12.11.11
Posted in Uncategorized at 11:34 pm by Allan Lee
A video was recently released from Iran showing what appeared to be an American stealth UAV. Iran released a statement claiming this drone was in Iranian airspace gathering intelligence for the US, and that Iran was able to bring it down. While the media has expressed various opinions about the video( including why this downed aircraft looks to be in such perfect condition, and how a “stealth” drone was taken down by Iranian air defenses), I have my own personal explanation to these questions (not necessarily true, just a possibility). Given Iranians aging arsenal of anti-air capabilities (not up to par with many modern nations capabilities given the information experts seem to agree on), and the fact that this was a stealth drone designed to evade detection and that the video clip displays an unscathed stealth drone, I find it could be a real possibility that Iran was able to intercept the communications signals between the drone and the operations center. Perhaps with expertise provided from a neighboring country with an interest in developing countermeasures to these drones as well as design their own (with a proven record of attempted hacks). This could explain the US’s claim of a lost signal of one of their drones and the fact that the drone in the video is not damaged.
Permalink
11.14.11
Posted in Uncategorized at 4:54 am by Allan Lee
Earth, a miniscule speck of dust in the vast emptiness of space, is populated with all sorts of living organisms. These organisms coexist as much as possible, each filling their unique niche in the food chain and contributing to the cyclical nature of life. Perhaps the greatest living organisms on this planet- humans- are intelligent and industrious beings, capable of producing some of the greatest works of art and science generations before could never have thought possible. However, the flip-side to this scientific achievement and industriousness is man’s capability and willingness to cause utter destruction and absolute terror onto itself with consistent success throughout history. History has shown that human beings are capable of unimaginable destruction. While motives may have changed, methods evolved, and tactics perfected, one thing remains constant, and that is the willingness to go through with these atrocious acts.
Today, we live in a relatively peaceful time. Historically, nations would see constant streams of violence and aggression with the threat of violence constantly around the corner. This is based on the rate of occurrence, but while many nations may not face the threat of violence in the form of formal aggression like a declaration of war, many today live in fear of another form of violence- terrorism. Terrorism isn’t necessarily anything new; in fact, acts possibly falling under the definition of terrorism can date as far back as recorded history. Although, it made a comeback in the 20th Century with a number of terrorist groups emerging, from Black September to the Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinhof Group), and an even more recent resurgence in the 21st Century with terror groups like Al Qaeda. Preserving peace in such a chaotic world is no easy undertaking. Is utopian peace even possible? Is mankind capable of producing a permanent, perfect peace?
In addressing the inherent problems in world order, we must look at the current state of world order and how these problems are derived from deeper faults in the political system and human nature. In today’s global society, nations are interconnected in a web of globalized economies, politics, and technologies. This weave of entities should hypothetically improve international cooperation and augment the pursuits of peace and justice across the globe. While this globalization has certainly increased awareness of events around the globe, it has done little to halt the violence and chaos fracturing what little peace exists in hotspots around the world. The current state system, while more orderly than previous systems throughout history, is still built on foundational concepts that retain anarchic qualities and preserve the relative disorder in international relations. Is this problem directly derived from the inherent deficiencies of the state system, or is it derived from the deeper psychological workings of human nature?
As human beings, we like to think of ourselves as rational and open-minded decision-makers. The decisions made on the global stage are often anything but rational. The rationality of one’s decision-making process is complicated and difficult to comprehend. Not only is the rationality of leaders’ decisions debatable, but the means of establishing rationality in interpreting the rationality is also up for debate. Given the often closed circle of policy discussion in many nation-state governments, attempting to comprehend the rationale behind a given decision is particularly difficult. North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, for example, makes foreign policy decisions based on information he has access to. In nation-states with a closed loop of decision-making and scarce information to base policy reasoning on, autocracies are more likely to fall under irrational decision-making behavior due to the particular behavior of one individual. Kim Jong Il, while appearing to act irrationally to the outside world, may be acting “rationally” based on information available to him- even if that information is possibly false or misguided. His decision-making might also emerge from some psychological instability and could be utterly irrational and insane in nature. In a governmental system where one man is essentially responsible for all foreign policy decisions, these behaviors are almost certain to arise at some point. These irrational and misguided policy decisions contribute to the chaos and instability inherent in today’s world order system. Other leaders may deliberately make decisions to undermine others and contribute to instability in a region by rationally making irrational decisions; in effect, making rational decisions using reasoning and logic to formulate an overall policy objective and procedure, but for a commonly perceived irrational goal or end result.
A general guideline in international relations dealing with nation-states is the ability to negotiate and reason with them- given some common goals or values. Even while disputes can arise between nations, diplomatic channels allow a great degree of negotiation among the parties in dispute; it is the general interest of all nations to maintain a stable relationship with regional partners given the cost of escalation of any dispute into open conflict, but while this rule of thumb applies to a vast majority of countries, there exists a few whose ideological interest is provocation of conflict and utter destruction of its neighbors. Historically, these pariahs have posed a varying degree of threat to the world and its neighbors. While the leadership of these aggressive countries tends to favor autocratic, authoritarian governance of the people, the actual population may have little choice but to jump onboard and allow disagreeable actions to take place with impunity from the population- this may not always be the case, but it shows how irrational leadership may act with complete disregard for the needs and wishes of the population. In some cases, when these actions provoke responses from neighbors, the vast population feels the majority of consequences of any blowback from these actions. With the current international system, irresponsible and irrational world leaders are allowed to run their governments with little official backlash from the international community. Governments may denounce them, organizations may decry them, and populations may protest them, but the current system is essentially broken in respect to action against these aggressive states. The United Nations, touted as the greatest tool for positive change in world order, has the potential to be a much greater authoritarian figure in enforcing international law and justice in the world. However, the UN often remains in constant paralysis when important decisions must be made in regard to enforcing international law and the basic rights of all human beings. One fundamental impediment to international order is the fact that not every nation shares the same sentiment towards every issue. In fact, nations often directly oppose others’ positions towards particular issues, especially when they have a stake in the outcome of a particular dispute. While this system gives nations- large and small- the opportunity to voice their opinions on an international stage, it undermines any notion of action from the UN’s part to promote world order and peace. A recent example is the UN Security Council vote on condemning Syria’s brutal crackdown on protesters within its cities. Russia and China deliberately voted against the notion. States will always look primarily to their own needs and objectives before considering any negotiations towards international action, particularly when their relations with the effected countries would degrade from such an action. This inherent flaw in large-scale international cooperation is the backbone of many failures of the international community in acting against widespread violence and genocide- crimes against humanity dissolve any notions of human progress and civility when even fundamental human rights are ignored in favor of national interest. While self-interest is crucial for self-preservation in such a tumultuous environment, human progress will only be hampered by the bitter strife that takes place all too often. Is it rational or irrational to act in such a manner, putting self-interest before the interest of humanity as a whole? What benefits mankind as a whole also benefits everyone individually as a member of mankind, so why do states continue to assert foreign policy that often overlooks these cornerstones of human progress?
A unified world order, one with a central government structure and “states” underneath it, is one potential proposition to address the deficiencies within our current dilemma of a stable world order. Theoretically, this model would address these issues quite effectively, but real-world application would be impossible. Unlike smaller models such as the United States and the European Union, nations differ on so many levels that reaching consensus on any issue would be extremely difficult and nearly impossible. Western countries share the common cultural values of human rights and freedom, but these are not always universal. While many nations may share certain aspects of human rights and freedom, these values are open for interpretation. What many nations might consider to be fundamental human rights others might find superfluous and may shape their laws and policy on this interpretation. This culture gap only widens the chasm between states on international cooperation. The simplest remedy for this difference is simply to promote the similarities in cultures, base discussions on common ground values, and instill unity through a greater integration and incorporation of cultures. Globalization has achieved this with some noted success, primarily through multinational corporations and improved technology in communications capabilities. This incorporation of global economies into a singular global market economy has positive and negative effects. While globalization has led to an improvement in relations among industrialized nations with similar economic backgrounds, it throws lesser nations aside for exploitation and cheap labor. This inherent inequality of utility in a global market economy means that certain nations will inevitably fall behind while others surge ahead. In this regard, economics is an important factor contributing to the destabilization of world order. Economics is a dramatic influence on the order of world politics. Nations with strong economies tend to assert their will upon weaker nations. World order operates with this assumption on a daily basis. Permanent members of the UN Security Council are there because of their position in the world and have sufficient regional power to support their permanent position on the council. This selective superiority above smaller nations also contributes bias towards these powers, giving their proposals sufficient clout in the international arena. Consequentially, other nations will seek to achieve that same level of power and influence to further pursue their political agenda on a global scale, and with limited resources for so many global power players, struggles are bound to erupt as nations dispute for economic and ideological resources.
