After attending the Middle East Strategy Task Force security working group meeting, there is a definite need to re-look American strategy in the Middle East. Findings from the working group, in conjunction with recent terrorist activity in Lebanon and France, spurred my own thoughts on the strategy that the U.S. needs to pursue in the future. I know that some of my thoughts will be consistent with current public opinion while other ideas will be seen as heretical from an American viewpoint.
The United States' engagement in the Middle East, since 2001, has been primarily military interventions centered on counter-terrorism operations and regime change with undefined objectives. But for all of the military and economic resources pumped into the region, what have been the results? Iraq disintegrates into a sectarian quagmire, Syria embroiled in a protracted civil war, refugees flood across borders creating instability in Lebanon and Jordan and creating policy and economic challenges in Turkey and the European Union, a failed Libyan government and country with no resolution in sight, Saudi Arabia and Iran fighting a proxy war in Yemen, and the creation of the ISIS caliphate within Iraqi and Syrian border. Lets be fair, not all of these events are linked to U.S. military engagement but an environment of instability can be tenuously linked to Western foreign policy.
With the region inflamed in conflict, the international community must take a realistic look at the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) security situation and come up with a constructive and positive engagement strategy. Specifically, American foreign policy must evolve from militaristic intervention to a comprehensive use of all avenues of U.S. power - diplomatic, economic, information, and cultural.
But how to adjust American foreign policy when the Administration and Congress see international engagements as a necessary evil and would rather live in an insulated American environment, especially when diplomatic, economic, informational, and cultural sources of national power are not even a topic of discussion during Congressional or Administration foreign policy debates? At the most base level it is the lack of leadership across the American political infrastructure but the American psyche pines to isolate ourselves from international engagement. Unfortunately, being naïve to the interconnections of world (economic, military, finance, etc.) does not negate our responsibilities as part of the international community.
Bar none, the U.S has the most capable and advanced military in world. Yet, overwhelming military power has its limitations. A determined adversary engaged in a concerted guerrilla warfare can create an open-ended stalemate. The longer the American military is bogged in armed conflict, the American people will tire of the endless engagement and clamor for disengagement and isolation. And a stalemate scenario allows adversaries to exploit the continued American presence to foment discontent and resistance amongst the local populace.
Prior to laying out strategy recommendations, we need to assess the current security environment. So what are the sources of instability in the Arab World?
General sense of hopelessness. The common feeling is that the "deck is stacked" against the common people and there is no chance for upward mobility. Government is seen as being in the business to protect the political class and the well connected.
Lack of economic opportunity. The Arab Spring ignited on December 17, 2011 when Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street vendor, set himself on fire to protest his treatment at the hands of the authorities. Also, 60% of the MENA region is less than 25 years old with a mean average age is 22. This young population is coming of age with a lack of real economic opportunity, so it is becoming a breeding ground for someone (or organization) to capitalize and provide a sense of purpose and a feeling of empowerment.
A region that feels marginalized in a modern world. The region used to be a center for learning and modernity. In the modern era, it seems as though that the West sees the region as a natural resource tap. Our interest is more about keeping the oil pipeline flowing to feed our needs.
Autocratic and corrupt governments. The West has made it a habit to prop up autocratic and/or monarchical regimes to ensure stability and meet Western needs. The result has been stifled opposition, minorities marginalized, and sectarianism used as a tool to divide the general population.
Israel and Palestinian conflict. Even though conflict has inflamed the whole region, many of the issues are wrapped up in the Palestinian - Israeli conflict. Many people in the MENA region see the United States and the West's foreign policy as being skewed to Israeli interests and Palestinian grievances are marginalized or ignored.
Historical lack of self-determination after the break up of the Ottoman Empire. In the aftermath of World War I, Great Britain and France (with Tsarist Russia's consent) divvied up the MENA region, to include setting up the conditions to establish the country of Israel, and determined the national boundaries of the region. With the Balfour Amendment, negating promises made to the British's Arab allies, the general population in the region lost control of their self-determination.
