Apocalypse Later How America can use technology and diplomacy to keep her enemies at bay Jason Treece
The history of this great nation is one that has been largely shaped by armed conflict of some sort. The war for independence, the war of 1812, numerous conflicts with Indians and Mexico, along with World Wars I and II have all been conflicts with which the sovereignty of our nation or the security of our land was at stake. Granted, the Indians and Mexico probably got shafted a few times in the process, but our country gained its identity because of it. But warfare itself has come a long way. Modern warfare is different both in its nature and its conduct, at least from the side of the United States.
Over the last 30 years or so, America had transitioned through a technological and psychological war (Cold War) into a we-can-kick-your-ass-in-3-days mindset of global hubris (Desert Storm), and into a period of relative peace and resolution through diplomacy (Clinton's military downsizing). However, this complacent attitude was shattered by the events of September 11 and we find ourselves now in a rather odd modern war. It is one where our technological superiority and highly trained and equipped military is out fighting, not for sovereignty or security of our land, but rather against a twisted religious ideology that employs guerilla tactics and indiscriminate weapons to wage a jihad against the modern world.
This "War on Terror" is not one with clear objectives, such as "if we take this town and this bridge, we will have accomplished our objective." Today's complex battles are conducted with precision weapons with the accuracy of a laser to destroy cancer and based on detailed intelligence gathering. There is no longer the need to blow up an entire city when only a handful of buildings harbor the enemy. (Editor's note: Israel objects.) Modern technology has also enabled us to attack terrorists at night with quiet, small unmanned drones with thermal imaging capabilities. By utilizing this technology, along with cutting edge intelligence gathering systems, we have managed to eliminate terrorist operations in times or in areas where they felt completely safe. I'm sure Abu Musab al-Zarqawi felt perfectly snug in his suburban Iraqi home right up until a 500-pound laser-guided bomb landed in his living room.
Of interest here is that these drones and weapons systems were designed for conventional battlefield-type operations. But we develop them to be used, along with other technologies, to successfully fight a very furtive and clandestine enemy. This needs to continue if we are to achieve future success.
Today's conflicts, much like any of our past large-scale military operations, still require the assistance of other countries to accomplish a given objective. Many of these objectives are diplomatic. After all, it is very difficult to militarily engage terrorist operations within countries with whom we are not actually at war.
Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy, advocated "encouraging and enabling" other nations to take up the fight against terrorism and help eliminate terrorist operations within their own countries. The ideology of jihad essentially dictates that any non-Muslim is the enemy, and therefore that any non-Muslim country must be the enemy as well. Feith also went on to say that this war "clearly cannot be won by military means alone, and it cannot be won by the United States alone." Our allies are just as important today as they were in past conflicts. Terrorism is a global phenomenon. Our recent collaboration with countries like the U.K. and Israel has proven to be highly effective, and so has diplomatic collaboration with terrorist-infested states like Pakistan. Rather than all of us heading off to war together, America and our allies are now fighting these wars at home, with intelligence and persistence, rather than howitzers and nukes.
Although this war on terror is rather unconventional, America's defense policy still cannot disregard the conventional threats that other nations present. North Korea, with their very itchy trigger finger, and Iran, with their continued defiant nuclear development, are just two of the more serious threats. I'm not sure about you, but the idea of North Korea developing long-range nuclear missiles, along with their already swelling macho-nationalism, does not sit well with me.
No one can be certain of what lies ahead, or whether these conflicts will eventually be resolved politically or militarily. Our military is capable of meeting almost any enemy, but developing new technology, embracing our allies, and planning for multi-theater conflict is what will best enable us to successfully subdue any future threat.
The above work is the opinion of the author,
and not necessarily that of the Prometheus Institute.