Inequality, while amplifying regional instability and divergence, cannot be remedied with simple measures dictating absolute equality. Free-market economics shouldn’t be frowned upon as the sole force driving instability and friction; in fact, it can have the exact opposite effect, with globalization resulting from the movements of free-market economics allocating resources to improve efficiency. Economics is a powerful tool, one which can benefit mankind or slowly tear it apart. When nations cease to realize any marginal benefit from cooperation and economic integration, then self-interest will drive protectionist sentiment towards foreign policy with domestic policy being the central focus. Looking purely at national interest alone, states might contemplate challenging neighbors for scarce resources as well as battle for regional power and total supremacy. For the most part, states do not go to war or enter into conflict needlessly without any serious contemplation of the cost and sacrifices. War is left as a last resort to extend foreign policy objectives when other channels fail.
“War is the continuation of politics by other means,” Carl Von Clausewitz- Prussian military theorist. In this regard, war cannot be neglected as an ever-present possibility and perhaps one of the greatest tools in any state’s toolbox for asserting national power and influence to further national objectives. Rational states will advocate the use of war judiciously with an emphasis on the costs and benefits of war to both sides. With this rationale, states should hypothetically limit the application of organized conflict to exigent circumstances when all other options have drastically failed. There are a few discrepancies that must be analyzed in order to clarify how this principle seems to elude international relations as nations have often declared war and engaged in open conflict despite the costs far outweighing any rational benefit.
Primarily, human beings are complex, thus any notion that human behavior can be confined to a simple formula is ludicrous. Secondly, perceptions of strength and weakness are often skewed in international relations. States with strong military might are more inclined to use that power to influence other states and events to conform to their overall political strategy. Given an opportunity to exploit the military weakness of a neighboring state, the more powerful nation is inclined to pressure the lesser nation to conceding to its will. Strong militaries are equally effective at defensive posturing and offensive authority, and in some cases, defensive postures can be used to some degree to influence the actions of neighboring states.
Today, nation-states pose less of a risk to world order than in previous centuries. Widespread conflict has apparently fizzled out with the end of the Second World War. Nation-states no longer find war to be as effective a tool as previous civilizations once did, and modern combat has become increasingly asymmetrical in nature, threatening the very foundation of conventional military thought. Perhaps the most important contributor to the shape of world order today was the advent of the atomic bomb and nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons, while being capable of unimaginable destruction and loss of life, have created a precarious framework for equilibrium in world order. Nuclear weapons have given all varieties of states the ability to level the playing field in terms of defense and deterrence. While the age of nuclear weapons has brought about uncertain times with Armageddon-like scenarios bringing the world to the brink of total annihilation, proper accountability of nuclear powers can help prevent conventional conflict simply with the threat or risk of escalation to the brink of nuclear exchange. This delicate balance forces nations to rethink the strategy of total war. Nations must reevaluate their offensive options in favor of diplomatic channels in order to prevent the costly mistake of forcing a nuclear power into a corner. Those advocating complete abolishment of nuclear arms, while noble in their cause for peace, do not look at the realistic limitations to such a plan. Much like the analogy about the mice and the cat, disarmament requires someone to take the first step; a first step that severely weakens the defensive position and opens them to aggression from those not participating in nuclear disarmament. Complete domination of the globe could rest on one rogue state disregarding the disarmament and building a stockpile of nuclear weapons. While nation-states have the potential to engage in dangerous nuclear cat-and-mouse, the newest threat to world order is the acquirement of nuclear weapons by a third-party, non-governmental organization.
