Angels and Demons

There is something beautiful about reverence.  It's what transforms flocks of tourists into worshipers, noise into quiet, and cynicism into reflection.

Normally when you hear about the West Bank you hear about strife, loss, and one group pitted against another.  Yet on my first visit to the Palestinian territories, the Palestinian people and the tourists they welcomed from across the globe schooled me in the ways of tolerance, cooperation and faith.

This is not to say that suffering does not persist.  Only a short ride away from the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem looms the partition wall and a Palestinian refugee camp.  In Manger Square a banner of Yasser Arafat hangs adjacent to the city's Christmas tree as a reminder that despite the city's enduring history, its future has yet to be written.

I have been contrasting my experience as a guest of the holy city, in which people of many backgrounds and ethnicity came together to stand in awe of what they say there, with the ongoing turmoil and desperation of a people for whom justice has yet to be resurrected.  

What came to mind was a sentiment scrawled in black and white on a portion of the partition wall inside the refugee camp: "Light is the only end to darkness."  

For many that light is religion.  It is a force that in its pure form helps us to recognize not only the divine in our world, but also the humanity in each other.  

Whatever the reasons for Bethlehem's impressive peace, I pray that tomorrow grows ever lighter.

Rough Road Ahead

The fog of war shows no signs of lifting.  Instead of throwing on our headlights and inching forward until the road clears, security professionals are doing their best to draw a new road map that will offer clear direction based on the measurements of morality and justice.  Moral cartography was the theme of the day at the Institute for National Security (INSS) conference on urban warfare here in Tel Aviv, Israel. 

If there was consensus among the presenters it was that the rules must be changed.  We are traversing terrain for which all the rules of the road harken back to the times of conventional warfare.  Armies fighting armies in uniform with internationally understood just war precepts.  The onset of terrorists and insurgents fighting in civilian clothing amongst an innocent civilian population proves that the rules of engagement have not adapted to the times.  General Stanley McChrystal (Ret.) reminded the audience that urban warfare is not a unique or new phenomenon, but our missions in these urban areas require overcoming evolving challenges.  This will only worsen as the world becomes more and more urbanized.

The second consensus of the day involved the idea of balance.  We must find the balance between the security of our soldiers and protecting the lives of the enemy’s civilians.  Major General Amos Yadlin described the question of what to do as a tragic dilemma between action and inaction.  Decision makers are pulled between two polls, at one end the willingness to harm civilians in order to hit terrorists and protect our citizens, and on the other allowing terrorists to escape for fear of harming civilians. 

General McChrystal also spoke of balance and what he called the paradox of urban warfare.  He described the recent wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq as struggles for the support of the people.  The civilians there had a choice between supporting insurgents and the security forces.  In order to win their support, the forces had to balance being credible and capable in their efforts to increase security with demonstrating care and concern for the innocent population.  Insurgents try to tip this balance, which is why military conduct in urban areas requires great discipline.  In this way fighting ethically is strategic, but both McChrystal and Yadlin emphasized that moral conduct is equally philosophical. 

In keeping with the discussion of balance, Major General Yadlin posed the question, to whom are we more obliged, our own soldiers or the enemy’s civilians?  Professor David Enoch called upon us to remember that the innocents on the opposing side are no less innocent as the ones on our side.  He argued that we must demonstrate a willingness to accept casualties of soldiers on our side in order to save civilians on the other side.  McChrystal too spoke of the willingness to sacrifice stating that it would go a long way in demonstrating the importance of mission. 

The key to ethical conduct in urban warfare and counterterrorism is to let moral principles guide strategy and tactics so as both to minimize the loss of life and God willing justify the losses that are unavoidable.  Fighting terrorists and insurgents ethically is an ongoing challenge, one made especially difficult by the lack of roadmap.  As we prepared to inch forward through the ethical fog, Professor Enoch left us with a sobering but important point, that in war the price is paid in blood.  


Today a new definition is needed to understand what it means to fight justly in these irregular times, because judging from the past stretch of road, there are curves ahead.

