Maybe we should just recognize ISIS...

What is the foreign policy interest of the United States of America? It is the first question of foreign policy as well as the one that seems to never really be answered!

Let me begin by acknowledging a reality that I knew nothing of until two years ago. Many of the military bases and troop commitments that the United States maintains outside the United States are dictated by treaties which the US has signed with foreign countries.  These are not open to the unilateral whims of budget hawks or dovish presidents. One of my friends who attended the United States Naval Academy educated me on this and pointed out that it appeared that not even most national politicians acknowledge or know about this.

So, when politicians proudly claim, they will not get involved in “international adventures” unless American interests are at risk? What are American interests and how do these interests translate abroad. There are several possibilities:1)human rights, 2)democratic ideals, 3)threats to the security of the United States, 4)US overall national economic interest, and/or 5)the specific interest of certain sub-groups. Finally, the dangers of pursuing any of these goals or a combination of them are magnified when the culture and region of any given situation are not taken into account.

I am not a historian. The historical wars of the Spanish-American war, the Civil War, WWI, and WWII are often counted as "the good wars." These were wars that the country took up in self-defense, or to help broaden human rights and democratic ideals. The the narrative of American exceptionalism draws on the history of these wars to support America's claim to be an exceptional country.

It should not be forgotten that even during the so called "good times" the United States was also involved in foreign activities which directly benefitted small groups inside the US with foreign income. This is especially true where democratically elected regimes throughout the Western Hemisphere were toppled by US government action to further the interests of major US corporations that were active in those countries. This is pretty vividly portrayed in the Banana Wars the United States undertook. Soon after these events, retired General Smedley Butler wrote "War is a Racket" detailing how he was commanded to use our military to foster the interests of big business and Wall Street.

It is interesting to me that despite conservative protestations that the government shouldn't choose winners in economics they are quite happy to assert the United State's right to judge and choose winners and losers in politics of other countries based on our mood. I find the idea that we should choose other countries' governments and leaders is idiotic and imperial rather than evidence of American exceptionalism.

So what interest of the US are the politicians talking about when call our country to war against ISIS?

We support Saudi Arabia (bastion of human rights who just executed 47 people) and we supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq (User of poison gas on his own citizens) in the war against Iran. How different is ISIS? They are a repressive "religious regime" so is Saudi Arabia. Have they executed people - Yes, and so have we. One of their greatest recruiting tools is that we have declared they are an enemy and attacked them.

Maybe we should recognize ISIS and see how their state progresses when dealing with their own neighbors within the international system.  Invite them to the UN and let them deal with their neighbors within the international legal framework. In the realm of politics, the politic classes of many neighboring muslim are the real targets of ISIS. In the realm of religion, it is the more complex and deep strains of Islam who have the resources to weaken ISIS.

I hope you enjoyed these thoughts. I am going to be reorganizing my blog to focus on family and spirituality.  I will of course hit on other issues, but I don't plan on spending as much time on these things.

They are frustrating and not always very life-giving or hopeful. I will still vote and sign petitions, but unless I am tabbed for the State Department or an ambassador post that will likely be it! Feel free to share any thought or reactions.

Terrorism:Paris and San Bernardino - What I realized

In the days after the Paris attacks I was distracted and had a hard time focusing. At times, I felt sick. I wanted to know the latest updates and had to intermittently unplug from following the news at all.

What happened and what was happening to me?

First, let me state unequivocally that I denounce terrorism. 

Second, I feel that is a pretty severe lack of imagination and empathy that our leaders, pundits, and media can act so totally clueless about terrorism.

Terrorism and guerilla warfare are very close relatives. It does not take much scratching beneath the surface of world events to start uncovering some understandable (mind you not acceptable in my eyes) motives and rationales for these acts.  Asymmetrical warfare has long been the hallmark of groups who are facing a threat that  can not be defeated in any realistic scenario of war in the Geneva Convention mold. 

The United States has employed asymmetrical warfare as a part of our foreign policy which fell short of declared wars. Even in our civil war raiders and guerrillas existed. (Read the wikipedia article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare_in_the_American_Civil_War  ). 