In this case, terrorist organizations pose the greatest risk of detonating nuclear weapons. Islamic terror groups have expressed their desire to acquire nuclear material and use it as a weapon against Western countries. These non-state actors are especially dangerous given their radical ideology that explicitly favors violence against particular groups. International terror is immune to traditional concepts of deterrence as there are no bases of operation with which to retaliate like conventional state military facilities. Operations are conducted on a global scale, with operatives from all across the globe, extending terrorists’ reach to nearly all corners of the earth. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of its satellite states, fissionable material has gone unaccounted for. Nuclear technology is available from a number of resources; nuclear scientists like Abdul Qadeer Khan of Pakistan have often been considered possible would-be collaborators in the event of the development of terrorist nuclear weapons. AQ Khan is believed to have greatly assisted Iran with the development of its nuclear program. Iran, while a nation-state with an organized government and structure, has the potential to act irrationally much like a terrorist group. Iran’s leadership has shown dramatic signs of irrationality and unstable ideology in regards to its views of Israel and the US. This blatant approach to international politics has revealed the shortcomings of conventional conceptions of rational state leadership and the logical reasoning behind most policy decisions. Iran, although a recognized nation-state with the same legal protections and guidelines as other nations, cannot be counted on to act in a rational manner given the opportunity to use a nuclear weapon against Israel. Iran’s aggressive posture will only lead to instability in the region, Israel’s defensive posture will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and it is logistically problematic to mount an offensive operation against Iran’s production facilities much like Israel conducted against Iraq in Operation Opera.
Human beings can carve a hypothetically perfect world order. The largest roadblock towards a greater peace in the world is human nature itself. While structural issues can be fixed, human behavior and patterns are nearly impossible to change. One would have to erase any trace of individuality and self, and replace self-interest with common interest. Communism strived to achieve some degree of this behavior modification through economics, but this entire concept goes against human desire to be individual. While people still require a group dynamic to fill a niche of their psychological needs, personal fulfillment and self-esteem are far more important in achieving greater well-being. In addition to self-interest and self-preservation, mankind has often been under the influence of ideology. While ideology in itself isn’t necessarily negative or dangerous, radical ideas can have lasting impacts on the thoughts and actions of a vast number of people. When these radical ideas get deeply ingrained into the mind of world leaders, they can grow into an unstable, irrational thought process that trumps all attempts at rational thinking. Iran’s leader, Ahmadinejad, has shown an inclination towards radical views, and it is only a matter of time before these benign rants evolve into malicious actions bent on causing harm- and with a nuclear Iran, mass destruction is only a fingertip away.
Mankind has shown the capacity to cause great harm and destruction. Nuclear weapons only augment this capability with unfathomable destructive weapons capable of leveling metropolises and killing millions instantly. People from all backgrounds are capable of this violence and genocide as seen by the Nazis in World War II and the Hutus in Rwanda. Japanese soldiers shamelessly slaughtered and raped Chinese citizens during their occupation of Nanking. Human nature can be good or evil. This balance is fragile and the right conditions can turn innocent people into savage killing machines. World order is inherently disorderly; the world is in a constant state of struggling with itself to maintain what little peace and order exists. The structural failures of the system contribute to this instability with inequality and economic factors. Human nature and the psychological inclinations of mankind also contribute to this constant struggle, but while humans are capable of killing one another with great capacity, human beings are also capable of great progress in areas benefiting mankind. World disorder cannot be attributed to any one factor alone, but a vast incorporation of numerous factors each contributing their slice of the pie towards the chaos and anarchy of today’s world order.
Permalink
06.30.11
Posted in Featured Article at 8:58 am by Allan Lee
A recent article from the Council on Foreign Relations’ publication Foreign Affairs dealt with the changing landscape of global security concerns in the coming decades and the rest of the 21st Century. With powers shifting between nations and the US-dominated hegemonic system slowly dissolving, one must consider the new system born from a multi-polar world. The United States will likely maintain its key global security position, but not on its own. It must make room for rising military powers like China. This bipolar security consortium must adapt to fit the needs of both nations, despite the conflicting overall goals of each.
