|
Fighting a Three Front War
The personal and extensive Presidential recognition of the first anniversary of 9/11 ended
with a nationally televised speech, the American flag and the Statue of Liberty in the background. It was followed
by Thursday's speech before the United Nations General Assembly. Those actions began the public diplomacy phase
of the Iraqi regime change campaign of President Bush 43.
The military phase is not in doubt. Columnist Victor Davis Hanson summed it up this way. The Western way of war
is a natural expression of the core values of our European heritage. Consensual government, individual freedom,
secular rationalism, free markets, egalitarianism, self-criticism and self-audit, when applied to the battlefield,
result in better disciplined, better-equipped, better supplied and better-spirited armies. Because it has no class
system and is a true multiracial society, America has pushed beyond previous limits to create a technologically
sophisticated, restlessly energetic and ever-changing society - whose like has never been seen in the history of
civilization. The events of 9/11 supercharged rather than short-circuited the multifaceted engine that drives America.
More worrisome is the global public relations war which goes by the name of public diplomacy. In this aspect of
21st century war fighting, the old rules don't count. There are no massive assemblies of troops and munitions,
no great set piece battles for physical territory and no defined nation-states that win or lose. Instead, the battle
is universal and in real time. Winners, losers and trends count every day. The territory to be conquered lies between
each person's ears. The ammunition choices are television, radio, newsprint, audio and video cassettes. The battle
is for compelling visual content. Reason takes a back seat to emotion and fantasy. In this war, the United States
and its allies will face in-coming attacks from various clusters of enemies and opponents beyond the ones they
think they are fighting. They include loose coalitions of opponents to Bush policy who will use the war to advance
their own interests.
S.P.E.C.T.R.E. On his site Winds of Change.Net, Joe Katzman looks at the reality of the Ian Fleming creation
- a unified global criminal enterprise. What is the difference, for example, between FARC and SPECTRE?
The same diffusion of computing and telecommunications technology that drives business also drives organized criminal
activity. Narco-terrorist organizations evolve from haphazard movements to state proxies and then to independent
existence controlling territory outside the nation-state. Writing in NRO, Jonah Goldberg assesses the same problem.
Hamas, he says, operates as a nation-less state already. In those failed Arab states which ignore their citizens,
terrorist groups act as social service providers for the needy and neglected. Local charities solidify support
and provide the resources for selective political blackmail.
Many news stories report that criminal groups and terrorists are cooperating on a global basis. Poppies in Afganistan
are just one example. U.S. aid for the year consists of turning a blind eye to production rather than writing checks
for eradication. Warlord raids are already a regular occurrence and the issue is often control of the drug traffic,
not ideology.
The trends among criminal groups, says Katzman, are (1) professional management of infrastructures and assets,
(2) Large-scale enterprises to provide criminal funding, (3) gaining access to weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
for the purpose of local intimidation and (4) the growth of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to a size that
they compete with nation-states. They use their clout to threaten chaos in key political regions in order to create
"safe zones" in which to operate.
Criminal groups and terrorists are not likely to be friends for ever. The groups are in business for different
reasons. Criminals don't like risk. Their undiluted activities shrink their support base. They have little interest
in political goals. Criminals are territorial, especially when their niches are threatened. When they turn on each
other, terrorists and crime organizations will be formidable foes.
NGOs. Operating within the law but outside the established political system, nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) with names such as the National Council of Churches, Human Rights Watch or the Arab-American Institute raise
their demands inside the nation-state but with little effect. John Fonte, of the Foreign Policy Research Institute,
concludes NGOs have found themselves unable to enact their favored policies through the normal processes of American
constitutional democracy - Congress, state governments or the courts - and have decided to appeal to the United
Nations to implement their programs by force. In doing so, they have developed a competing alternative ideology
to Western liberal democracy and advance their cause on a global scale. That ideology, which he calls Transnational
Progressivism, contains certain key concepts which they advance or defend at all times. Some may sound familiar.
- Groups over Individuals. The key political unit is not the individual citizen forming voluntary associations
but a government authorized group (such as gender or race) into which one is born.
- The Dichotomy of Groups. There are oppressor groups and victim groups.
- Proportionalism is "Only Fair." It is an automatic sign of unfairness when victim groups are
not represented in all professions in roughly the same proportions as their percentage in the population.
- All Worldviews Represented. Major institutions cannot reflect the dominant culture but must include
the distinct world view of minorities.
- The Demographic Imperative. Immigrants should not be assimilated into the existing civic culture but
have a negotiated place as an unassimilated group.
- Democratic Ideals. The system should be changed from majority rule among equal citizens to one of power-sharing
among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. History should be re-defined to reflect multiculturalism.
Global Governance. Large-scale immigration will eliminate a meaningful concept of a nation-state and national
citizenship in the future. Therefore, the next is postnational citizenship in a system of global governance.
Often funded by such large organizations as the Ford Foundation, the postnational elite is found among international
law professors, NGO activists, charitable foundation officers, UN bureaucrats, EU technocrats and assorted corporate
executives and politicians. One example of how this movement operates is the European Union (EU). It is a large
macro-organization that initiates legislative action, implements common policy and controls a large bureaucracy.
It is un-elected and mostly unaccountable. Policies they advocate include the International Criminal Court, the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Land Mine Treaty, and the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. Recognizing a formidable
opponent, these groups will attempt to damage Bush over the war as a way to further their other interests. They
have been in the front in Afghanistan on subjects such as starving villagers and victims of collateral damage.
The cruelty of sanctions is one of their specialties.
As the U.S. pursues regime change in Iraq and experiences the resultant conflicts with other radical Islamist nations
and groups, the transnational progressives will be pushing their agenda for a system not based on individual rights
but on group consciousness, not on equality of citizenship but on group preferences for non-citizens including
illegal immigrants, not on majority rule within a constitution but on power-sharing by interest groups, not on
constitutional law but transnational treaty law, not on immigrants that become Americans but on immigrants that
are linked to transnational communities.
Boots on the ground still count. So do guided munitions. But there will be other wars within the war. To take just
one example of the problems of public diplomacy, if the enemy parks a tank in a civilian garage it is by intent.
If my troops set the house on fire while blowing up the tank, it is a collateral (unintended) consequence. The
moral agent of the house fire was the enemy for putting a military target in a civilian location in the first place.
Now explain that my soldier is not to blame. Do it in the local dialect in 15 seconds on news cable television
while all the audience sees is the burning house and the distressed family. That's modern 4GW warfare in the media.
It will have as much to do with victory as guided munitions.
|
