If all goes according to President Obama’s plan, the United States will soon be making a major new investment of $5 billion so that other countries can help in the fight against extremists. Regardless of how sensible such a proposal might sound, many things can go wrong, and the new program already seems too heavily dependent on military responses.
Mr. Obama introduced the initiative at his West Pointcommencement speech last month, saying he would establish a network of partnerships with countries from South Asia to Africa. The goal is to train and equip foreign security forces, so they can conduct counterterrorism operations with little American involvement. The past 13 years have proved that it would be impossible, as well as unwise and unnecessary, for the United States to assume responsibility for every terrorist threat.
Terrorist threats are unquestionably out there. Despite the administration’s success at reducing the core Qaeda group behind the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Obama acknowledged that “for the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America at home and abroad remains terrorism.” The threat has become more diffuse, involving extremists in Syria, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Mali and elsewhere. The result is that while there is less likelihood of a 9/11-style attack on the United States, there is a greater danger of attacks on Americans overseas, as in Benghazi or the shopping mall in Nairobi, Mr. Obama said.
Mr. Obama said his Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund would offer expanded help to vulnerable countries, including Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey. The idea isn’t new, although Mr. Obama would greatly increase the funding beyond the millions of dollars already being spent annually. In recent years, the United States has increasingly relied on partner countries to help in the fight against extremists.The Pentagon is providing intelligence and logistics assistance to other groups, like African troops and French commandos fighting militants in Somalia and Mali. And it is also training foreign troops in countries like Niger, Yemen and Afghanistan to confront insurgents on their own territory, so American armies won’t have to.
Mr. Obama has revealed few details of his program, which must be approved by Congress and reportedly is still in the planning phase. But there are serious questions about the effectiveness of past counterterrorism efforts, and experts say the government has never systematically evaluated what works and what does not. Iraq is one cautionary example of how much can go wrong. Even though the United States spent years and $25 billion to build up the Iraqi Army so it could defend the country, entire units disintegrated last week in the face of assaults by Islamist insurgents, and untold amounts of valuable weapons fell into enemy hands. In another case, soldiers in Mali overthrew the government in March 2012, even though United States Special Operations troops had trained Malian forces.
As described by Mr. Obama, it appears that the new program is intended to be run out of the Pentagon. That would be a mistake. To be effective, the program must also address the social and political drivers of instability and involve civilians as well as military officials. For instance, training must involve not just soldiers but police officers, judges and prosecutors, with a strong emphasis on the rule of law and human rights, so cracking down on extremists does not end up radicalizing more people or empowering authoritarian leaders.
An emphasis has to be placed on good governance. There also needs to be investment in community projects, education and moderate groups that build civil society and discourage extremism. As Iraq demonstrates, just training troops to shoot and providing generals with expensive weapons will not address the threat.
Do you believe that there is too much pressure on militaries to improve the government and not enough on the politicians? Although militaries will be key parts of putting a stop to terrorism, so will governments. Both militaries and governments need better training in countries where terrorism is rampant. The US should not become deeply involved in foreign governments and militaries like they did in Iraq. The network of countries you mentioned is a good way for the US to help foreign militaries allies and governments without becoming too involved.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in theory there has to be a training for other countries in order to counter terrorism. As you stated, it is evident that the US cannot fight terrorism all by itself and building a network of foreign services capable, efficient and effective is greatly needed.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I'm of the opinion that this program should not be chartered or hosted by the United States. I think it's important that there isn't a feeling of belonging to a specific state, and rather as the UN troops model, this foreign service force should be more of multinational genre. Experts from other countries should be part of the training force and the locations should vary on a specific schedule.
The US can fund the program, by all means, nevertheless i don't think it would be seen well for the state to run the entire thing, not by its nationals nor the foreigners.
I believe needs to be investment in community projects, education and moderate groups that build civil society
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI believe education education education education is very important
thank you i learned alot from you blogs and i got very good information
ReplyDeleteJoel,
ReplyDeleteI think you are correct in stating the the past 13 years have been a disaster as far as the US leading the fight against terror. Unilateral approaches to international problems are never the answer. President Obama must take into account the UN and develop mulitlateral partnerships aside from NATO. NATO serves an important function in some regards but fighting widespread terror networks with drones and heavy artillery has simply not worked. There must be a change in foreign policy and I think that begins with Israel and Palestine. Providing Palestine with sovereignty and national borders would be beneficial for the peace and prosperity of the region. The West's attempt at spreading democratic values has been a double edged sword. There are more democracies now than ever before, yet there are still conflicts throughout the world. I agree whole-heartedly with you that there must be more emphasis on the rule of law and human rights. And I don't think that bombing Yemeni weddings and Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan civilians is a very good demonstration of that.
Do you personally believe that this program will have the impact it intends on terrorism or do you believe it is a waste of money? I think the out come of this project may not be what is intended if it. I believe that it is another way of money spending which will hurt the country tremendously.
ReplyDeleteTerrorism is an enormous issue that many countries face. This program seeks to help the areas around the world experiencing terrorism which can bring the attacks or possibly attacks to an end. Could there have been a better program modeled to help this issue.
ReplyDelete