New Media

American forces are moving into Haiti in the wake of a devastating earthquake, providing emergency aid and support to maintain public order. For the moment, the image in some parts of the world of Western forces as war criminals and occupiers fades a bit as disciplined leathernecks move ashore to help people in desperate need. As the shell-shocked Haitians hear of “a swift, coordinated and aggressive” operation by the US military, they will welcome the troops not with rockets and insurgent tactics, but with tears of joy and gratitude.

The troops on the ground will have heavy responsibilities. Indeed, in coming days, they should be called on to act in ways they had never expected — perhaps, in ways that the locals won’t want, but which they do need.

Still the World’s Sole Superpower
America’s ability to respond to these kinds of emergencies all over the world is a reminder of the world’s sole remaining superpower’s unique capability to act for good or evil — particularly when compared with other geopolitical contenders.

Some are convinced of China’s rise as a world power (and there are those who would suggest it has already overtaken America as a superpower). Yet no one is expecting the Chinese navy to drop in and take a leading role in the relief effort in what is essentially America’s pond. You’ll recall that in the wake of the 2004 tsunami that devastated southeast Asia, any kind of overt Chinese military response was extremely limited. It’s unclear whether they lacked the logistical ability to provide far-ranging support, or whether full-scale Chinese intervention might have raised the hackles of neighbors already nervous about a longer-term “China threat”. Meanwhile, the US navy was only too eager to deploy in typical gung-ho style.

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility
A robust application of military power in these kinds of situations is not to be feared or fought. The American effort is welcomed with open arms. Indeed, people around the world would be shocked if the USA didn’t take an active role in Haiti now. Their efforts are to be lauded.

That said, it must also be acknowledged that it took a natural disaster of unprecedented scope to drag America back into Haiti, when disasters of another sort in Haiti ought to have been higher up the US agenda years ago. The USA should get credit for leading the current effort in Haiti, but the past decade has seen this small island nation endure a living hell of abject poverty, corruption, gangsterism and political instability. When one thinks of the resources spent and wasted in Iraq due to mismanagement and corruption, it’s incredible to think what might have been possible in Haiti given a more focused attention and diversion of resources to the USA’s own sphere of influence.

Indeed, America can act in Haiti in more far-ranging ways compared with other countries that will avoid “interference in a country’s internal affairs” at all costs. America didn’t break Haiti, as it broke Iraq. But there will still be pressure for a long-term American presence to help the country become notable for something other than being the poorest place in the Western hemisphere. Economic aid should come with conditions to hit possibly the worst aspect of Haitian indigenous culture: child slavery.

It may seem incredible, but it’s true: “Haiti was the first country in the Americas to abolish slavery, when it won its independence in 1804 after a struggle led by Toussaint Louverture. But thousands live a life of near-slave labour because of poverty and social breakdown.”

A Real Fight for Freedom
Child slavery in Haiti is not a new phenomenon, though the relatively recent adoption of child slaves to serve not the rich, but the less poor, has certainly put horrific spin on this perverse practice. Haitians reportedly defend the practice as a part of their indigenous culture. But child slavery is one of those things that neither cultural relativism nor poverty can properly excuse. It is a crime and a violation of human rights.

Now that Americans and other countries will be boosting their resources and boots on the ground, we have an opportunity to remove a terrible exception to the freedom that the rest of this region takes for granted.

There are nearly 1.5 million non-Muslim Americans serving in the USA’s armed forces, none of whom are accused of slaughtering their fellow soldiers or planning such attacks on behalf of America’s enemies. Then you have a few thousand American soldiers who are followers of Islam, of whom an admittedly small, yet extremely disproportionate number have committed such blue-on-blue attacks in solidarity with the international jihad. The Fort Hood massacre is only the latest example of these treasonous acts.

The army is not the post office or the tax department. It’s entire raison d’etre is security. Because of its unique mission and the practical realities of war, the armed services already gets away with rules that would not be tolerated in any other career field — women are discouraged from direct combat roles. Gays operate under a don’t ask, don’t tell policy. These rules are clearly discriminatory, yet society for the most part accepts and understands these restrictions.

Would rules prohibiting Muslims serving in the armed forces fall into this category of non-egalitarian yet necessary rules? It’s tempting to think so and frankly, seems worthy at least of discussion at this point — though we’re not quite there yet.

Many pundits and army representatives have noted it would be better to have even more Muslims serving in the armed forces. They say this for reasons of multiculturalism and the responsibility of all sectors of society to do their part to defend democracy. But there are more practical front-line reasons as well. Muslim countries will be overrepresented as centers for chaos, thugocracies and terror in the coming decades. Their sclerotic societies are far more likely to degenerate into Hamas-type territories than into a benign democratic Caliphate. So if Western soldiers are going to be sent anywhere, it will probably be into these types of places.