The United States and China may just be able to negotiate some arrangement to ensure a stable, peaceful future of joint cooperation. However, unlike similar efforts like NATO, the United States and China do not necessarily share mutual ambitions. This disagreement would only seep into any conflicting regional operations and crack any semblance of peace wide open. One such dispute which easily comes to mind is arrangements involving Taiwan. The US has quite often supported Taiwan in its bid for recognition as a sovereign nation, independent of Chinese control. In a bipolar security system involving China as near equal to the United States, China would clearly pose a much greater threat to Taiwan. While the US might try every diplomatic tool to deter China from aggression against Taiwan, with such a large military presence within proximity to Taiwan, China would see that they have the military upper-hand in their ability to deliver large numbers of forces to Taiwan’s shores in a short amount of time before the US could react effectively with a substantial and equal force of its own- even if the US had large fleets protecting Taiwan, the American people might not be so obliged as to risk tens of thousands of Americans in open war with China over an island with little strategic interest. (This is only a hypothetical situation, given the same scenario with attitudes slightly different, Americans may feel preference to war over appeasement.)
Of course, the Cold War could’ve ended up in similar circumstances but didn’t. Both nations were too smart to let any open war rage with such huge potential for global catastrophe. In reality, if Europe’s role in maintaining global security declines and Asian powerhouses take its place, leaving a US-Asia global security convention to maintain peace and security, then all nations involved would likely deal with any conflicts of interest diplomatically with peaceful resolutions. While the Chinese may not be ready to take up the enormous responsibility of maintaining global and regional security, the United States isn’t quite ready to face the changing dynamics of the global security order.
Permalink
06.12.11
Posted in Featured Article at 10:28 am by Allan Lee
Pakistan, known to be a fickle ally of the US and the war on terror in Afghanistan, has always had a diverging agenda within its own government. Although Pakistan publicly claims their vast support for American counter-terrorism operations in the region, they do little on their part- partly out of incompetence and partly due to wavering support of various factions with a balancing act trying to juggle internal interests with American counter-terrorism interests. Is Pakistan the best ally in the region for American interests? While Pakistan does border Afghanistan, the Pakistani government is hardly obliging Coalition forces with concrete support in launching combat operations from within Pakistan. This disconnect between Washington and Islamabad was evident during the raid on Bin Laden’s compound. The American forces knew all too well that Pakistan has had a tremendous problem with internal disagreement and leaks within Pakistan’s intelligence services. Pakistan, at the same time, has grown closer to China. The United States can only buy Pakistan’s cooperation for so long. With years of aid and military support, the United States has still been losing its influence over Pakistan, and China will likely fill any void left by any loss of aid or military hardware if the US withdraws its support of Pakistan. The United States has even begun balancing its support leaning ever more towards India in its attempts to slow China’s growing regional power, and with more support for India, the US loses influence over Pakistan. The question is: Do the benefits of maintaining our relationship with Pakistan in the War on Terror outweigh the cost of regional influence with India to a growing Chinese powerhouse?
Permalink
05.25.11
Posted in Uncategorized at 2:44 am by Allan Lee
President Obama is attempting to reignite negotiations between Israel and Palestine that have fizzled out after previous attempts at reconciliation. Obama made a remark suggesting Israel return to approximate 1967 borders. Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu flat out rejected the possibility saying that such a drastic redrawing of boundaries is simply impractical for Israel given recent settlements and security concerns. However, Netanyahu did reiterate that he is open to negotiations in the pursuit of peace in the region. While the US and Israel have reached some consensus over the need to restart peace talks, the exact approach has not been ironed out yet. Hamas, a militant group in Palestine, is a major power player in negotiations with Israel- despite being recognized as a terrorist organization. Hamas has a great deal of influence over talks, allowing them to flourish if conditions seem favorable but also can also crush any agreements with violent protest and militant actions. Middle East analysts see Hamas as either a radical terrorist group to be kept outside negotiations or as a malleable third-party to play a critical role in negotiating for Palestine.
