How Far is Too Far?

The United States, if not the ‘shining city on a hill,’ is certainly at least a unique superpower. A massive country with a sprawling population and an ideological bastion, the US is loved, hated, and relied on for military support all at the same time. Those enacting foreign policy for the United States do not have the luxury of using past states as templates for how to run this country. The truth is, the problems we face being such a massive state in the 21^st century simply do not compare to states of the past. That being said, we ride a fine line between security and civil liberties-a line that divides the country into those valuing security above all else and those championing the rights of the constituency.

Growing up in a military family and being in university at the same time keeps me a bit torn between the two. While I can’t help but feel a sense of pride for the military industrial complex and our norms of freedom and liberty, it’s still a bit disconcerting to hear about the government bypassing civil rights for the sake of security.

On one hand, I find myself agreeing with Mertus and the idea that there are absolute human rights that are not to be violated, such as that to privacy. However at the same time it is difficult to deny that the United States has to take unique measures when it is fighting a unique battle, and for that particularism holds true.

The line that the US is riding is one with many gray areas. What kind of torture is acceptable? Are some civilian casualties to be expected during drone strikes? These themes of how a superpower is supposed to morally behave have been present throughout the entire course. And how we interpret these themes and behave will have vast consequences for how the United States is perceived by the international community as well as its constituency.

 

Bringing About Success in the War on Terrorism

Terrorism is one of the chief security threats to the United States today and will always remain part of the international realm, unless the United States begins to create a new paradigm to oppose this growing threat.The Glennon and Rodin readings both address issues that are hindering the war against terrorism and a way in which we can go about solving them. The issue that Rodin brings up is how there is no clear definition of terrorism. Therefore, without a “clear and coherent understanding” we cannot develop a suitable response or tactic to fighting the terrorist. With a proper definition of terrorism and acts of terrorism, I believe that it will be easier to develop proper guidelines and strategies to deter these acts of terror. If the United States and other countries continue to define terrorism so vaguely, almost any incident could be considered terrorism and therefore it would be next to impossible to address all of these acts of terrorism.  By narrowing the scope of what should and shouldn’t be defined as terrorism, it would allow for the United States to draft a proper approach to waging a war on terrorism as Glennon advocates in his reading.

Since there is currently no clear definition of terrorism as discussed in the Rodin reading, it is even harder to devise a proper method to successfully deal with terrorism. As Glennon states in his reading, the unclear definition of terrorism also plays a role in how terrorism is not pertinent to the United States’ traditional frameworks of crime and war, even though the United States consistently tries to treat terrorism as such. I agree with Glennon that in order to properly prevent and control terrorism the United States needs to adapt to the changes in acts of terrorism, especially those of Al-Qaeda. This idea is similar to the ones of Machiavelli, in which he states that in order for a state to be successful in dealing with threats, a prince must be flexible and adapt to every situation differently, for it is not good to do one thing at all times.

Since Al-Qaeda seems to be the main terrorist threat to not only the United States, but the Western world as well, the United States government needs to realize that “controlling terrorism while preserving freedom is also about making sensible tradeoffs” (Glennon, 144). This means that while the United States may want to tackle the war on terrorism by itself, it may be more beneficial to cooperate with other nations, whether they are allies or non-allies. This collaboration with other countries is no easy task since all countries have different policies and approaches to tackling the war on terrorism. But if the United States were willing to sacrifice some of their policies in order to reach an agreement with other nations to successfully tackle terrorism together, this new paradigm would allow for a higher probability of the deterring terrorism. Until the issues that are hindering the war on terrorism are addressed, I do not believe that the United States can successfully counteract acts of terrorism, and the threat that terrorism poses on this nation will just continue to escalate. 

Paradigm Shift: Towards Addressing Globalized Terror

I completely agree with Glennon in his claim that there is a need for a new paradigm with which the issue of terrorism, inarguably the biggest security threat of today, can adequately be addressed. Glennon argues that terrorism does not fit within the traditional frameworks of crime (police) or war (military) due to the fact that it is perpetrated by transnational groups, the victim is both the state as well as individuals, and it is difficult to determine what exactly constitutes a victory and whether the endgame can be reached (A world free of organized terrorism as an instrument of societal change? A global environment in which terrorism can never again flourish?). Furthermore, the Rodin and Coady pieces both bring up issues of defining terrorism (are we fighting a technique? an ideology?) that can certainly impede the fight against terrorist organizations, if not completely sabotage it.

