By Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security
Our enemies are more than just international terrorists. As of now, the American military can expect an Eastern European hot zone, multiple hot zones throughout Africa, multiple hot zones across Central Asia and a potential hot zone in the Pacific to increase the threat to America and the civilized world.
These hot zones, from a political analyst perspective, represent America’s present and future indirect, covert or limited engagements in a variety of ongoing and spreading conflicts worldwide.
Building coalitions and partnerships at the local levels is essential but still costly and taxing on America’s resources. The rapaciousness of destruction in many forms has surprised and slowed Washington’s ability to respond to the ignition of large-scale and growing conflicts. Not only must the U.S. pick and choose the most important battles instead of chasing ghosts and face them totally, but it must either shape the world it largely created or be trampled by disorder.
The fundamental problem is a stubborn, myopic and unrealistic view of the world. An insular Washington continues to see the world as either the world of yesterday’s academia or the world of tomorrow’s wish list. The former expects nothing to change and so does not try to make the world any safer but defends it based on former rules. The latter expects some natural evolution of democracy to occur and spread like the rays of righteous sunlight and when it acts, it uses words instead of strategy. They both fail to see the world as it is right now in the early 21st century.
Still, one cannot be a realist or a liberal or a globalist at present. To be a pessimist would be almost too defeatist, nihilistic and predestinationist. To be an optimistic would be just as flawed. America must see the world as it is and not get stuck into a particular perspective. A realist is stuck in the past and fails to see the world has changed greatly. A liberal fails to see that much of the world has not changed much. Equally important will be the correct observation of the enemy’s myopic perspective or a threat’s narrow field and how to appropriately conduct relations or address it accordingly.
Some international actors have proven themselves as beasts and without humanity. It is not possible to expect that a feral dog will understand the reasoning of a statesman or the requirements of a free and just civilization. Some dogs may require a cage. Others may require a good whack if not for the purposes of self-defend from an oncoming assault. On the other hand, a dog might be trained and domesticated by a whistle and a treat over time, rather than a stick, a beating and a stroke of death.
One way to see the civilized global environment today is that of a prairie. The system is exposed and being lit up into flames of various causes: pro-extremist jihadists, authoritarianism, disease, etc. Naturally the conflict spreads and then demands a form of confrontation and or engagement (e.g. ISIS, Boko Haram, Ebola, Putin’s Russia, Assad’s Syria, or the CCP).
As before, the right method, the right timing and the right amount of action is necessary. They cannot be contained by present U.S. military, finance and economic instruments of state alone. Diplomacy is a weak link. Information programs are virtually absent of any realistic positive impact in shaping the human terrain. Right now and for decades, Washington was not looking to train the uncivilized beasts of the world, only to trade with them or whack them when they misbehaved.
Other hidden national assets or tactics are not in play because of a lack of vision and strategic thinking in the upper echelons of leadership and the embroiled Congressional stall and lack of positive and intelligent initiatives. If training a dog takes years, it might not be inconceivable that domestication a state, a people or a brutal way of life may take decades and cannot be done with treats alone (economic and financial levers).
Most importantly, if we take the simple prairie analogy further the hotspots are appearing due to a central weakness in the prairie system (or the civilized world). The analogy of a burning house might also suffice to describe international politics and security
How can Washington move from reactionary actions to steps of prevention? First, either save the prairie fields or house or let it all burn and wait for the storm. Second, find a way to prevent systemic crash or alter the system to your advantage and the resurgence of liberal civilization.
Washington must become a conductor of power and not a lone firefighter bombing the flames from the air. But it must also take radical necessary action now not simply to deal with the threats but eliminate them over time for good.
America must lead in preventing the global arsonist from destroying its world; and long before the epidemics, wars and chaos spread fast.
Comments are closed.