Posted on 07/24/2003 11:27:50 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Post-war pacification in Afghanistan and Iraq is a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.
So the question is, who?
So far, it's been mostly the US Army, which may not be the best outfit for the task, good as it is at a lot of things. Not only that but our fighting forces are stretched mighty thin these days, with virtually all combat-ready brigades deployed. There's a real question as to whether it's wise to siphon off thousands of troops for humanitarian work.
You can say they're overqualified or underqualified, it doesn't matter because it adds up to the same thing. These brave and admirable young men and women didn't join up for that sort of duty, probably don't have a real aptitude for it and don't like to do it.
There are those who say we ought to leave the whole thing to the United Nations, and there may be some contributions the US can make, but it has proven itself to be inept (and corrupt) at the task in Yugoslavia and elsewhere. If what's going on in Iraq is nation-building, ask yourself this: which will be better off, an Iraq built on the principles of the UN, or one built on the principles of the US.
Another possibility is to utilize units with special skills from other countries; this is already happening to some extent in Iraq, where Italian and Portuguese police officials are being sent in. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has praised this approach, commenting that "a little bit of specialization is a wonderful thing." He's probably right, but it's also wise, one would think, to regard such units as supplementary, rather than primary.
Non-governmental organizations, including private charities, can contribute, too, and many are doing so right now, in important ways.
But in the end, there are likely to be major gaps in any system that relies on foreign governments and NGO's. There needs to be a US agency that can be assigned to the task.
Which brings us to the question of the Peace Corps. In recent weeks, there has been a bit of a buzz in Washington and elsewhere about the possibility of rethinking the mission of the forty-two-year-old agency. This sentiment, by no means universal among the close-knit network of returned volunteers, let alone the current leadership of the agency, found its way into print this week in an op-ed article in the New York Times, written by Avi Spiegel, who was a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco from 1998 to 2000.
There aren't any Peace Corps volunteers in Morocco today, because the country is considered too dangerous, and that's precisely the point Spiegel and those who share his view want to make. Spiegel says we need "a more active, less gun-shy Peace Corps," that "should equip itself to enter regions it now deems too dangerous."
This move would drastically change the culture of the Peace Corps, so it is no surprise that many of the agency's stalwart veterans and friends are aghast at the idea. The Peace Corps has always considered itself independent of American foreign policy, and these people want it to stay that way.
They would rather see war zone humanitarian work done by the UN and international NGO's. But of course, that's a major contradiction, because those organizations – even more than the Peace Corps – are completely independent of American foreign policy, and that's the problem.
We need a force of humanitarian workers who will advance American foreign policy by performing genuine humanitarian service. There is no reason why there should be any conflict between the two. Siegel likens the relationship to that between wartime Iraqi military units and their embedded reporters. Both had jobs to do, and did them while establishing good working relationships that, in most cases, increased respect for each side among the other.
One interesting precedent for hardened, policy-driven humanitarian workers, explained to me by a retired US Army Colonel, comes from an unlikely place – Cuba.
The Cubans went into places like Angola with doctors and nurses, well-diggers, teachers, axes, shovels, raw lumber and construction equipment and actually did some good for people while measurably advancing the foreign policy objectives of their homeland.
On our side, something similar happened to a limited extent in Viet Nam, where the Army set up groups called Civic Action Teams; some veterans of that conflict report that only those villages that had CAT's really resisted the Viet Cong.
But the Viet Nam Army was a conscript Army; today's all-volunteer force is self- selected for different duty than humanitarian action. That's why a hardened, re-tooled Peace Corps is the best place for it.
In the end, the best security against guerilla and terrorist tactics such as those we are facing in post-war Iraq is preventive security. That means winning over the population so the people themselves provide both intelligence and deterrence before the act ever happens.
When you get to that point, you have peace. And that is what the Peace Corps ought to be about.
The Peace Corps was positively harmful, though the folks who supported it and those who volunteered for it had the highest ideals and were not bad people.
I don't know what the Peace Corps have been up to lately, maybe it's different now, for how long I don't know. But don't talk to me of the Peace Corps.
There are some good ideas in this article, but don't get carried away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.