            In my opinion, what is missing from the preceding discussion of terrorism is a consideration of its crucial globalization aspect that presents vast implications for the possible paradigm. Organizations such as Al Qaeda have established a worldwide network of operatives with links to other terrorist organizations that provide support and assistance. This network has further developed links with organized crime, drug trafficking, state sponsors and companies and corporations sympathetic to its causes. Globalization has certainly acted as an enabler through liberalization of cross-border transactions involving labor, capital, ideas, technology and profit with minimal government interference or oversight. The goals of terrorist organizations now extend beyond a single society or nation, and their broad endeavors certainly warrant a new framework as championed by Glennon. Though Glennon states that freedoms and security will be at odds, I think the fight on globalized terror will also involve economic costs and losses in profitability through a tightening of the liberalization described above; thus, states might be making not only domestic trade-offs but trade-offs within the roles they play in the international realm as well. Furthermore, I find the divide in the U.S. and European strategies discussed by Glennon to be problematic, as I believe that a successful "war on terror" will require a cohesive effort and an unprecedented amount of worldwide cooperation, especially amidst Al Qaeda's proclamation of the entire Western world as its enemy. This point is especially important because even though countries might decide their counterterrorism policies independently, the outcomes of their decisions may be interdependent, as terrorists can respond to security upgrades in one country by finding less-secure venues or opportunities in another. Considering the globalization aspect of this struggle definitely paints a more holistic picture of the characteristics of terrorist organizations, the new global dynamics at play, the types of sacrifices that might need to be undertaken as well as the scale of the "war on terror" which will certainly affect Glennon's concept of a possible emerging paradigm.

Lesser of two evils

An interesting idea presented in this sections readings is the idea of Standards of care in Military Operations. In David Rodin’s essay entitled Terrorism without Intention he makes the statement that the more dangerous that the activity is when a person is engaged in it, the higher the standard of care that is required. In saying this we can say that a higher standard of care is required from an airplane pilot than the standard of care required from a high school teacher. Rodin goes on to say that the standards of care are higher in activities that have a higher causal immediacy to harm. Rodin makes the example that “observations to activity of aerial bombardment, we will observe that bombardment is a highly dangerous activity, that there is a high causal immediacy between the dropping of bombs and resulting fatalities”(Rodin, Terrorism without intention, pg 562). The most interesting point that Rodin makes is that in a situation in which you are faced with two high risk situations; choosing one that may be the lowest of risk of the two would make it justifiable. Rodin states that “pehaps military operations which carry a high risk of noncombatant casualties are not reckless or negligent because the risk are justifiable”( Rodin, Terrorism without intention, pg 562). Rodin compares this to how a surgeon may choose a surgery that is of high risk but still of lower risk than an alternative surgery. Although Rodin makes an interesting point, I cannot agree with him because based on his stance he is saying that choosing the lesser of two bad situations is justifiable. If we were to put this way of thinking on a larger scale, of a situation such as war; we cannot say that the lesser of two options is the justifiable choice. If the military knew that terrorist were hiding in a village that also had civilians in it we cannot justify using a missile over the use of napalm; just because it puts the civilians at lesser risk. Regardless of what the military does in that situation knowingly killing the civilians cannot be justified.  

As Close to (Global) Zero as Possible

            Though full-fledged global disarmament of countries such as the U.S., Russia and China is not even foreseeable, a new sustainable nuclear order is certainly necessitated by the expectation of significant nuclear expansion by several states, the formidable threat presented by terrorism, and the forces of globalization which have altered the dynamics of state actors; this new nuclear order must be equitable and not perpetuate the disparity between the states that possess nuclear weapons and those that do not. In my opinion, the aforementioned nuclear order should be the process of striving toward achieving deep reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of states, with underlying desirability of getting as close to "global zero" as possible. While I recognize that "global zero" presents immense problems in terms of feasibility, verification and enforcement, I think that Schelling's conclusion which states that, "a ‘world without nuclear weapons’ would be a world in which the United States, Russia, Israel, China, and half a dozen or a dozen other countries would have hair-trigger mobilization plans to rebuild nuclear weapons and mobilize or commandeer delivery systems, and would have prepared targets to pre-empt other nations’ nuclear facilities, all in a high-alert status, with practice drills and secure emergency communications. Every crisis would be a nuclear crisis, any war could become a nuclear war" is unnecessarily pessimistic and oversimplified. The above statement rests on the notion that in a world that has eliminated nuclear weapons, absolutely everything else would remain the same. However, I think that a world without nuclear weapons carries with it vast implications for 'leveling the playfield' that would certainly and inevitably transform nation states, international institutions and the overall international system. Furthermore, although I agree with Schelling's point that knowledge of nuclear weapons cannot be unlearned and nuclear weapons cannot be "disinvented", it is fair to say that this applies to anything ever created and utilized throughout the history of time and yet many dangerous and objectionable practices and creations have been altered, minimized or banned altogether (CFC's which created the hole in the ozone layer, for example). In addition, I do not think that Schelling adequately addresses the issue of terrorism (probably the biggest security risk facing the world today), and I do not believe that nuclear weapons or strategies like M.A.D. serve any useful purpose against terrorists, especially as terrorist groups cannot be considered rational actors and the issue of locating them lies as the central challenge.

            If we consider disarmament or the concept of "global zero" as impossible, it will forever stay impossible.  Given the risks of a world in which nuclear weapons continue to spread and are ironically considered as essential to our very survival, it is vital that current leaders identify concrete steps that can be taken in the near future in order to head towards a world in which their successors could possibly visualize achieving "global zero".

Mutually assured destruction

A topic presented in this section was commonly held idea that a world without nuclear weapons would be a safer world. The countries would not be able to resort to nuclear weapons to destroy and opponent that they were facing in all-out war. The support for this way of thinking did not surprise me because the arguments for this position are as one would expect. When it comes to open war we still have to take into account that if a country Is on the verge of losing a war they might resort to creating nuclear weapons because we possess the knowledge to do so. The topic of a world without nuclear weapon was not the one that intrigued me the most in this sections readings and lecture. The idea of Mutually assured Destruction was the topic that I found the most intriguing. The idea is that Mutually assured Destruction would help to prevent a nuclear war in which the use of high powered weapons of mass destruction by two or more countries would bring about the end of those countries; producing a result that would cause the complete, and  total annihilation of each side of the conflict. As many authors in this week’s section has stated a nuclear war is a war that has no victor it can only assure reciprocal destruction. The mutually assured Destruction is based on the idea of deterrence in which one country attempts to discourage or restrain from acting an opposing country’s nuclear attack by the capacity of their own nuclear weapons or the threat of retaliating. This form of deterrence can take many forms as Schelling states “Mutual nuclear deterrence could take the form of letting it be known that any evidence of nuclear rearmament would be promptly reciprocated. Reciprocation could take the form of hastening to have a weapon to use against the nuclear facilities of the enemy”(Schelling, A world without nuclear weapons, pg 126). The thought that the countries of the world could actually help to keep it safe, and prevent complete destruction by creating weapons of Mass destruction astonishes me. We are talking about weapons such as the ones the United States used in World War 2 that killed over a hundred thousand people and decimated two cities; being a possible answer of how to insure that nuclear bombs are not used. Mutually assured  destruction is a topic that I look forward to learning more about in future readings, especially with continuing conflict between countries with nuclear weapons attempting to prevent countries without nuclear weapons from developing them. 

Schelling, Machiavelli and Latent Ability

“…to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.”(Machiavelli, The Prince) 

           

While reading Schelling’s piece, A World Without Nuclear Weapons, I couldn’t help but think of this quote from The Prince.  Schelling’s piece relates to this quote when he asks the question of “what does it mean to have nuclear weapons?”. The conclusion that he arrives at is that just having to ability to create nuclear weapons constitutes as having nuclear weapons.  Even though the world may be free of nuclear weapons, it is very well known that a nuclear weapon is the most powerful bargaining tool out there.  For this reason, the second that crisis erupts in a “nuclear free world”, a race towards rearmament beings and we are right back where we left off with nuclear weapons.  As far as I’m concerned, I don’t believe we can ever rid the world of nuclear weapons so long as the international community is anarchic.  We acquire nuclear weapons because we don’t trust those who have them.  And I am supposed to somehow believe that these same nations will all of a sudden trust that other nations are in fact free of nuclear weapons.  The cost of cooperating(free of nuclear weapons) while another nation defects may be too damaging that no one really wants to risk that.  Nuclear weapons are also a sign of standing in the international community.  All of the major players in the world have nuclear weapons.  No one wants to show up to a fight unprepared and outmatched. So even if a nation has no intention of ever using a nuclear bomb or is in no imminent threat of being a target of one, they still may wish to have nuclear weapons as a way to say, “Hey, look at me. I’m important too!” I expect the next step in nuclear warfare to be preventive measures.  There are already weapons used to defend against long-range missiles, however defending against a nuclear weapon is a bit more complicated.

The Need for Nuclear Weapons in the World

I believe the concept to seek a world free of nuclear weapons is more dangerous than a world with nuclear weapons and virtually unreasonable. Those who seek a nuclear free world believe that with no weapons of mass destruction, there would be no more nuclear wars, and that terrorists would be less likely to obtain these weapons of mass destruction if they no longer existed. 

However, as Thomas Schelling states, the knowledge of how to use and create nuclear weapons will never disappear. If a nation no longer wanted to abide by a treaty that envisioned the end to all nuclear weapons, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or withdrew from the pact they would be able to build new nuclear weapons. This would pose an even greater threat on the world as opposed to our current world with nuclear weapons because this nation that withdrew from the pact would be the only one with a nuclear weapon, and other countries would have no weapon of counterattack to protect themselves. At least in our current world, we have the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, which acts as a strong deterrent for nuclear war. Since other nations are aware of each other having nuclear weapons, nations would be aware of the other nations being able to counterattack and such counterattacks could lead to the destruction of the world, which no rational leader would desire. As Schelling questions, in a world free of nuclear weapons, “could a major nation maintain conventional forces ready for every contingency, without maintain a nuclear backup?” (126). It seems as if there were no longer nuclear weapons in the world, nations wouldn’t be able to protect themselves and there would be a greater possibility of nuclear war than in our current world with the MAD policy.

Supporters of a world free of nuclear weapons also claim that if there were no nuclear weapons in the world, terrorists would have a less likely chance of obtaining one and using it against people. But, as I stated before, the ability to build nuclear weapons for destruction would still be there since the knowledge is still there. So if terrorists wanted to use nuclear weapons they would, and it would pose a greater threat to the world because there would be no way to counterattack their threat.

Supporters of a nuclear free world also claim that with no nuclear weapons there would be less chance of an accident, in my opinion this is almost leaning towards the absolutism point of view, where the preservation of human life outweighs the potential dangers of a nuclear free world. However, I am inclined to agree with Schelling’s point of view that the ends justify the means that by keeping nuclear weapons and continually applying MAD in order to prevent a nuclear war would outweigh the risk of an accident. While I don’t believe that we should move towards a nuclear free world, I do think that we should promote the reduction of nuclear stockpiles, and set more regulations for the storing and preventative security measures of nuclear weapons so that these weapons of mass destruction don’t fall in the wrong hands. 

Iran’s Possible Nuclear Program

Iran’s possible development of nuclear weapons has now become a hot topic in the United States foreign policy, due to the push by the U.S. to limit the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. The prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons has often been mentioned at the UN Security Council meetings as a pressing issue. Rogue States like Iran and North Korea are often. There is a dilemma of whether or not to engage Iran in a conflict over the possession of nuclear weapons. Though Koerig advocates the use of force, he also sees that there is a tradeoff of using force on Iran. It would impact the economy of the United States and not only that, the people of the United States have an Iraq syndrome. They fear the chance of ending up in a costly war without anything to show for it. Kahl is right; any war with Iran will be messy and violent as any war often is. The Iraq war was, and despite efforts by U.S soldiers to pinpoint targets and avoid the deaths of civilians, they were still killed in either accidents or misjudgment.

Both Koerig believes that Iran chose to build the nuclear weapons program in other to serve as a deterrent to threats from both Israel and the United States. According to the IAEA, there is no concrete evidence that Iran possesses a nuclear program, but it has the skills and knowledge to build and develop a nuclear program. So far, diplomacy and dialogues between the U.S and Iran has been established albeit ineffective. Efforts to persuade Iran not to proliferate and even economic sanctions have been done all with no positive feedbacks.

I think that in other for diplomacy to work, the U.S. foreign policy makers have to dig into the cause for Iran’s nuclear proliferation program and see if they can negotiate some kind of deal that benefits both parties. Because the U.S. has a partial attitude towards Israel, it tends to lean on conditions that favor it. But this time, it has to recognize parties i.e. Israel’s ballistic missile capabilities and the Iranian nuclear development program. The U.S. must realize that both issues (threats and weapons program) are inter related and they must be treated fairly.

The other Middle-Eastern conflicts must be addressed as well as they are interconnected. Disputes such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Syrian- Israeli conflict must be given a high priority. The Arab world would not be convinced that the U.S is indeed interested in creating peace and stability in the region by only addressing the Iranian nuclear program.  By building this relationship, it can induce a disputing party to negotiate in a less threatening environment and it also lessens the probability of a misunderstanding.

As for the motion to seek a world free of nuclear weapons, that seems impossible and also dangerous. It might be possible for most nations to agree to sign the treaty, but the knowledge of developing the weapon cannot be erased. An aggressive state would have an incentive to do so. It is far more advantageous because it has a more destructive power to annihilate enemy states. Efforts to reduce it should be promoted rather than a total zero of nuclear weapons.