Netanyahu stated that peace cannot progress without a firm stance against Palestinian aggression and the clear recognition of Israel as a legitimate state. He cemented that security is the key issue towards any peace agreement. Both sides have solidified their positions to a point where peace negotiations cannot make any progress with both sides seeking a greater number of adjustments and guarantees which draw from the opposing side’s own position.
Permalink
05.08.11
Posted in Uncategorized at 6:43 am by Allan Lee
With the death of Osama Bin Laden, the world now turns to what happens next. With the charismatic leader of Al Qaeda now dead, there is little doubt that Al Qaeda was dealt a significant blow- strategically and psychologically. Just how large a blow is still debated. A position commonly held by strategists and analysts in the media points to a significant blow to their morale but with little significance to actual ongoing operations. Bin Laden’s death, while heralded in the West as a tremendous achievement of the Obama administration and the War on Terror, can be seen as a rallying call in radical Islamic circles to vengeance and retribution. It is this specific fear of stirring unrest and anger in the Muslim world why Obama has stated he would not release photos of Bin Laden’s bloodied corpse.
Permalink
04.27.11
Posted in Featured Article at 9:55 am by Allan Lee
Everyone is talking about the rise of the East. China, in particular, has seen tremendous growth and is expected to overtake the US economically within twenty or so years, if not sooner. The United States, in an effort to hedge against the rise of China, has started banking on India’s growth. India, another Eastern economy seeing tremendous growth in the region, has had mixed relations with their neighbor to the north. The United States has been setting a new tone in India for US-India relations, even entertaining the idea of a US-backed permanent seat on the UN Security Council for India.
China and India have seen increased tensions in the last decade. China and India have never completely settled territorial disputes on the boundary. China has historically supported Pakistan and has been deepening ties with Islamabad in recent years. Even India’s military, while maintaining focus on Pakistan, has also developed defensive strategies for a two-front war from both sides against Pakistan and China. China has deployed a number of troop regiments to the border, and India instinctively reacts with their own deployment of troops. While India and China have had a number of disputes and contentions, it will be some time before China is looked upon with the same kind of disdain that Indians put upon Pakistanis. With a strong US presence in Asia at the moment, India probably isn’t as worried about aggressive military action by China, but if China’s regional presence eventually surpasses the United States then India will likely see China as a very real threat to regional stability. Both countries are increasing military spending, with India recently settling on purchasing a large volume of US weapons, and China increasing military spending on power-projection military projects- such as navy carriers. The situation could become highly volatile with an influx of weapons and high tensions.
Permalink
04.02.11
Posted in Featured Article at 6:40 am by Allan Lee
The events that have unfolded in Libya are reaching points that bring foreign involvement into Libyan internal chaos. NATO has taken the lead in control of enforcing peacekeeping operations inside Libyan airspace in an attempt to slow Gadhafi’s surges against the rebel forces. The United States has even contemplated arming the rebels. While the US hopes to see Gadhafi’s regime toppled- with the face of protecting civilians in rebel-held territory- the temptation of sending more weapons to a fiery situation will likely make the situation worse. The CIA is believed to be operating in Libya now, working with rebel forces. Historically, unconventional warfare against a more powerful opposition force relies upon the assistance of a small band of advisers with the primary offensive consisting of the indigenous rebels, this strategy has been used in all theaters of operation around the world. While this strategy has grown to be the orthodox method for assisting rebels in foreign countries, it has consistently been shadowed by long-term blow-back against the United States in the future. The United States’ short-term regional objectives may be solved temporarily, but the United States has a degraded credibility in diplomatic relations as a result of our continued use of subversion against such countries.
We’ve seen this type of scenario before, with the belief that “the enemy of our enemy is our friend.” While we may prescribe to this type of remedy for unfriendly nations in the present, we often create a new set of enemies in the process for the future. Osama bin Laden, for example, was one of those rebels that the US trained and armed to fight back the Soviets in Afghanistan. We must consider all of the consequences before handing weapons over to these rebels. Freedom from tyranny may be on the minds of most of those rebels, it is uncertain whether the fringes of the rebel organization may try to hijack the movement once they’ve defeated Gadhafi and taken power. These extremist elements will only undermine American interests in the region by reverting to a totalitarian, anti-Western dictatorship. Waiting is likely the best option for the US, but we should not be simply waiting around for something to happen. By sending intelligence assets to monitor the situation more closely, we will have an increased situational awareness on the ground. The key is to wait and limit the scope of our operations within Libya to observation and surveillance.
