|
I'd like to put out an alternative strategy to the military one being offered in Afghanistan. That's the big problem that Obama was faced with, picking a military strategy, when "none of the above" was the the best option. When politicians rely on the military as a solution, they are abdicating their responsibility as politicians to come up with a political solution. I call my alternative strategy the "Hong Kong solution" because it evolved out of the British-Chinese war.
The British really wanted to conquer China and add it to their empire, along with India, much as the United States wants to add Afghanistan to the "Coalition of the Willing". However, they were realistic about how much control they could have in another vast, populous country half a world away, so they settled by just grabbing Hong Kong. Although the Chinese were none too happy with it at the time, it did turn out to have long term benefits for them. And by limiting British territory to the small area of Hong Kong, it only insulted the pride of the Chinese and did not result in a countywide insurrection against the British.
There are many other small enclaves that offend the host, but end up facilitating cultural connection and understanding: Macau, Guantanamo (at least until the torture started), Gibraltar, Ceuta, Goa (until it was annexed), and others. Sometimes a small toehold is all that is needed instead of lots of "boots on the ground". That is behind much of the reason that the military has bases in 190 countries all over the planet -- they don't just want a refueling stop, but they want to have a presence to build an alliance with an ally.
It's not a fool-proof strategy, Okinawans have pretty much had it with Americans raping and murdering their teenagers. Soviet satellites were also not to thrilled to have their Warsaw Pact ally camped in their territory. It really boils down to knowing how to be a guest and not burn out your welcome: (1) impose as little as you can; you can't sleep in the master bedroom (2) know when to make yourself scarce; you are not King Solomon and you can't mediate all arguments (3) don't freeload and (4) wait to give your opinion until you are asked.
So how would this work in Afghanistan and Pakistan? 1) Have the US negotiate a long term lease for one (and only one) territory that would be more than just a military base. 2) Have a teaching hospital at the territory that could train local doctors and offer medical care to locals. 3) Have a school system through university in the territory that allows locals to learn about American culture. 4) Have an agricultural experiment station in the territory that offers help to local farmers. 5) Have a corps of engineers that can provide advice on infrastructure projects. 6) Make it clear that all local factions are welcome to visit and don't take sides. 7) Make the perimeter of the territory a defensive position, and don't "fight 'em there" by going beyond the territory.
Done properly, only a small number of personnel would be needed for military defense of the territory and the vast majority would be involved in humanitarian projects that would be the projection of "soft power". A plan like this would cost much less than a million dollars per person per year. The difference between what a mercenary wants and what a Peace Corps volunteer will do is staggering. For the price of one Blackwater contractor, you could have 19 Peace Corps volunteers and one soldier and you would get a far better result.
|