Must start somewhere

When grappling with large tasks, it is sometimes the smallest steps that make the most difference.  Tonight while one roommate immigrated to my room for the promise of a stronger internet connection, and the other prepared for a date, I decided to write the first paragraph of my research paper.  Line zero is always intimidating but once begun it is exhilarating in its freedom.  The paragraph I composed is less than academic and therefore may soon fall victim to convention, but until then I thought I would share with you the first step of what will prove to be a long, arduous path to completion:

Buffalo Springfield said it best.  "There's something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear."  States meet each other’s gaze with the cold stare of geopolitical calculations as they slowly draw lines in the sand.   Whether the tide of history is coming in or going out remains to be seen.  According to the latest IAEA report, Iran marches towards nuclear capability with strategic, security, and ideological convictions.  Many believe a nuclear Iran is inevitable, while some maintain that a military strike or threat of one could alter the course.  The future of Iran’s nuclear program may be shrouded in the veil of uncertainty, but what has been exposed in the past year is Iran’s standing in the region.  This notoriously revisionist state has managed to elude the American crystal ball, but what is clear is that for Iran the status quo is unacceptable and therefore unsustainable.  By analyzing the Iranian reaction to the Arab Spring, policy makers can understand where Iran stands in the region and what might be next for the state behind enemy lines.

Fear and Loathing

My research question began as precise and targeted, but the path to the answer requires an investigation into the mysterious inner workings of a foreign policy outlier.  Just like Salvadaor Dali's surrealist clock, so my research question has melted like a distressed popsicle slipping slowly down the stairway of precision to the steps of murky fundamental, underlying belief.

I am talking about Iran.  But aren't we all.

I want to know if the events of the Arab Spring have any effect on Iran's nuclear ambition.  In order to answer this question I first have to understand the effects of the Arab Spring (a process that is still ongoing), what they mean for Iran, and how Iran might react.  Judging Iran's reaction requires an understanding of the country's leaders and their motivations.  How do they see the world?  How do current events fit into this world view?

In what has become a crash course on Iran, I have developed one main quandary about the country and its thinking.  On the one hand, Iran is a Realist's dream come true.  Their goal is survival, they see the U.S. as a threat in this regard, so they strive for ever more power, seeking to become a regional and perhaps global hegemon.  Nuclear weapons capability is a way to ensure both security and power.  Pursuing this path is rational and predictable.  This is Realism in practice.

Flip the coin and you see a darker side, a less predictable view of the world.  Iran sees its role as the growing hegemon that will spread Islam and Islamic rule throughout the world.  Ahmadinejad in particular (and his supporters in the army) subscribe to apocalyptic teachings that require such a situation before the coming of the Mahdi, the Shiite messiah.  Nuclear weapons are a good tool for the apocalypse.

As the international community attempts to deal with Iran and it's pending nuclear threat, it is best to keep in mind the side of its world view we do understand.  Iran has watched as countries without nuclear weapons have been invaded and dismantled, or had their leaders forcibly removed from power.  They have watched as dangerous countries with nuclear weapons have remained untouched.  They fear for their sovereignty.

I should note that while I am getting closer to being able to see the world through Persian eyes, I do not support Iranian foreign policy, especially in regards to its nuclear agenda.  I have heard the argument that it is not fair to deny countries the option to develop nuclear weapons.  The international system exists in anarchy, countries are allowed to do as they please.  Additionally we still maintain an arsenal of thousands.  I don't care.  The world needs less destructive power, not more.  Any country who cannot admit this should be faulted.

Still, I encourage those who get the chance to influence Iranian policy to keep in mind how Iran views the playing field.  Sure there are religious story lines and goals running through their policies, but we can only operate in the reality that we know.  If we can understand the root of their fear, perhaps we can orchestrate a remedy.

Pride and Precedent

Republican presidential candidate Governor Mitt Romney promised one thing in last week's GOP candidate debate; that this would be an American century.

The economy, used to soaring now sinks slowly lower like a forgotten balloon.  Two wars reach their twilight but at extraordinary cost, and America fails to shape or even properly support Middle East affairs.

Despite these realities, Mitt Romney and I have something in common.  We believe in American exceptionalism.  Born out of our intrinsic idealism mentioned in the previous post, many of us still subscribe to the idea that America should be the guiding light on a dark trail of moral ambiguity and lost values.  Surely we can show the way.

The country will have to make great strides on many fronts in order to secure the coming century.  Education and health care are not least among them.  But as others jockey for position the best way to maintain our grip on the reigns of leadership is to adhere to principled policy.  This includes how we treat terrorists, convicted and otherwise.

Thus far in my course on terrorism we have looked at varying definitions of terrorism.  Perhaps the most surprising element in discussing a definition is why we need one at all.  As my professor explained, terrorism needs an operating definition not to soothe the curious minds of academic theorists, but to allow us to decide how to react, punish, and prosecute terrorism and terrorists.  The subject is steeped in moral judgment and uncertainty but the fact remains that as terrorism takes its course, we must take action.

I argue that the actions America takes in combating evil will define our role in the world.  We alone can gild our pedestal or draft our obituary.