Permalink
03.23.11
Posted in Uncategorized at 10:00 am by Allan Lee
Recently, I looked at an article showing the wide range of views on UN intervention in Libya- particularly on the Coalition militaries and governments carrying out the no-fly zone enforcement. Articles from news organizations around the globe raised concerns about the legitimacy of these operations in Libya. One example is China’s People’s Daily, which accused the United States and the other Coalition nations as contributing to the chaos in Libya and in heedless disregard of international laws. While the UN itself passed the resolution to impose a no-fly zone on Libya, the world seems hesitant to the idea of foreign intervention in civil affairs- despite the severity and scale of civil unrest, walking on the thin line between civil unrest and civil war. Is foreign intervention a breach in state sovereignty? Does this action grant precedent to a whole new set of rulings on foreign intervention?
The United States, in cooperation with other countries around the globe, has been bombarding Libyan government installations. Installations that appear crucial to Gadhafi’s use of violence against his own people. At the same time, Gadhafi claims these attacks are harming civilians, and he’s not the only one making such claims. Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, made similar claims. Putin made claims that civilians are being harmed in these air raids being conducted by Coalition forces. I believe that the world still has Iraq in their heads. The world can only see a potential Iraq situation in Libya’s future. While we should attempt to contain the situation in Libya as necessary in accordance with UN regulations and statutes, we cannot stand idly by as Gadhafi bombards his own people with pledges of “no mercy” on those opposed to him.
Permalink
03.20.11
Posted in Uncategorized at 6:01 am by Allan Lee
Today, military forces began softening up air defense targets inside Libya in preparation for enforcing a no-fly zone. The preparation includes destroying Libyan anti-air capabilities. The no-fly zone is designed to restrict Libyan military aircraft from attacking rebel forces and civilians; which was happening as Gadhafi loyalists fought over territory with protesters and rebels. While the UN Security Council passed a resolution for the creation of a no-fly zone, Americans are still apprehensive over the length of commitment and cost of US military involvement. President Obama spoke with assurance in Brazil that this action will last no longer than several days, not weeks. Coincidentally, this occurs at the same time as the eighth anniversary of the war in Iraq.
Many might be wondering if this no-fly zone will commit more US troops to another war. Despite military action taken against the Libyan military, these actions are simply meant to enforce a UN resolution no-fly zone. By destroying Libyan anti-air defenses, Coalition aircraft are granted freedom in their movement and aerial superiority and dominance. With ground defenses removed or deteriorated, only Libyan aircraft pose a serious threat to Coalition aircraft- which also potentially shifts the Libyan Royal Air Force’s focus towards protecting themselves rather than combating rebel forces. The Libyan Royal Air Force, while small compared to many modern militaries, has roughly 370 military aircraft at its disposal. Their numbers include the Mirage F1, MiG-21, MiG-23, Mi-24 Hind, Bell 212 Twin Huey, and the CH-47 Chinook. These include fixed-wing planes and helicopters.
As the situation develops in Libya, the UN may find it necessary to propose ground involvement to enforce a cease-fire. If this happens, the US will likely lead with the largest contribution of military forces. Even as Americans are still hesitant in committing to ground operations, the dynamics of this situation differ greatly than those of Iraq or Afghanistan. A successful, stable Iraq was highly dependent on American commitment in cash and longevity (reconstruction efforts rely upon stability to move forward); but the situation in Libya follows a different pattern. Peacekeeping operations typically don’t require as much time and money as full-fledged military campaigns do. However, in order to keep our objectives in perspective, we must solidify our position in the short-term by emphasizing our desire for restraint and need for multilateral cooperation. We cannot allow our position to change course from a peacekeeping standpoint to a confrontational position with open conflict with the Libyan military. While we should promote peace and safety for the Libyan people, we cannot afford another Iraq or Afghanistan.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »