1. The 3 levels of our war on terror
2. An overview of how to measure success in Iraq
3. Metric #1
4. Metric #2
The Distinction of Terror:
In our efforts to understand our Long War on Terrorism, it is absolutely crucial to understand the core difference between acts of terror which wage war against the human heart, groups who perpetrate acts of terror and the entirely different nature of terror groups backed, financed and equipped by nation-states. This distinction defines the very heart of how progress in Iraq must be measured.
Gangs and Mafia groups pursue their own ends through acts of terror. In Gangs, these ends are often the provision of illusory power over lowly circumstances, acceptance in a respected peer group and addiction to adrenaline. Eventually these ends mature to quests similar to those of the Mafia: control of territory, pursuit of illicit profit, expansion of influence through a sub-culture of hierarchical structures and thuggish armies. These groups are normally best addressed through police action which disrupts their operations, imprisons leaders and bridges the legions of followers into legitimate pursuits.
State-sponsored terrorism, by contrast, while using the same tactics and desiring the same ends as those sought by Gangs and Mafia groups, is specifically focused on achieving political ends. One of the latest UN definitions of Terrorism states:
criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism" (emphasis mine)
Thus, by its very nature, state-sponsored terrorism is intrinsically about winning control over population groups to achieve a political purpose.
Politics and Population:
Politics is an animal which can only exist where there are people. Without a population, there is no political agenda to be pushed or political purpose to be gained. Terror groups need safe havens in the backwater towns of Somalia, the elevated crags of Afghanistan and Pakistan and the barren expanses of Western Iraq. But as a mater of necessity their single focus is to move from the training ground of obscurity to the operational imperative of population centers. These centers provide both the "raison d'etre" for their purpose and the accelerants (money, support, housing, munitions, transportation, industry, and the unique leverage of human life) to violence which multiple their capacity to kill human hope.
All the time, these terrorists who are pursuing their own political agendas are being safely animated from a distance by nation-state puppeteers. These masters of manipulation are then quick to realize the gains of population dominance - the furtherance of national influence, ambition and, in many cases, profiteering (black gold anyone?).
I think Charles Krauthammer illustrates this point brilliantly:
Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein's rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.
Our State-sponsored terrorist enemies crave the power, prestige and positional leverage the gain through control of Iraqi populations centers.
Freeing a People:
If economic and political pressure don’t cause these cords of control to be retracted, then military force must cause them to be to cut. Once separated from, or limited in access to, the channels through which accelerants to violence can be imported, the shock troops of terror must seek to maintain their grip on the population through increasingly desperate terrorist atrocities. Only skillful and persistent pursuit will drive these carcinogenic agents from the life-giving nutrition of population centers.
This is why Coalition Counterinsurgency Advisor Kilcullen describes the purpose of the surge as being to:
"When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation."
"The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on."
"The enemy needs the people to act in certain ways (sympathy, acquiescence, silence, reaction to provocation) in order to survive and further his strategy. Unless the population acts in these ways, both insurgents and terrorists will wither, and the cycle of provocation and backlash that drives the sectarian conflict in Iraq will fail."
The Fulcrum of Force:
Freeing population centers carries a "force multiplication" factor with it. It weakens the terrorists by separating them from their rallying point of purpose and from the industrial base which supplies them with new accelerants to violence. Such action also communicates powerfully to other populations currently suffering from oppression that if they will join with us, they too can taste the sweet air of security. Thus, Metrics #'s 1 and 2 (Combatants Eradicated and Accelerants to Violence Seized) serve to indicate our success in freeing initial population centers. As Metric #3 (Populations freed) reaches a critical mass, the tide of war begins to turn from desperate struggle to optimistically hopeful persistence.
A Moral Choice:
When confronted by such ugly realities and hopeful opportunities, people of faith have two basic choices. Individuals in positions of political power can quietly maneuver as missional agents of change. Intercessors can pray, churches can support and missionaries can outreach to the terrorist, perhaps to the point of laying down their own lives. This road is certainly the higher one. It is also the only road likely to yield lasting results. Terrorists are immersed in a cult of death which has prepared them since the inception of their mission to die in the pursuit of a cause they view to be noble. To change their persuasion, their hearts must be turned to the God who is the "God of the living", the "Resurrection and the life", the God who taunts, "Oh Death, where is your victory".
Secular leaders, however, must also confront this stubborn truth: this first choice is the longer road. It must be pursued if there is to be lasting change and lasting hope for peace. But in the pursuing, untold numbers of innocents are being subjected to a literal hell on Earth. In such a situation, despite if one supported the initial US invasion of Iraq or not, is it the position of a moral government to let the Middle East work out its own solution? Is this the lesson of history's concentration camps, killing fields, gulags, ghettos, torture rooms and ethnic cleansings? Is this the appropriate response for a nation who views its calling to be a nation set on a hill?
Is it possible the troops of our government should pursue the immediate release of populations from their earthbound oppressors while armies of compassion walk the longer road toward eternal peace for both captured/surrendered oppressors and the now-formerly oppressed?
How then do we define success?:
- First, we must question if our politicians are taking into account the draconian evil which will be given full reign in Iraq should the terrorist be permitted unrestrained domination of the population centers and beyond Iraq as they exploit the accelerants to violence found in those population centers?
- Second, do our elected representatives seriously address the successes won in freeing people from the prison of terrorist tyranny?
Here are some possible measure of success and examples of these measure:
- % of population under law & order (Coalition, then Local)
- % of GDP within these areas
- % of key industries within these areas (oil, electricity, food distribution)
On Principle,
CBass
type="text/javascript">
No comments:
Post a Comment