While I’ve never been to either Lebanon or Iraq, I suspect
that they share a number of similar characteristics: strong factions that are
bent on destroying each other, urban population centers, reasonable Internet
access, adequate telecommunications and a host of broadcast and print media.
This Area of Operations (AO) is more amenable for MISO than
is Afghanistan – but do we really want MISO to be a part of this “training team”?
On the pro side is the fact that MISO (formerly PSYOP) was born out of Special Operations. Special Operations Forces have training foreign militaries as a core competency. Does it follow then that MISO should be as welcome by our “allies” as F-16s?
On the pro side is the fact that MISO (formerly PSYOP) was born out of Special Operations. Special Operations Forces have training foreign militaries as a core competency. Does it follow then that MISO should be as welcome by our “allies” as F-16s?
I frankly don’t think so. Even though we would be risking
lives and assets by providing training teams in the first place, I’m not
convinced that the governments we would be helping are anxious to try and
influence their populations using American resources. In fact the very use of
US resources as a means of influence directly or indirectly might undermine the
host nation government even more.
It looks like training teams in this context ought to be
limited to things that blow up stuff and how to move, shoot and communicate.
Reader input encouraged.
Photo Source is the AP photo shown on: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/134262-us-looks-to-send-training-teams-to-lebanon-iraq/
In the case of Lebanon it is unclear what the role of the "government" is. There is a government and a military, but the government does not have a monopoly on force in the country, the civil war lasted 15 years (1975-1990) involved 3 countries and the Lebanese Army was but one of about 10 major factions in the war. The government also doesn't really have a monopoly on governing either.
ReplyDeleteMy point is twofold: (1) if we go into Lebanon and help someone, MISO is not necessarily a bad idea. We should not be concerned too much about what the "government" does or does not want. (2) we better send in some people who really know the difference between Orthodox, Maronite, Shiite, Suni, Druze, Amal, Hizbullah, many in their pro- and anti- Syrian versions. We also have to have people who understand the vital hisotical relationship between Lebanese and Syrian politics. . . These are very non-trivial matters, especially in Lebanon where ethnicity and political rivalry is in everyone's blood and historical memory. If we send people who can't tell the Nationalists from Hizbullah and just treat them as "generic Lebanese" we already lost. Knowledge is everything here.
Iraq is a different story. We should have people who understand what the political situation is there. We need people who are sensitive to the ethinic makeup so we don't cause more problems than we solve.
I've been to both countries (one as military one as a tourist), nothing is simple in either case. We should not be scared to incorperate MISO, but if we do it badly, we will cause more problems than we solve.