stroopwafel said:
In any kind of 'conventional' conflict military intervention of any kind should always be a last resort, espescially with parties open for negotiations. But this isn't the case for islamic terrorism which poses the biggest international security threat. They won't negotiate or surrender and sign a peace treaty on the USS Missouri. It's an ongoing struggle that established military doctrines don't have an answer for. It's an amorphous threat that exists just as much within the borders of civilian populations. That is why the drone strikes against AQ in Pakistan were so succesful and the military intervention in Afghanistan(let alone Iraq) a complete failure. Even the recent conflict in Syria could be considered a diluted proxy conflict between the U.S., Russia and Iran as each have their regional and strategic interests(the U.S. the Kurdish resistance, Russia the Assad-regime and Iran Hezbollah and the the shia majority). You could say even Saudi Arabia has a stake by fermenting ISIS and radical sunni islamists as a counterweight to Iranian influence like the horrific air raids they pursue above Sanaa/Yemen.
Within the framework of proxy conflicts and non-state specific terrorism having one commander drink tea with another commander is completely pointless or even counterproductive. Like for example before ISIS lost Raqqa and with their caliphate coming to an end you don't want to give senior ISIS personnel a diplomatic welcome and safe retreat to whatever country they originate from. And that also counts for their minions that often come from European and North-African countries. You don't want them to return 'home' and plot new terrorist schemes or in the case of Europe where they will even be rewarded with legal protection. No, you want to destroy them on the battlefield before the window of opportunity closes. Having an 'occupied' force(ie regular military deployment) is like painting a huge bullseye on your back like we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Military casualties is one thing, but it is specifically tragic if they died in vain.
That is why proxy soldiers and drones are much better suited to the task. We live in a world of ever shifting alliances and rapidly evolving technologies and the global security climate reflects that.
I think this is more a reflection on the type of war the U.S. favours. After all, without a U.S. it's doubtful nations like Australia would seek sustained 'artificial' ideas of victory against terrorism to begin with. I think the loss of Vietnam coloured American perceptions of warfare... after all, what conglicts since then can the U.S. claim definitively thry have *won* since divorcing themselves of things like Grenada or Panama?
The interesting thing is InterFET was the last conventional conflict Australia spearheaded and planned, and found victory.
It's the type of war for which we plan and co-ordinate for where communications can be expected to suffer, where drones and satellites can be expected to go down, where it will be in that nightscape of spotty transmissions that stealthy insertion of commandos and pinpoint navigation of manned air and sea assets will create the groundworks of strategic opportunities.
The idea of decade ling drone strikes against paramilitaries is not exactly where our survival will be held in the balance. After all... what's thr point of fighting for pyrrhic victories? But keep in mind... the golden age ((?) black age?) of Western terrorism is long over.
The biggest terrorism threat Australia has ever faced has been the Japanese. And not just a elabouration of their tactics during the Pacific War, I mean groups like Aum Shinrikyo making chemical weapons like VX and sarin gas back when Australia really didn't have strong customs and weapons violation laws (or even antiterrorism laws) ... despite the fact that there was strong evidence Aum Shinrikyo was responsible for numerous assassinations and assassination attempts in Japan based on research they did at amateur weapons plants in Australia.
The Federal Police investigated theit obvious weapons plant that was obvious, merely wrote them up on animal cruelty violations, and customs violations... a few thousand dollars of fines. Now they were a legitimately bigger threat to the Western world than arguably AQ is now. You've got the same casus belli to drone strike them back then, but nobody really gave a shit.
The relationship to terrorism has changed, and I doubt outside a U.S. mindset would nations like Australia deign the cost of this perpetual drone warfare without end worth it... in terms of the negative effects it has on political capital, the negative effects in terms of the innocent lives also caught in the collateral damage, nor due to thd level of investment we have in securing the same extent of geostrategic interests.
It's actually kind of funny. Right up to just before the last Iraq War, Australia had a strong interest in the oil-for-food programme thag got lambasted. Then agsin under Obama wanted to secure against Australia undergoing the 'Pivot to China' ... yet Australia rented out the Darwin Port System to Chinese industrial giants ... right next to the U.S. military base. And he got entirely stroppy that Australia wasn't playing ball with his idea of perpetual 'soft war' with China and was in part a message to the U.S. we were fed up with its trade policies and attempting to subvert our sovereignty.
I find the U.S. has a myopic and self-destructive idea of conflict that seems to ignore the diplomatic and human costs, in favour of pretending as if conflict should be 3D chess... and as if other Western nations dhoulf simply follow suit... regardless of the cist of ditching our own ideas and concepts of
justifiable war
Timor Leste was 21st century warfare... and the most successful military operation since... I'm sure there's more importsnt conflicts, but in terms of basic peace-building and the cost in lives, and the positives generated... probably the most successful operation in history.
And ignoring that is to the deleterious state of forgetting
wars need to be won.
See... the Yemeni conflict.
Why does the U.S. need to be good at staging these types of wars for the sakr of Saudi interests? We all know that it won't make the U.S. safer, and all it does is promote the further force of arms in the end.
Australia went to Afghanistan. It went to Iraq. By capita population and money spent, we were more invested in those wars than the U.S. ... but increasingly we've found our ideas of victory and U.S. ideas of occupation, are incompatible. Moreover, it is economically infeasible for Australia to create that sort of military.
To do so is to weaken more crucial elements that guarantee an effective defence. We can't afford to be good at the type of proxy wars the U.S. would prefer to wage. The U.S. is the only nation that can fight the type of wars the U.S. has structured themselves to fight, and thr logical problem of that is realistically asking yourself ehether the U.S. benefits from that longterm.
I don't see the U.S. benefitting. I see arms manufacturers benefitting, to be frank. There's only so long or so far that you can ask allies to commit forces. There is only so long you can expect other nations to subvert the will of theit own people to fight those types of wars or pursue these types of geostrategic interests. And in the end, the U.S. won't be able to afford it, either, once it ceases to be as strong a military power as it is now.
It's a recipe of inevitable self-consumption.
