Is our enemy today Terror?
Certainly the risks to our security in the west are related to Terror. But will we ever be safe by simply trying to restrict the terrorists? Is it not important to find Terror's source and make the fix there? What will happen if we don't? Will it not be inevitable that our local defenses will be breached? And what of the cost of restricting our defense to our own home? What more liberties will we have to give up for the illusion of security at home?
Terror is surely only the symptom of the real threat. Our real threat is that many of the states of the world have so failed their citizens that the only sense that many young men can make of their lives is to believe that their loss of a future is our fault. And that their only hope of redemption and identity is to become a warrior of God.
Failed states are the furnace that forge Terror. Restoring stability and giving their people a future is the real defense.
But how do we in the West pull this off?
We are learning the hard way in Iraq and in Afghanistan how hard nation building can be. For those that think that simply putting a western military operation under the UN is a cure all must recall the shambles that was Mogadishu.
If we were to take Darfur as an example, might we not be able to get some glimpses of what might work?
In Darfur the last elements of any possibility of restoring stability have been lost. The key NGO's such as Oxfam and Medicins sans Frontiers have had to withdraw because they are now explicit targets. The Forces of the African Union stand by and merely watch. They have neither the leadership, the training, the equipment to do the job. But their presence and their nature gives us a clue as to what might work in the future.
The issues that will make or break any intervention for stability are I think, Time, Cost and Cultural Fit.
There is no quick fix to a failed state. These states are "Traumatized" as are all the people. There is no quick cure for Trauma. All Trust is lost and Trust can only be regained by years of stability. So the mission has to be seen as being generational. It also has to be cultural for what has to be restored after stability is Trust and only those close to those traumatized can help restore Trust.
If we are honest, we know that we will not send our sons and daughters to Darfur for a 25 or even a 50 year tour. Even if we did, we would fail because of the cost and the culture issues. Imagine the 10th Mountain Division moving its permanent base from Fort Drum to Darfur? Imagine the logistical tail and the costs that would be required to support this? Imagine the strain on the rest of the US Military? What about the cultural mismatch as the Americans lived inside a Darfur Green Zone?
So what about a "Coalition"? Speaking as a Canadian, I think that Canada is also done with this type of mission as are most western states. Our conventional forces in the west cannot and should not be deployed as the main stability force.
We in the west cannot politically and financially sustain such a mission. And, as important, even if we could, a Western occupying force will always fail the key test of Trust.
Cost and Trust are the keys to the generational time frame required for the restoration of stability and trust.
So a Stability Force that has any chance of being effective, has to be made up of people who share as much of the culture and life style and those that they seek to protect. In Africa this means an African force.
Well, you say, there is a Pan African Force in Darfur now and it's not working. It's not working because it is not set up to be successful. What could a Pan African force designed for success look like?
I see a permanent UN Pan African Stability Force. It would have men drawn from every legitimate army in Africa: perhaps organized in rotating companies or battalions. It would be funded by the UN as a permanent force available to many situations in Africa. It would be trained, equipped and supported logistically by people with the skills and experience operating as agencies of the UN.
Such a force could have the capability of providing the 25-50 year tour that the healing of trauma and the restoration of trust demands. As a standing force, it could also be deployed rapidly. When deployed, it would defend the people from aggression. It would be the beachhead for good governance and the force of law. It could act as a ongoing counter to local tyranny and kleptocracy. It could shelter the NGO's. It would have the engineering capability to improve critical local systems such as water, power, public health and roads.
It could also act a powerful uniting force in Africa generally. When not deployed, it could provide its host nations with the economic benefits of an Army base at home in the US. I can see how common training for the men, an African Sandhurst/Westpoint, an African campus of the Pearson Peacekeeping Institute could pull a new African leadership together. It would be a "Force In Being" that would be a permanent reminder to potential tyrants that there would be a limit and a restitution that would be deployed if they crossed the line.
We in the west have the money to do this work. We in the west have the skills to impart and the support services to offer. What we don't have is the culture and the cost structure to do the work directly ourselves. Our role in the west would be to provide this force with the legitimacy and with the capability that it requires to be effective.
If we really wish to counter the threat from global terror, we have to have a realistic approach to stability. If you think I am misguided, give me a better idea that has more of a chance of working.