Civil War. In the draft Middle East Strategy Task Force report, civil wars in the region are major factors creating insecurity and instability as well as a permissive environment for terrorists. According to the report's authors, scholarly research has shown that civil wars are the greatest impediment to solve the underlying problems of instability. Historical examples submitted by Dr. Kenneth Pollack were: the Lebanese Civil War, the Libyan Civil War, and the Vietnam War.
Civil wars deny an environment for constructive dialogue between the warring parties and parties tend to demonize one another. Not only does a civil war ravage the country where it occurs but also has a negative effect on the countries in the immediate proximity as well as spoiler countries that resource the combatants as their proxies in the region.
How does the international community assist the MENA region improve security and stability?
Caveat: I am going to lay out big picture ideas instead of specific tactical solutions and I completely understand that this is easier said then done.
First, we need to re-frame the concept of what is security. Instead of focusing on security as the end-state, we need to reorient our thinking and understand that security is a manifestation of larger societal issues. Security is a means to a stable and peaceful region. Once we understand that security is a means to an end then we can develop a comprehensive approach to address the root causes of conflict in the region, instead of the current security centric focus primarily targeting terrorism.
Re-framing security will generate a multi-pronged and holistic solution set. The recent terrorist attacks in Lebanon and France requires a multi-national military response to dislodge ISIS from its territory and to continue to harass and disrupt their efforts throughout the region is imperative. Yet, military engagements can only meet limited goals. Military engagements are effective to deter aggression between nation-states but have a mixed record deterring conflict within a nation-state.
Besides a military response, local grievances still need to be addressed. The populations of the MENA countries are marginalized by the political elites. All people have the right to: self-determination; opportunities to make a better life for themselves and their family; to be treated fairly and with respect; and have their voices heard and validated. Instead of supporting the attainment of those rightist, the political elites ensure their self preservation and enrichment.
As a society, the West has been complicit in this marginalization. We have a paternalistic approach to many countries/regions globally. We understand that people crave to live in societies that protect and respect their universal rights but try again and again to force our cultural norms onto different cultures, which creates resentment. And we continue to support authoritarian rulers who stifle freedoms if it does not support them. These two factors further exacerbate tensions in the region and is a recruiting tool for jihadist ideology.
Research done by the Middle East Strategy Task Force points to ending the civil wars in the region as a major contributor to increased stability. So how should the West engage the various civil wars raging through the MENA region? Task Force research found three solutions to end civil war.
1. 75% of civil wars end by a military defeat of one side over the other (Rwanda was provided as an example). Even though this is the most common result, in many situations the underlying issues are never addressed and that the losers are marginalized and an environment for re-ignition smolders unabated.
2. The solution many hope for is that the civil war burns itself out (happens in 5% of civil wars). Each side wearies of the conflict and negotiate a peace. In the cases cited (Angola and Mozambique) the civil war rages for decades and only ended after significant losses of life, equipment, and funds.
3. The most likely scenario is for a 3rd party to intervene to set up premature negotiations to end the conflict. How has this been done? Research shows either by: create a military stalemate, either through occupation; or backing one of the parties in the conflict, provide resources to help that side win, and then to rein the winning side to avert further marginalization of the lower (NATO’s intervention in Bosnia was detailed as an example).
Part of a comprehensive solution is the use of diplomatic power to craft win-win solution. The West needs to allow people in the MENA region to self-determine their own geopolitical boundaries. Current geopolitical boundaries were created by colonial powers at the end of World War I, and they created nation-states that were to be controlled and bent to the will of the West. Allowing self-determination will require deft diplomatic maneuvering, since I advocate a complete hands off approach on re-drawing national boundaries and allow for truly free elections. Current allies may no longer be in positions of power and organizations/leadership that we do not endorse may be swept into power over a highly sensitive region.
I understand this is most likely a "bridge too far" of an idea but if the West really wants to be forceful agent for positive change in the region, we need to allow the people of the region to self-determine their own geopolitical boundaries (this should also be applicable to the Africa continent).