The last couple of years and even the past few months have entertained debate on how to handle terrorism.  For example, how best to try convicted terrorists - either in military tribunals or civilian courts - and how to handle American citizens who choose to pursue terrorist goals.  The recent incident in which the President ordered the targeted killing of an American-born terrorist is the best example of what I argue is dangerous policy.

Situations involving terrorists, both foreign and American born, will always be unique.  There will always be reason and urgency in taking certain action.  Leaders will find ways to send suspected and convicted terrorists to what physicists have surely discovered to be a black hole on Earth, Guantanamo.  There are valid and compelling arguments to take aggressive and extra-judicial action against terrorists.

None of these reasons outweigh the value of precedent.

If we disregard the rule of law in favor of "national security" interests, we will be digging our own grave.  Yes, Americans can pose a serious threat to their homeland.  Yes, military tribunals exist.  Yes, Guantanamo is still open for business.  But sacrifice in the name of principle must be made today if we are to lead tomorrow.  In the case of  Anwar al-Awlaki  many deemed it appropriate that he be targeted and killed.  But tell me what precedent does this set?  Today it is the justified, targeted killing of a known terrorist, but tomorrow it is just a suspicion, a black list, a McCarthy state.

If there was one thing worth repeating from the latest GOP debate it was Ron Paul's answer to the question on supporting torture.  He stated simply that torture is illegal, immoral, and un-American.  This is the kind of clear principled thinking that we need to practice in order to ensure our longevity.

Terrorism is a new phenomenon, one policy makers will continue to grapple with.  As they make their decisions and decide which precedents to set, I hope they ask themselves that if one day we do reach the end of history, what will it say on our tombstone?

The end of history

I was reading about the theory of offensive realism the other day.  That's the kind of thing you can say when you're in grad school.  In The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, John Mearsheimer argues that despite our idealism, world peace is impossible.  States will continue to seek power in order to ensure their survival.  This will continue forever, hence the tragedy.  Mearsheimer juxtaposes his argument to the thinking at the end of the Cold War, thinking that prompted descriptions of the times as "the end of history." It was thought that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a shift so great it would usher in a stable, multipolar reign of peace. Mearsheimer argues this was not the case.

Just yesterday I was thinking simultaneously that history is repeating itself and that what is unfolding now has never been.  Let me explain.  If you would like to read the front page news in terms of great power - realist theory you can.  President Obama wants to counter the rise of China by stationing more troops in the region.  Emphasis will be placed on naval capability to ensure dominance over resources in the South China sea.  Reading this it is hard to pinpoint the century, let alone year we are discussing.

Conversely, I also read a very telling piece regarding Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's plans to cut the U.S. defense budget.  His projections would have realists quaking in their boots.  There will be cuts in military benefits, personnel and weapons spending.  Instead investment will be made in targeted war necessities (Navy SEAL teams, drones etc.) and cyber war capabilities.  These cuts indicate a notable shift in policy, historically speaking, from conventional, numerical might to leaner, albeit meaner strategy.

So which is it?  Is history on a 100 year track, repeating itself like an eternal record?  Will great powers face off for ever more power, living cyclically in the security dilemma?  Or are the situations we face today unprecedented?  And if so, doesn't that imply that progress can be made if history is in fact changing?

Realists will call me "utopian" and "optimistic," but if I have to choose to see the world in terms of an eternal power struggle or on a path towards something better, I choose the latter.

Act II

I am a fan of the theater.  But theatrics is best left to the Opera house, a more appropriate setting than the world nuclear stage.  Dramatic plot lines within the arts are to be celebrated. Swan Lake or Romeo and Juliet are all the more poignant because of the sweet tragedy, but recall that Shakespeare's players tempted fate with sonnets sung from a moonlit balcony.  Today's players tempt fate with whispers not of romance but of military strike, incurring inevitably drastic retaliations.  While indeed theatric, these plot twists are not to be celebrated, but condemned for the recklessness in which they are conceived.  Literary scholars will tell you that characters are motivated by different, sometimes irrational factors.  Players on a stage have this luxury.  Players walking the line between existence and destruction, as they claim, need only be motivated by security and justice.  What happens when those occupying the leading roles forget their lines and deviate from their sole motivation?

It is true, eventually Israel, the United States and others will have to anticipate the scene in which a response to a nuclear, or potentially nuclear, Iran is necessary. This is a serious threat worthy of serious consideration.  Yet this imminent second act is threatened by what is a reckless and needlessly political intermission.  If Israel is seriously considering a preemptive attack on Iran, surely the audience should not know about it ahead of time.  To preemptively provoke Iran is a detriment to Israeli security, but the real threat lies with the leaders who believe that all the world is a stage, and the men and women they are sworn to protect, merely players.