Translate

Friday, January 26, 2007

The dilemma of even a small war

We all know the world is very imperfect. Today there are over 100 small wars occurring throughout the world. And I believe we know our Country can’t be the world’s policeman to all of them, nor do we want to be.

Even where we do get involved at any level, there is usually much hand wringing over how much of everything. Call it the dilemma of a small war.

One size does not fit all. Every small war is different, with its own people, their history, their culture, their isolation, their resistance to change, and sometimes exposure to the bigger world’s influences. Almost always crime is an integral part of the social fabric, although crime to us westerners may not be the same crime to the locals.

The former British Empire provides us in the USA many historical courses of action, though there are many more: Russian, Ottoman, Japanese, colonial, Roman, Byzantine, and many others older. Benign neglect, divide and conquer, and rule economically sound like the usual means, to many. Liberal use of monies as ransom and bribes, astute respect of the locals to include sharing some of the wealth with the local chieftains, and periodic ruthless military action are part of the usual bag of tricks. Some of all this seems disdainful to the unsoiled intellectuals in more protected places.

On the other end of things, the USA has its own contribution to the dilemma of a small war. We bring a strong sense of isolationism, an almost religious belief in diplomacy and moral equivalency, and impatience.

Why does any country even get involved in a small war? Many wonder after the first involvement. All should wonder before the first involvement.

The best and only real reason for the USA to become involved in a small war is National Interest. Vital National Interest must be threatened. To prosecute any war, to include a small war, then the rest of the Powell Doctrine must be met, also. For those who can use a reminder, here is the Powell Doctrine. Some may consider them debate points, which of course they are.
Is a vital US interest at stake?
Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
Are the objectives clearly defined?
Will we sustain the commitment?
Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation?
Have we exhausted our other options?
Do we have a clear exit strategy?

For other smaller countries, other additional factors also play into the calculations of involvement in a small war. National versions of peer pressure, international and other funding, and national business interests are the usual players.

Small wars are not “big” wars. I doubt Hitler thought much about all this.

What the future holds for the USA is frightful. The many existing small wars will continue with some sputtering out, and many more frictions will come to be small wars. The aggressiveness of Islamo fascism in attempting to incorporate into small wars will continue to threaten our Vital National Interests in some places. Perhaps other factors will come into play. Only time will tell.

We are not the only country in the world facing the dilemma of a small war. For example, the Philippine government’s over 100 year battle with Islamic Moro’s continues, exacerbated by middle east monies and other influences coming into their country today. All this is on top of their own inherent weaknesses.

Other than military education, there is little formal instruction on this subject. There are many books on the subject. Going to the military’s professional reading lists is a very good start: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/library/military_reading_lists.htm From these lists one can find many good foreign sources, also. For the links that are exhausted, one will have to work through it.

There is much more to think about in prosecuting a small war. But first we must work through the dilemma of a small war.

No comments: