- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
April 16, 2009
Exclusive: Strength, Respect and Influence – The Foundation of Foreign Policy
The arrest in England of 12 men, including 11 Pakistanis on student visas, for an alleged bomb plot directed at shopping centers, is about more than just terrorism. The British plot was one of many planned across Europe. Multiple cells, comprising at least 12 terrorists each, were dispatched last year from Pakistan's North West tribal areas to conduct a series of attacks in the UK, France, Belgium and elsewhere. One group was broken up by Belgian authorities last December. The government in Islamabad has pledged to work with British authorities against militants who originate from within Pakistan.
Once upon a time, the Muslims in what is now Pakistan were considered among the most loyal warriors serving the British Empire. Before the independence and partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, the two lands were united under the colonial government of India, the crown jewel of the empire. The British had a theory about recruiting soldiers from the “martial races” of the subcontinent. Those groups that had fought the hardest against the expansion of the empire, like the Sikhs and Punjab Muslims, had proven themselves in combat. They had also shown loyalty during the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857 by helping put down the uprising of other native troops serving the East India Company.
As Thomas B. Metcalf, an American historian of India, stated in his excellent book Imperial Connections (University of California Press, 2007), “the Jat Sikh of the Punjab, who with the Punjab Muslim neighbors had become by the later nineteenth century the predominant group in the Indian Army. By 1914 Punjabis and men from the North-West Frontier, together with Nepali Gurkas…made up nearly three-quarters of India’s infantry forces.” These troops expanded and defended the imperial realm from Africa to China.
During World War I, when Anglo-Indian forces captured Basra in Iraq (the same area to which British troops would return in 2003) plans were discussed to make the region a colony of India to be populated with millions of Punjab Muslims loyal to the crown. What would the Persian Gulf look like today had London chosen this option over an Arabic state centered on Baghdad?
What was the basis for Sikh and Muslim loyalty? William Bsrton, who served as the Commandant of the locally raised Khyber Rifles on the North-West Frontier along the Afghan border, stated in regard to the Pathan Muslims, “He adores force and he will give a qualified loyalty in normal times to a British government that is prepared to show strength.” The key element was the personal character and interaction of the British and Muslim soldiers. If they held each other’s respect, they would work together.
Bing West, a Marine veteran and former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, has written extensively on the current wars. He found the same value of mutual respect between warriors at the core of the successful policy of turning Sunni Muslims against al Qaeda in Iraq. He entitled his latest book The Strongest Tribe (Random House, 2008) to make this point. Bing writes how in 2004, during the power vacuum following the toppling of the Saddam regime, “the Sunni tribes welcomed al Qaeda with its call to jihad. Though a small minority, AQI quickly dominated by ruthlessness.” The tide of the war was turned by the forging of “bottom up partnerships between local leaders and U.S. battalion commanders.” Aligning with the “strongest tribe” is attractive when it brings tangible benefits to the community.
Unfortunately, President Barack Obama does not understand the importance of respect built on strength as the foundations for alliances. On his recent tour of Europe, he often claimed that America’s past “arrogant” behavior had lowered its standing in the world, and his new administration would restore the image of the U.S. by being more cooperative. Vice President Joe Biden’s rhetoric has been even more partisan, claiming he confronted President George W. Bush at a White House meeting to tell him that no other countries were following his brand of leadership. The veracity of Biden’s story has been challenged on its details, but Biden’s tone clearly represents liberal claims that the Bush administration’s strong actions alienated foreign opinion.
Yet, President Bush put together impressive “coalitions of the willing” to serve alongside U.S. troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted, the U.S. and only a handful of allies did most of the real fighting, but dozens of other governments sent men and money even though they had no direct interest to protect. They wanted to stay on the good side of the United States by demonstrating their support with more than just words. Liberals had to redefine the term “unilateral” in an Orwellian manner, to mean acting without formal UN approval, to continue claiming that America was “going alone.” Yet, which coalitions have proven the most effective, those led by the U.S. or those led by the UN? The rulers of Iran and North Korea know the answer, as does the ghost of Saddam Hussein.
Another example of successful coalition-building by the Bush administration was the Proliferation Security Initiative which seeks to curtail the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, mainly by joint naval operations. First announced in 2003, the initial membership included Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Singapore, Norway, Canada and the United Kingdom. By the end of the Bush administration, some 90 countries had signed up.
Liberals made the same false claims about President Ronald Reagan undermining American influence by being too bold. In 1985, Oxford University Press published a collection of articles under the auspices of the Carnegie Endowment entitled Estrangement: America and the World. Richard H. Ullman, a Princeton professor who served in the Lyndon Johnson administration, claimed in his essay, “The allies part company with the Reagan administration over its assessment of the worldwide nature of the communist threat.” Ullman advocated a “path to reconciliation” with the Soviet Union. However, he was not optimistic, for “to depart from the familiar path of ‘negotiation from strength’ (or not at all) will require a vision of a possible cooperative future certainly not evident in the first administration of Ronald Reagan.” Yet, Reagan was optimistic and four years later the Berlin Wall fell, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Liberals must cling to the notion that the way to win friends and influence people –particularly adversaries, is to be a wimp because they do not possess the intestinal fortitude to be anything else. Weakness and appeasement must be the wave of the future or else they are doomed to failure. Liberalism has not changed since the days when the British Empire was at its height. Historian Heinz Gollwitzer, looking at the 19th century, found “Left-wing liberalism, in so far as it was doctrinaire, put up a strong fight against armaments and power policies, the acquisition of non-European territories, the establishment of naval bases and, above all, the retreat from its economic principles.” Those principles were a mixture of free trade and socialism thought to promote world peace by crippling the ability of governments to act decisively in world affairs.
The Punjab was divided between Pakistan and India in 1947. The Sikhs, the most prominent of the martial communities in the British Raj, migrated to the Indian half. The Punjab Muslims rallied to Pakistan. As the British retreated from Southwest Asia after World War II, they ceased to be seen as “the strongest tribe.” Some Muslim militants have now pursued them all the way back to the UK, believing that terrorist attacks on the British homeland will panic London into breaking its alliance with the United States.
Militants take hope from comments like that of Sadiq Khan, the Community Cohesion minister in Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s cabinet. Upon returning to London from meeting with students in Islamabad, Khan said on April 11th, “"We want to explain that our foreign policy, especially on the issue of drone attacks, is distinct from U.S. foreign policy.” The use of missile-firing drones has been a major tactic against terrorist camps in the tribal areas of Pakistan’s North West frontier.
Weakness is not respected. It invites attack. When the idea that benefits are to be had from an alliance with a strong nation built on mutual respect is replaced by the idea that benefits can be gained by forcing concessions from a weakened nation, the nation in question is finished as a leading power.
FamilySecurityMatters.org William Hawkins is a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