Continuing with this line of thinking, part of the problem troops sent into these countries in connecting with local populations is inability to communicate and adapt tactics based on local cultural habits. In a land where innocent misunderstandings can quickly evolve into insane firefights to safeguard “honor”, you want to keep potential instigating incidents to an absolute minimum. It makes sense for American troops to receive “cultural” training and direction in the field from those who can better understand conditions and communicate with the people on the ground. They need more people who speak Arabic and can talk to the locals in a way that they’ll understand, while listening for signs of danger from double-talking “allies”.

But according to the Americans’ own estimates, there are no more than a few thousand Muslim soldiers in their combined armed forces. Could the armed forces meet these needs for training and front-line communication through unarmed civilian contractors accompanying the troops? Undoubtedly, this could be done, removing the access of American Muslim soldiers to guns and explosives they could turn on their fellow soldiers. Besides removing this direct threat, the morale of many non-Muslim soldiers could be positively affected, with troops no longer distracted by the possibility of getting fragged by a suddenly pious fire-team partner.

As things stand right now, such a course of action would be beyond the pale. But if another Fort Hood-type attack occurs in the next few months, or we even see multiple copycat atrocities, American generals will be hard-pressed to keep principles of diversity and American egalitarianism above the lives and well-being of their soldiers. So we’ll see what happens.

But in the meantime, another insidious danger lurks. American soldiers and their fellow citizens have been reminded (as if anyone with a functioning brain would require such a lesson) that the proclaimed desire to see Infidels beheaded, with boiling oil poured down their throats, is not merely an eccentric example of cultural diversity to be tolerated or ignored. But will the troops, or law enforcement, or ordinary citizens still only report threatening behavior that meets that threshold of brutality?

In other words, does someone actually have to advocate suicide bombing in front of multiple witnesses in order to get turfed from the army? Will there need to be proof of email correspondence with Al Queda cells? If a soldier — or private citizen, for that matter — advocates merely “harming” Americans or “making them suffer”, will they get a free pass? How about if a sergeant starts going on about the need to impose Sharia law and establish the Islamic Caliphate (in benign theoretical terms and while off-base, of course). What happens then?

The commanders of the American armed forces should lay down clear and sweeping rules about the kinds of behavior that will get a soldier discharged immediately to mitigate the risk of future security breaches.

Some will say that such rules will only force the hard-core sleeper cases to simply be more careful at hiding their hate, while bluntly curtailing freedom of speech.

But as much of a pessimist as I can be sometimes, I doubt there are more than a handful of Nadal Hasan’s brutal type left in the American armed services. If there are more, they will probably get taken care of in short order as their spooked and no-longer silent colleagues report the clues they’ve seen. Besides, a force meant to safeguard freedoms was never intended to also safeguard the freedom of citizens to commit terror and treason. Again, that need for vigilance and vocalization, even at the risk of causing offense to the innocent, applies to Americans both in uniform and on the civilian street.

They tore down that wall — not Gorbachev — the people. And they came to a land called freedom.

While $100 billion per year to insure 36 million Americans for health care may seem steep to some, these same critics won’t bat an eye at an extra $100 billion thrown at the defense budget.

Definitely a step in the right direction. Nicely done, Mr. Obama.

Dramatization of the international talks between the USA and Pakistan on the war along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border:

PAKISTAN
How dare you attack the militant thugs we’ve sworn to destroy as well?

USA
Um, ah, well…

PAKISTAN
The Taliban are attacking our people in our schools, public markets and even our supposedly secure army headquarters… and meanwhile, you’re blowing them up these killers with your drones! What do you have to say for yourself!?

USA
Um… You’re welcome?

PAKISTAN
Infidel dog! Don’t you know that only Pakistan has the sovereign right to attack the Taliban that resides within our own borders and threatens the very existence of our nation — and that we’ll take care of them when we’re good and ready?

USA
OK, then. Are you moving your army in to finish them off once and for all?

PAKISTAN
Of course! We’ve sent in two per cent of our army to do this job. And I can guarantee that less than half of our officers are actively working with the Taliban. How much more of a commitment can we possibly show to you?

USA (OPENING HIS WALLET)
OK, OK. How many more billions of dollars did you need this year?

PAKISTAN
Our glorious and independent nation is willing to accept $7.5 billion as tribute and a show of goodwill. But don’t think this gets you anything in return. Just so we’re clear, everybody here hates you. And of course, any decrease in funding next year will be seen as a sign of the most wicked betrayal in human history. Got it?

USA
Got it. It’s been a pleasure doing business with you.

PAKISTAN
Go f**k yourself.