During the Task Force session, Mr. Rami Khouri (senior fellow at The Issam Faras Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University in Beirut) emphasized that the Palestinian and Israeli conflict continues to be a major destabilizing factor in the region. Without a resumption of peace talks, the Arab people will continue to feel marginalized and betrayed by the Western World. But Mr. Khouri also recognized that the civil wars in Syria, Libya, and Yemen, along with the establishment and focus on the Islamic State caliphate, the focus is off the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. This might be the right time for a resumption of peace talks without external pressures or spoilers. Unfortunately, any realistic resumption of peace talks probably will not happen or be fruitful until there is leadership changes for both the Palestinians and Israelis.
Finally, (as advocated in the draft Task Force report) a new international governmental organization based on security sector reform and new security architecture for the region should be formed. An Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) should be established with assistance from the United Nations and other countries with a vested interest in the region. This new organization should be an institution under the Arab League aegis with the mission to develop professional security organizations that enforce the rile of law and respect the rights of all people.
Contrary to current U.S. political thinking, the MENA region continues to play a significant role in the geopolitical spectrum. No longer do we have the luxury to view this region through the black and white lens of security and terrorism. Instead, we need to come to terms with the notion that going forward our interactions and engagements will be murky and those operating in the region will be occupying a grey space. The rise of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and whatever jihadist group that forms next is the result of a region that feels marginalized and exploited. American strategy needs to become more nuanced and complex to operate successfully in the region. Regrettably our political structure does not allow for that, instead it is the next sound bite and rallying cries to mobilize the bases of both parties.
You're right, there is a definite need to re-look at American strategy. Not just in the Middle East, but overall United States strategy. Recently, news reports seem to mention strategy quite frequently. "Seeking a strategy to defeat the Islamic State." "There is no consensus on a simply strategy." "The question of whether the strategy is preventing rivals from challenging US power." These were posted in the past couple of days in print media. And it seems hosts on daily news channels mention the word in some fashion during each segment. But what does Strategy actually mean?
ReplyDeleteFrom my latest edition of Webster's dictionary; strategy is the art and science of conducting a large-scale and long-term military campaign. Strategy is a thought out, signed, series of documents from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, with advice from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the Geographical Combatant Commanders.
The President writes (obviously his staff does the actual writing), signs, publishes, and issues the National Security Strategy. This document is supposed to outline the United States strategic military direction (I highlighted military because strategy applies to the military only; not global warming, energy, or any other aspect of the US government). President Obama signed the latest national security strategy on February 2015.
The next document is the National Defense Strategy written, signed, and distributed by the Secretary of Defense. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates signed the latest edition on June 2008. It follows guidance from the 2006 National Security Strategy and informs the National Military Strategy. It also provides other Department of Defense guidance. And further, it reflects the results of the latest Quadrennial Defense Review.
Finally, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, giving advice to the President, Secretary of Defense, and the Combatant Commanders issues the National Military Strategy. The latest one published was June 2015. This document follows the February 2015 National Security Strategy, and the 2008 National Defense Strategy.
The question is; why is the latest National Defense Strategy almost 8 years old? In my humble opinion, the 2015 National Security Strategy does not outline any strategic military direction. It addresses renewing U.S. leadership, combating climate change, and promoting a just international order. How is the Secretary of Defense supposed to update his National Defense Strategy with that guidance? The 2008 National Defense Strategy follows the 2006 National Security Strategy. It's very simple: to protect the security of the American people. And, it lists the objectives for the military: to defeat global terrorism.
So when the President says, "I'm waiting for a strategy from my military commanders", something is wrong; the President issues the strategy to the Department of Defense. Or, "we're going to defeat ISIS." No, that's an objective not a strategy. How that objective is achieved is up to the Geographic Combatant Commander; and explained in Combatant Commander's campaign plan.
It's really tough to re-think American strategy when political leadership does not understand the role strategy, and strategic documents, play in our national discourse. Politics does and always will influence strategy--either political party has the opportunity to update each iteration with their political viewpoint; however, strategy is a military term and the national security strategy is the President's written and signed document to define current threats, and how to defeat the challenges we face as a country.
Strategy is frequently confused with policy or foreign policy. For example, Ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that defined so much of American foreign policy over the past decade. I'll write about that later.