 Integrating Hizb-allah's military wing into the Lebanese armed forces would simply turn that institution into a front organisation for Hizballah. Not forgetting that hizballah's political reach would be further extended and deepened into Lebanese society essentially, to my ears anyway, this sounds a lot like assisted state capture:eek:. Why not resussetate (sp?) Amal instead as a rival to Hizballah? G-d only knows what would happen to the internal sectarian and ethnic correllation of forces in what is, lets be honest, an extremely fragile state. Indeed, its only because Lebanon has been able to segregate Hizballah in the south by assigining what ammounts to a sphere of political influence that it has managed to attain some kind of functional administration elsewhere.
I make no implication of stupitidy on the people of the Lavant
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Why would you recognise those who violently oppose you? Why share power with them and why with you
Why would their supporters want them to become irrelevant by ceasing to set forth their policy? Hezbollah is supported BECAUSE it is not the Lebanese Army. The Shia in the South are no particular friends of the Christians up on the Chouf and in Beirut below.
So why would they want to do that - IF that was indeed the case? Do you really think this is something they don't know? They might be unreasonable, but they ain't stupid.
The implication, if indeed it is one, is on Western policy makers for not seeing that they need to take a new tact in dealing with this situation. The current tact of simply pouring more and more support into Israel to defend itself against the current structures around it is perhaps something many would call "stupid." The current tact also robs Israel of legitimacy in the eyes of its Arab neighbors, who deep in their hearts believe that it can only exist as a state with the support of Western powers, thereby driving them to destroy it far more than any (ideological) issues of religion do.
We help Israel more by helping them less; and
We disempower the terrorist arms of Hezbollah and Hamas best by recognizing fully their legitimate roles in the states of Lebanon and Palestine, and in turn holding those states responsible for their actions.
It may be counter-intuitive to many, but if the course we've been following for years is the "intuitive" one, I'd say it's long overdue to look seriously at the "counter."
Legitimacy comes from the people, regardless of what outsiders "recognize"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tukhachevskii
Do Hamas and Hizbullah have legitimate roles in their respective territories (what exactly are they doing that deserves the descriptor "legitimate"? If they did wouldn't the states within which they operate already be responsible for them?
Instead, aren't you actually legitimising the terrorist aims of Hizbullah and Hamas by recognising them in the first place? Do they have "terrorist arms"? Are there "moderate" elements in either organisation?
Can we expect to hold these staes responsible for organisations the we have now decreed belong to them? (anyone remember the "Axis of Evil"?)
Hamas won a majority in the 2006 elections, and the West pouted. We want democracy, but only when it produces the results WE want. Shame on Israel and the "Quartet on the Middle East" for their response to that populace exercising its right to popular sovereignty and self-determination.
Similarly, in addition to its militant and large social service branches, Hezbollah holds several seats in Lebanon’s Parliament. They are part of the government.
I categorize these two groups as "quasi-state" actors. They are much like Army Warrant Officers. They are part of the government when it suits them, and they are outside the government and the law when it suits them. The West, like Army Commissioned Officers, allows them to play this silly game because we're not quite sure what to do with them.
We need to quit giving them the out, the sanctuary, of pretending they are not responsible for what their "outside the law" components do. Similarly, we need to hold the entire States and their populace accountable as well.
We have no tools that are effective for deterring or motivating a Hezbollah or Hamas so long as we put them on terrorist lists and refuse to recognize them as legitimate parts of these governments.
We do the same nonsense when we say "The ISI is sponsoring the Taliban." Why give Pakistan this out? Because we don't want to provoke a nuclear state?
We are better served, I think, by recognizing reality, and holding the majority responsible for the actions of their legitimate components.
Or we need to play the same game, as in "The United States didn't invade Iraq, the United States Army did." Oh, well, no problem then....
The right of an Armed Populace is a critical component of American COIN
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
I have no issue with that - BUT it must be predicated on the "rebels" giving up the armed struggle - for ever. "Arms put beyond use" - as was the sticking point in Ulster for about 7 years.
That is exactly the condition I would look to progress. To force the armed rebels to give up arms. Use armed force against armed force. If the Hezbollah and Hamas wish to give up the armed struggle, then "Baruch Hashem!"
The arms issues is always a sticky one. Its the classic trust issue in any "Mexican stand-off" - who puts their gun down first? My personal position is that an armed populace is a critical component for keeping governments in check. The very fact that an armed populace is so challenging to a government in times of insurgency is the reason why the populace must remain armed. It's a bit of a Catch-22.
The problem, of course, is not the arms, but rather the motivation of populace to use them illegally to coerce changes in State behavior. Better when they are used in the passive role of the State not getting into certain bad behavior because they know the people are armed.
I would take the position that it is for the Government, the Counterinsurgent, to make the first move. To bring leadership into government (and not just anyone, the fact is that some are simply too dirty by their deeds and they will have to settle by sending in a Lieutenant who has less blood on his hands to move forward as an official in the new government) first, and then require the leadership of the movenment to use their influence to stop the illegal use of the populaces weapons.
I always discourage any talk of weapon's turn-in programs as short-sighted, impractical, and not likely to produce the very COIN effects that are desired by the program.
An Armed and Informed populace with a Voice and a Vote is the "Fourth Branch" of government in the US. This is what keeps the other three branches from getting in cahoots with each other to the detriment of liberty "for our own good."
