Man, rough night. As an Oregon State alum lets just say the game against Stanford is not going well... (next week against Oregon not likely to go much better).
Then the defenders of the status quo pile on here at the journal!
First, the US efforts in a Global war on terrorism and insurgency are two separate, yet related things.
Just asf nationalist insurgency feeds off of causation the emanates from the governments of those nations; the War on Terrorism against the US feeds off of causation that emanates from US foreign policy.
So, we do have total control over our approach to foreign policy. By understanding what aspects of it create the most causation for acts of terror against us, and adjusting those components we in effect "turn down the heat" on terrorism. By continuing to support the very governments that are most challenged by insurgent populaces we keep that heat on high when that support enables them to continue to act with impunity toward their people.
Second; I don't pick on the Saudis, I pick on the US-Saudi relationship. The difference is a substantial one. Our entire Middle Eastern policy is long overdue for a major overhaul. But a many say, this is all policy stuff and not the domain of the military to worry about. The problem is that the policy types see insurgency and counterinsurgency as warfare and not the domain of policy types to worry about. We are at a stalemate, and something has to break that stalemate.
What I propose is that the military stepping up clarifying the roles of host nation, intervening nations, and what violence is warfare and what violence really isn't warfare is a critical initial step in breaking this cycle. To simply salute and say "we got it" is not helpful.
What I find interesting is that people can see regime change as ok; but employing a little firm, backroom influence between state leaders as inappropriate. I aways thought that warfare was supposed to be the "final argument of kings." We've gotten way too used to making it our opening statement.
Bookmarks