Are you talking about yourself?

In a recent opinion article by James Carafano in the Washington Examiner, Mr. Carafano calls Defense Secretary Robert Gates “the secretary of defense who best exemplified Cold War thinking” because of his approach to the defense authorization bill, which called for the cancellation of several big-budget defense projects, such as the F-22 and missile defense systems, in favor allocating money to better soldier protection and creating a more nimble ground force.  Carafano claims that because Gates is only planning for the wars that the country is currently fighting, such as in Afghanistan, and until recently Iraq, instead of looking ahead to wars with other nations that can engage us in traditional warfare, and by short-changing the US, he is putting the country into a “position of weakness” for the future wars of the 21st century.  He claims that Gate’s policies are right on track for war planning during the Cold War, which couldn’t be any farther from the truth.

I think Mr Carafano has completely missed the point.  The position that he himself is arguing for is exactly on the same lines that Cold War military planning was done on.  Cold War military spending was focused almost solely on large-scale military projects and technological superiority over the Soviet Union, and that means building more “advanced fighter aircraft, aircraft carriers and missile defenses,” which Gates has cut spending on in the new allocation bill.  If the Cold War had ever gone “hot” and open warfare did break out with the Soviets, the war would have certainly gone nuclear very quickly and those technological advantages would have come in useful.

But as the lone superpower left in the world, the only conflicts that we have witnessed in the 21st Century have been unconventional conflicts against technologically inferior enemies engaged in an insurgency, and they have been doing quite a good job at outfoxing even the best of America’s technology, especially the “advanced fighter aircraft.”  The wars of the foreseeable future, whether they be in Pakistan, Iran, Mexico, Somalia, or any number of other unstable countries, look to be along the same lines and will again be fought in an unconventional manner where technology only provides a small advantage.

Insurgents fight these wars with extremely little technology and use our own technology against us.   They use large population centers as hideouts so that when the US Air Force rolls in, civilian casualties are a guarantee and helps to recruit more insurgents.  Our missile defense systems are useless against IEDs and suicide attacks.  The only way to fight these wars is to have extremely well-trained troops, with the best protection we can give them, on the ground mingling with the populace and winning the “hearts and minds.”  Killing civilians with air and missile strikes is not the way to go about that.

Gates is being very observant about the types of warfare the military is encountering these days and shifting the budget to better meet those threats.  Yes, we may have other large-power rivals, such as Russia and China, but open-warfare with either of those is looking less and less likely as trade and diplomacy bring countries close together.  And even if we did become engaged with either country, our still extremely large and potent nuclear arsenal is more than enough to deal with anything they could ever throw at us.

Carafano looks down of Gate’s plans to mitigate conventional threats through treaties, claiming that the US is making them in a position of weakness. This is classic realist, and now conservative, thinking and fails to take into account America’s recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, and historically in Somalia and Vietnam, where no matter how much cutting-edge technology we threw at the enemy, victory in combat came from having soldiers who knew how to deal with unconventional warfare and having the right personal tools to fight that enemy.  Maybe next time, Mr. Carafano, you should get your argument strait before you publish it, though it was in a free conservative newspaper.

Save the child soldiers, but how?

I’ve seen a lot of talk about the Invisible Children movement, which was set up to aid in the “rescue” of the child soldiers who have been pressed into serving in the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) under the rebel leader Josef Kony in northern Uganda. This group has a large appeal among college-aged kids, and has seen a greater rise in visibility in recent years. Invisible Children makes an appeal for everyone to help “rescue” the child soldiers, but they never say how they propose to do it.

