The Internet of Things - a Starting Point?

One of the difficulties with arming rebel insurgent groups in the pursuit of foreign policy goals is that they come and go but the weapons remain. ISIL wouldn't be so spectacularly well equipped had the US not poured billions of dollars into arming the Iraqi army (which became disaffected by the sectarian discriminatory policies of the Maliki government, widespread corruption and resulted in massive desertion in the face of ISIL's rapid and murderous advance).  

One solution has been as to ask recipients of America's military largess to turn in video every time the weapons are used; but this obviously isn't fool proof.
So why not make this one of the first applications of the Internet of Things.

Each weapon would be equipped with a 'kill switch' [sic] that would allow it to be deactivated remotely, just as we are now doing with the slightly less lethal smart-phone. It might also feature an integral barrel-mounted camera that streamed video back to the donor's servers every time the trigger is touched. The weapon might also be programmed not to fire at targets with particular digital signatures, such as other similar weapons or clothing, flack jackets for example, that are also 'Internet enabled'.

The issue will be persuading gun manufacturers to research and adopt such technology. The gun lobby in the United States will likely resist any such ideas and so it will be up to Europe to advance the research agenda, implement and deploy these weapons. If military diplomacy is increasingly to be conducted by proxy, using nebulous self-organizing groups, this would a way of preventing the kind of blow-back we have seen so often over the past 30 years.

            

Moral Hazard in Foreign Affairs

No, this is not a post about the risk and morality of a 'liaison dangereuse', but a commentary on letting others do your dirty work, something I remarked on briefly at the end of my post in June. Marwan Muasher, a former foreign minister of Jordan, noted on GPS today that none of Iraq's (Muslim Arab) neighbors would likely be sending troops to fight ISIS.

Indeed, why should they; after all, isn't that that America is for? The US helps one side or another in a violent regional squabble, taking the blame from the vanquished and leaving the local victors in the clear. They didn't kill innocent civilians; that was the Yanks...

There is every reason in the world for Jordan, the Saudis, the UAE and Turkey not to put their countrymen in harm's way; and until the US stops treating every problem in the world as one it, and only it, can sort out, nor will there be any reason for then to do so.

A situation which presents moral hazard is one in which actors behave in a ways that they would not otherwise do, because they are insulated, to some degree, from the negative consequences of their actions. The US penchant for fixing everyone else's problems, even when well intentioned, creates just this problem (as is also abundantly evident in the failure of many European countries to meet their NATO commitments on defense spending).      

Henry Kissinger noted that of the five military conflicts in which the US has been involved since the Second World War (Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan) in only one (Iraq I) were the original goals of the intervention achieved. You'd have thought that might be a lesson worth remembering.  

ISIS and inaction in Syria

The Neocons have been critical of the President for not arming the Syrian opposition. ISIL, they claim is, the result of that failure to act. But in fact ISIS might be exactly the case that justifies the President's decision.
 
The reason for not arming the the Syrian opposition fighters was that we weren't sure they were all reasonable moderates - some might be extremists;  Obama felt it was too difficult to ensure that those weapons wouldn't fall into the hands of more radical, fringe elements with anti-Western designs.

Ironically, that's precisely what happened, albeit via a slightly different route; we gave weapons to the Iraqi's who were overwhelmed by more the motivated ISIL fighters and those weapons ended up in ISIL's hands. Exactly the same would have happened, just a lot sooner, had we followed Senator McCain's advice.

The Senior Senator from Arizona was once a fairly reasonable man but his brush with half-term Alaska Governor Palin seems to have changed him; unfortunately not for the better.  

Oh no: Not Again

The president made a good speech this evening. The case for the action he is taking was carefully made. He also articulated a measured account of America’s role in the world, and the criteria for intervention. "When we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here's what one of them said: 'We owe our American friends our lives. Our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people.' That is the difference we make in the world". This was a statement about the benevolent use of America power with which it is impossible to argue. 

The weakest part of his argument was an explanation of the gravity of the direct threat to the US ISIS represents. He admitted that US intelligence had no evidence of any imminent threat, just the possibility of ISIS bringing the fight to US shores… And there’s the rub.

So, why did ISIS make and publish the two videos of Americans being so brutally murdered? To recruit? Probably not, at least not directly. Partly it was  to show it has no fear, that it will not be in intimidated by a superpower; but in part it was probably to poke the sleeping bear—and it worked.  It turned much of public opinion from disinterest and disillusion, if not to a lust for retribution, at least to a resolve to take large scale military, action that would reinvigorate anti-American hatred, and so bolster their cause and their ranks.

Fortunately, Obama didn’t take the bait as the neo-cons wanted and would have hook line and sinker. This time there are others, local regional players, including Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran who will be dragged into the fray with us, and that will work against ISIS.

If its plan was to whip up anti-American sentiment by provoking America into retaliation with massive force for the killing of its two citizens, Obama deftly sidestepped the trap. And with good reason. Someone on one of last Sunday's talk shows made a telling comment; that it will take a generation for the violent Arab anti-American sentiments, and Shia-Sunni hatred to abate; a generation is a very long time. 

Just as the Yazidi families America helped rescue will remember the good we have done for many many years, equally long lasting will be the hatred and resentment for the meddling, the collateral damage (read: the killing of innocent bystanders), the humiliation, and the self righteousness imposition of a foreign model of governance of the Iraq war. It it this, I think, that the President has been working tirelessly to avoid; to avoid a repeat of the disaster that was the Bush-Chaney doctrine.

It's also interesting that Congress doesn't want to touch the hot potato of deciding to go to war. Despite the right's criticisms for the Obama's 'lack of leadership' (code for 'doesn't seem to want to fight'), when asked if they would stand up and make the call they head for the hills. (Commander in Chief must be the loneliest job in the world).   

But when all is said and done, one is will left with a vexing question as to why the the very public killing of two Americans sparked sufficient outrage to lead the country back to war, when 289 people died at the hands of Ukranian separatists on Malasia Airlines Flight 17 and 40 people are murdered in the US every day.  As Douglas Adams pointed out many years ago, the one thing we can't afford is a sense of perspective.

Coll: "International Policy Failure"

Steve Coll

Two trends lie at the heart of the rise of the rise of ISIS. First, the rapidly falling cost of communication, and economic stagnation in the Middle East. Without dealing with the consequences of these, everything else is simply applying a band-aid to a severed artery.

The falling cost of communications has done two things; first, is has facilitated communication and coordination between people and groups that were previously disparate. That has allowed those with the most extreme views to find one another, coalesce and organize themselves. Second it has allowed people suffering both political persecution and economic hardship to see more acutely their plight, and to form views, in a more global framing, as to the causes of their inequity.

The second is the failure of governments in the Middle East to bring their populations into the 20th century, economically and intellectually. Economic underdevelopment is tightly coupled to a lack of education. Educated people are less likely to tolerate inequities and injustices, so it often serves the purpose of many in power to restrict access to education. But that only helps to slow economic growth and perpetuate the hardships of the underprivileged.

Frustration and ignorance are a breeding ground for a per-enlightenment approach to problem solving, an unwaivering reliance on doctrine and scripture, that is as ruthlessly exploited by the power hungry and ambitious today as it was in the middle ages.

Steve Coll, Henry R. Luce Professor of Journalism and Dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, described the antecedents of the current situation in the Levant as and "international policy failure". Indeed; the failure to address the consequences of these trends will condemn the region to a perpetual and unwinnable struggle to suppress forces whose root causes are only growing stronger.        
  

Nothing beats stupid

This weekend, yet again, we have been treated to Senator McCain calling for bombing and special forces on the ground in Iraq and presumably Syria. And of course there's Fox News with its incessant blaming of a president it viscerally hates, regardless of the situation or facts. (If you slipped on a banana peel, Fox would find a way to link it to presidential action or inaction). So here's my take.

An honest gaffe

Obviously, in a culture that often tends to celebrate action and 'can-do' over thinking and analysis, an 'ask questions first, shoot later' posture is never going to be wildly popular. This is particularly so when so many people have no appetite for understanding the complexities of a situation and thinking things through; indeed, most of the media is pandering to, and in so doing, fostering, and attitude of "give me a simple (140 character) answer and let me go back to not having to think". So admitting that that you don't have a strategy for dealing with ISIS, while honest, will be pounced on as weakness by others who, albeit mistakenly, think (or are pretending) that they do. But a political mistake does not mean a policy mistake; and the latter matters more in the end.

Simplistic comparisons are misleading

Much was made of the fact that Britain raised its terrorism threat level while America did not. That ignores important dissimilarities. First, the UK has had less experience and is less effective than the US in integrating immigrant communities. It has been more lax about allowing zealots stir up religious hatred. Consequently, it has a much more isolated, less culturally and societally integrated Muslim population than the US. It has a rather unsavoury history of not calling out and stamping out religious stereotyping, animosity and xenophobia. As a result, there are many more British citizens actively involved as ISIS fighters than the US. The threat from radicalised citizens, now trained by ISIS, returning to commit acts of domestic terrorism is probably much more severe in the UK than in the US. That's not to say it's non-existent her, but any claim that not raising the terrorism threat level here because Britain has done so, misses the important nuances of the differences in context.   

No plan is better than a stupid plan

Senator McCain and Ex-VP Chaney, amongst others, still seem to believe in the effectiveness of military force to make our enemies fear us (remember shock and awe?), and thus we "win the day"; it will be another "mission accomplished", apparently. They're wrong. Bullying and beating on others to get what you want may yield short term gains, but doesn't solve the problem long term; indeed it is likely to do just the reverse. Any quasi-equilibrium so achieved is an unstable one; systems under tension behave less predictably than ones that are not highly stressed.