Our support of the mujahadeen against the Soviet Union is but one recent example (which brought us Osama Bin Laden). It is really a mystery to me that the same intelligence operators who worked with and trained these asymmetrical experts can be so willfully blind about their causes and the situations which give them rise and drive them to act. Our globe has no shortage of experience with this.  Iraq, Ireland, and Palestine are just a few locations where asymmetrical warfare was or is de rigueur.

So, what conditions create the environment for it and what nudges it into action.

First, there must be a situation where injustices against the group you belong to are apparent. 

Second, there must be an enemy which appears too powerful in the normal arena of war. This can be due to technology, numbers, or due to the preponderance of international backing of one's enemy.

Third, there must be a inability or lack on the part of official political powers to stop the attacks, protect or bring justice.

Penultimately, there must be a definitive erosion of the personal social contract which prohibits killing.

Finally, there must be a trigger to act.

You will notice that poverty is not a part of the narrative I see here. There has been some research supporting the idea that it is not poverty that leads to terrorism. (Here is an article about this from the Wall street Journal of all places- http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB110911119848561282)

The confluence of ruling powers in the middle east and around the world who are not overly concerned with justice, along with the West lending technological and political legitimacy to many of them and their oppressive violence could provide a fairly compelling fulfillment of criteria one through three. Even allies such as Pakistan have had a difficult time sustaining their cooperation with us in the face of the killing of innocents and collateral damage from our violence along with everyone's seeming inability to act justly or protect civil society. In pursuing our goals, we claim these casualties are acceptable. Is it a surprise that others will ask us how the collateral damage among their population is different from the collateral damage in Paris or California?

But what about the last two criteria? What could fulfill them?  A sense of the rules of civilization being ignored at one's expense. The loss of a loved one. The killing of innocents. The continued threats and attacks against those you consider to be co-religionaries or fellow citizens. These surely are among the ingredients that can destroy the social contract that underlies the preservation of life. Finally, what might be the trigger? A personal invitation be a leader. An attack like that of the French government on ISIS. A final loss of hope, that the powers that be will begin to act more justly in their eyes. In the internet age, one's neighbors need not be physically close and atrocities experienced in distant locations can have profound affects on sympathetic figures around the globe.

Let us not imagine that Syria and Afghanistan are the equivalent of  Nebraska with Imams preaching Islam rather than Christianity. Bashar Al-Assad is certainly not Pete Ricketts.

Living in a war zone is a hell that only the small percentage of soldiers and refugees can begin to understand. I will not pretend to be an expert on the subject. And a modern war in your own country among your family and friends must be of a hellish intensity of an even greater degree. Those immediately affected by 9/11 can understand this. These experiences likely heighten human sensitivity and speed progression through these steps and creating hearts, minds, and souls that find themselves driven rapidly through this progression toward extremism.

I found it hard to consider the violence that I saw and read about during the attacks. I also found it difficult and upsetting to see the hatred, prejudice with which we responded to the attacks.  It was our response that actually kept me awake at night. This hatred and knee jerk response to start trying to kill whoever we could find knotted my intestines and burrowed into my mind. It is the response one would rightly expect from the henchmen of a garden variety dictator not the United States of America and the French Republic. The increasing volume of the drums of war just echoed in my mind ...throbbing....Don't we have a better response than this. 

I still have to avoid some topics on social media. As someone who knows refugees who have fled war I can't read screeds about stopping refugees. As someone, who has spoken with families who have experienced the time and effort taken for immigration security checks I can't read about religious tests for immigrants. The hate, scapegoating, and fear-mongering give me headaches - like lingering paint fumes that burn when I breathe.  Seeing that the purveyors of these thoughts believe they are offering solutions makes me sad and pains my heart. I have to monitor my exposure to them. The solutions to terrorism is not nearly simple enough to be solved by bombs and more security.

As a human race, don't we have a better response than this.

Next: Can we discuss: "What do politicians mean when they say US national security interest?" and "What should our foreign policy goals be?"