For those of you who don’t know about the LRA or the conflict in northern Uganda, I’ll give a brief background, but a very detailed account is on Wikipedia.  The LRA was formed in 1986 under Alice Lakwena, who believed she was a medium for the Holy Trinity,  in order to defeat the government at the time and to rid the area of mysticism and witchcraft, both of which were prevalent in the Acholi area of northern Uganda.  The group preached an extremist version of Christianity and soon started to turn to violence to push their ideals on others, classic extremism.  Joseph Kony soon took command of the militant wing of the organization and began a crusade against the government.  That crusade still continues in norther Uganda, and now also in parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. Most of the manpower for the LRA comes from the forcible drafting of child soldiers who are abducted from schools raided by the group.  This puts children right on the front line of one of Africa’s bloodiest conflicts, an atrocity all unto itself.  The group has been indicted in several counts of human right violations and crimes against humanity by the ICC.  The government of Uganda has also committed several human rights violations as well, but the crimes are much heavier on the side of the LRA. Invisible Children, Inc. was started after three filmmakers traveled to Africa “for a story”.  The film they made, “Invisible Children: Rough Cut”, documenting the atrocities in northern Uganda, has been seen across the nation and in several other Western countries.  Their website describes their current non-profit, Invisible Children, Inc., as:

We are storytellers. We are visionaries, humanitarians, artists, and entrepreneurs. We are individuals part of a generation eager for change and willing to pursue it.

As a non-profit we work to transform apathy into activism. By documenting the lives of those living in regions of conflict and injustice, we hope to educate and inspire individuals in the Western world to use their unique voice for change. Our media creates an opportunity for people to become part of a grassroots movement that intelligently responds to what.s happening in the world.

But our work extends beyond our borders. In war-affected regions we focus on long-term development, working directly with individuals and institutions that are eager to realize their full potential. Through education and innovative economic opportunities, we partner with affected communities and strive to improve the quality of life for individuals living in conflict and post-conflict regions.

The group travels to college campuses across the United States and beyond to show the movie and stimulate debate on the issue.  They have also staged several national events, such as “Rescue”, where thousands across the country “kidnapped” themselves and then wrote letters to their congressmen and senators.  The group’s main stated goal is to “enable children to take responsibility for their future and the future of their country” by using donation from Americans and Westerners.

Now, all of this is a very noble cause and it is absolutely necessary that attention be brought to this seemingly unending conflict, but Invisible Children does not seem to understand what needs to happen to stop th LRA’s genocidal actions.  Just educating Ugandan children is not nearly enough, seeing as children as pressed into combat at gunpoint.  The LRA gains most of its “new recruits” by raiding local schools and killing anyone who stands in their way.  Therefore, education only, though an extremely important aspect of counter-insurgency (COIN), will not save the children of northern Uganda.  No central ideology or goal is apparent in the media the LRA puts out and it looks like the entire organization revolves around Kony and his homicidal whims.

The goals of Invisible Children fall short of what is necessary to stop the violence and the movement has become somewhat of a “fad”, though I hate to call it that, among college students, as did the Darfur movement.  Both groups lack goals that go far enough to be effective, though they are on the right track.  I hate to say it, but t-shirts the non-profit sells have become just as much of a fashion statement as the ubiquitous “Save Darfur” t-shirt.  I applaud both movements, but I find it repulsive when the mass movements like these are reduced to the diluted fashion statement they have become.  Before the angry mob arrives, I do want to say that there are plenty of people in both movements who are seriously committed to bringing an end to the atrocities and I think they should be just as disgusted as I am.

In my opinion, the only thing that can stop the LRA is either a military effort to bring Kony to justice or a well placed half-inch of lead between his eyes.  The LRA is a personally cult that is based solely on Kony and removing him would be instrumental in bringing about the destruction of the group.  His subordinates would also have to be dealt with, presumably in the same way as Kony, and most of them  are also wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity.  Then the large-scale education and “reverse brainwashing” could begin in earnest and to effect, as was done with other African conflicts involving child soldiers.

Now I’m not talking about a large-scale military operation, because goodness knows we can’t deal with another one of those now, but the US and NATO has plenty of covert units trained in unconventional warfare and COIN.  They can even make it look like Kony was shot by his own people.  The LRA has even been designated as a terrorist organization, so what good is a War on Terror if it can’t stop isolated groups like this from operating.

I’m probably going to get a lot of flak for saying all of this, but these are just my opinions.  I saw the Invisible Children film and was deeply touched by it.  I do think exposure for the conflict needs to be broadcast to the world, but people also need to come to terms with what actually ending the conflict would take, even if that means controlled violence.