Chaney and other arm-chair militarists have never been in a position of being on the receiving end of vastly superior fire-power, so they don't understand that it doesn't create submissiveness. Both Adolph Hitler and Air Marshal Arthur Harris made the same mistake in the Second World War in thinking that massive bombing of enemy cities would cow the enemy into submission. As the public became fed up with war they would pressure their leaders to disengage, went the theory. They were both wrong; in fact it had the reverse effect, steeling the enemy's resolve and focusing their ire. Military oppression creates hatred and resentment in the street, both of which fuel violent resistance.

So while the President is working on a long term plan, something his predecessor never had, no plan is vastly better than a stupid one. So what might an intelligent strategy take into account?

What is ISIS?

Part of the issue is understanding what ISIS really is. Simplistic categorization is unhelpful. It is clearly not a 'state' despite the name. Nor is it your typical terrorist organization like the Tamil Tigers, the PKK, Boko Haram, Lashkar-e Tayyiba, the FARC, al-Qa'ida, ETA, or the IRA. It's not fighting for self-determination, or a particular ethnic group, though it does cloak itself the mantle of a religious ideology. It isn't fighting an underground covert resistance war, melting back into the population as many terrorists do.

It has acquired a large stockpile of heavy armor and up-to-date weaponry. It is exploiting fear and disaffection with governments among oppressed groups, principally Suni Muslims. It is expanding geographically, capturing, holding and 'governing', ousting and replacing existing power structures. So just calling ISIS a terrorist organization is less than helpful.

A logic of appropriateness, while less intellectually taxing, in this case is less useful than a logic of consequences. Sometimes in chess you meet a situation that isn't susceptible to pattern recognition and labeling, and requires thinking from first principles; this is one of those times.

For example, knocking on doors and arresting active and high ranking members isn't realistic. Nor is blowing them up with drone strikes that create significant collateral damage which in turn fuels ISIS' argument about breaking free of Western oppression. It may be part of a solution but however much we yearn for a quick fix, it's not the solution in an of itself. This isn't a snake you can de-fang; those fangs will grow back. Any solution needs to prevent violent groups from recruiting the disaffected, and not giving them ready made arguments is a start.

Framing the problem

It is crucial to frame the problem not as a struggle between one religious group and another but between, on the one hand, the rule of accountable, responsive government, and law and order, and on the other, chaos, violence and the rule of ruthless unaccountable demagogues. If ISIS is attacked by the West while those nearer the action believe this is another example of imperialism, seeing that action though the lens of a sectarian divide, will provide it with a fertile recruiting ground.

Those who have deep differences, the Sunnis and the Shia in Iraq, Sunnis and Alawites in Syria, must come to believe that law and order and a negotiated solution is preferable to violence and chaos. (The same goes for Israel and Hamas).

Going it alone

Unilateral action is easier than a coordinated multilateral response. It's not even clear that unilateral actions is going to be that easy to set in motion; the hawks want to ramp up military involvement but Congress as a whole seem unwilling to authorize another war.

In any globally coordinated response, you have even more conflicting interests. Not only do you have to take into account each countries' national strategic interests but their domestic politics too. That makes getting a coordinated multilateral response much more difficult, but no less essential. If new ISIS fighters are recruited with rhetoric demonizing a trigger happy super power ignoring national sovereignty and acting with force wherever it chooses, then a multi-lateral response is indispensable.

The US' leadership role

While some (mostly Fox pundits and friends) have suggested that the world needs the US to be the world's (self-appointed) sheriff, other countries may justifiably disagree. And every time the US comes in to fix things other countries or coalitions have failed to address, we create a moral hazard problem. The President's reluctance to act unilaterally is a welcome change. The US should lead but with unilateralism and military action as a last resort. Leadership is not about going it alone (as any quarterback or team captain will tell you); it's about getting everyone on the same side motivated and committed. Often that takes time as is evident by the difficulties getting a concerted European response to the Russian annexation of Crimea, and it more recent invasion of eastern Ukraine.           

What should be done?

I have neither enough information, nor enough time to develop a strategy for dealing with ISIS; and since this is tightly coupled to a much broader set of problems in the Middle East including issues in Egypt, Syria, Lybia, Israel and the Palestinians, the problem can't be simply resolved in isolation. But if there is one thing of which I am certain, and which history suggests (and will confirm as we look back decades from now) about which I'm not wrong, it is that a 'bomb them into submission' approach that relies solely on military superiority will be as disastrous for everyone as the catalog of terrible decisions taken in the last administration's ill-fated nation-building in Iraq has been.

Maliki has gone and that's a start. Importantly, his departure was seen as legitimate since it came about through a democratic process rather than unilaterally imposed from outside. That's not to diminish the important coalition building role of the State Department, which managed to get a variety of regional governments to weigh in. His departure is a step in the right direction in terms of solving the underlying problems he (and Paul Bremer and Dick Chaney) created in de-Ba'athification and sectarian discrimination. But it will, in hindsight, be a clear demonstration that a process of coalition building is the best way to wield power effectively.