Politicians are often labeled Hawks or Doves, preferring calls for "negotiations" and/or diplomacy to resolve conflicts, or a strong National Defense and expressed willingness to use those forces to reduce threats to National Security, and deter misbehavors from acting on their desires.
The same parties known as Doves, focus on domestic spending programs, while the party of Hawks has traditionally protected the DoD budget from unacceptable cuts. The Doves seem to envy the DoD budget, seeing it as money they could use instead to buy Chinese Solar Panels, Chinese made Black Berets, to build Turtle Tunnels, and Multi-Million dollar Monkey Pagodas so 7 monkeys can live in captivated style. The Doves may claim to be "strong on Defense" but even "The One" who campaigned to place Afghanistan as his top priority, to put diplomacy ahead of the use of force, has done the opposite.
But does the party of diplomacy live up to its slogans? Have Our Alliances been strengthened and Our Enemies weakened during the era of purported Diplomacy? Is America more respected now than it was 4 years ago? Are we safer? Have our enemies fled the field of battle to negotiate peace and reconciliation? Or are old allies turning to alliances and friendships with our old enemies?
In 2001, both George W Bush & Hillary Clinton stated that other Nations must choose sides, that they were: "either with us, or against us." This was a key phrase, at a time that Pakistan needed motivation to allow US Troops to (secretly) operate on their soil, and to openly allow US Warplanes to overfly their airspace. That phrase helped motive the Pakis, which was not interested in a War with the United States, even though they had helped put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. It forced them to choose between old friends, and old allies of convenience. Bush offered both the carrot of financial aid and a very big stick, wielded by a very angry Nation. President Musharraf chose well, choosing to abandon the Taliban, choosing to take the war to Al-Qaeda, and became the target of multiple assassination attempts by that enemy, but not the target of US Warplanes.
The alliance of necessity had its bumps in the road, but the two leaders distinguished between the rhetoric necessary for their people, and the words that would infuriate the other's people. Actions were in line with the National Sovereignty of Allies, even when some secrets were kept out of the public eye. The first fatalities of Operation Enduring Freedom weren't inflicted by the enemy on the field of battle in Afghanistan, but a helicopter accident, on the ground, at a secret base in Pakistan. Though Troops bristled that the enemy would retreat across the Paki border, where they could not pursue, it maintained the alliance, by not demonstrating the weakness of President Musharraf to stop it. Instead, Musharraf sent his Regular Army Troops to the border to attempt to broker a buffer between local tribes that supported the Taliban, and US Troops that tired of cross border attacks.
In 2003, with the Taliban defeated in Afghanistan, when it looked like the mission there was complete, Afghanistan's President Karzai, asked the US to stay, to ensure the new democracy could get on its feet. In 2004, with the Taliban showing little sign of any power at all, Karzai asked the US to stay, to help train its new public servants and warriors to create a new and fair government. In 2007 and 2008, President Karzai re-iterated his long term commitment to friendship with the United States.
The Diplomacy that worked in Afghanistan & Pakistan through the first part of the decade ended before the new POTUS was even elected. During the campaign, the then junior Senator from Illinois tried to demonstrate his strength on National Defense by stating he would increase attacks into Pakistan, with no regard for the ally's sovereignty. In his first ever visit to Afghanistan, though he served as the chairman for the subcommittee on it, the candidate treated President Karzai as a servant, chastising him like a small boy in the President Karzai's own house, ignoring the cultural sensitivities of the region, and the fact that the elder Karzai had been a President longer than the community organizer had been an elected US official. Soon after, the new POTUS chose to refer to the two as "AfPak," even setting up bureaucracies to deal with AfPak, as if neither Nation were sovereign.
He sent a retired General, hostile to Our Troops, to the General that led them, and to the President of Afghanistan, to be the Ambassador, while actively campaigning to undermine the elected President of an ally, in elections, and the court of world opinion. The current President of the United States went so far as to propose and attempt to implement an unelected "counter-balance" being installed to undermine President Karzai.
As POTUS, Obama made good on his threat to increase attacks in Pakistan, pretending that if the planes had no pilots that it wasn't an invasion of their sovereignty. He did all he could to turn the election against President Musharraf, who had ordered a military campaign against the Taliban. And though Allies begged Obama to listen to his General, he offered retreat, as he half-stepped on the Troops the General said he needed. As Pakistani Troops pushed the Taliban out of some provinces, the US Administration provided no anvil to stop the Taliban from escaping into Afghanistan, and returning to fight another day.
While it is politically expedient, to risk only machines, and not Troops, it significantly increases the chances of a mistake. A Soldier on the ground can differentiate between a local carrying an Ak-47 to protect his family from bandits & Taliban Thugs, and an Haqqani Terrorist raising that Ak-47 to fire on civilians or his Fellow Troops. Some guy looking at a computer screen can't feel the mood of a village, cannot sense hostility or peace. There is a role for the Predator drone, but indiscriminate abuse of the politically expedient, risk adverse tool, increases the chance that by-standers will be killed. And when civilians are killed, that does play into enemy propaganda.
Pashtuns understand that enemy combatants are captured and held in Gitmo. They understand that sometimes the information will disrupt their sleep with a raid on the wrong house. They don't quite wrap their heads around a missile hitting the wrong house and killing kids and neighbors that had nothing to do with it. They may complain, but they understand that if the Taliban has taken over a house to attack others, the owners of the house may leave this world, along with their terrorist hostage-takers.
And those doves? They made good on Barney Frank's 2008 speech of cutting the Military by 25%. So far, Obama has proposed $730 Billion in cuts to the Department of Defense, even as he claims he won't "break faith" with Our Troops and Veterans. He has proposed another $42 Billion, just in his most recent plan, to take money directly out of the pockets of Veterans. Have the "Hawks" stood up to his calls to slash DoD in the middle of 3 wars? No. Some have said "everything must be on the table" while others have been quiet since 2007, while SecDef Gates & SecDef Panetta at Obama's direction have slashed F-22's, F-35's, scrapped warships before their maiden sail, and cut 49,000 Troops from the Army and Marines and 20,000 from the National Guard.
"Speak softly, and carry a big stick!" Diplomacy works well, when its done quietly, friends know that you have the means to defend them, and enemies know that you have the will to defeat them. Diplomacy works better when you're less concerned with begging the enemy to talk, than respecting the sovereignty of friends, even if imperfect. Pakistan, for example, quietly endorsed US actions against a common enemy, complaining publicly, only when necessary for their own population, until the current POTUS decided it would ignore cultural norms and the National Sovereignty of a shaky ally.
Now, Afghanistan and Pakistan are listing towards Iran, finding financial benefit from befriending the enemy of the United States.
Qaddafi, Assad, and Khameni got real quiet when they believed Bush Jr had the ability and will to go after terrorists and misbehavors where ever they were found. Liberia's thug in chief, Charles Taylor, needed only the motivation of 2 ships of Marines off his shores and the resolute words of W that he "must go," to realize his own reign of tyranny was over.
Without the means to implement, a strong Military, strong words are just empty threats, and quiet words simply empty promises.
Stumble It!
