Only in America: It turns out that we're the sole country on the planet where a majority of people (62%) are sunnily in favor of sending drones across the globe (and across the borders of other countries) to take out terrorists. According to Pew Research's latest polling, that includes 74% of Republicans, 60% of independents, and 58% of Democrats. Nowhere else is such sentiment to be found. In France, 63% disapprove; in Mexico, 73%; in Turkey, 81%; in Egypt, 89%; and in Pakistan, where drone strikes are a constant, 97% of those who know about them are opposed. Whatever the world may think -- and in the U.S., there are liberals ready to argue vigorously for the "morality" of drones -- the Air Force (and the CIA) are plunging ahead training pilots and expanding their drone fleets. In fact, the Air Force is already training more drone pilots than bomber and fighter pilots combined.
After a decade-plus of in-person, in-your-face disaster on the Eurasian mainland, high-tech, remote-controlled war in which American pilots are thousands of miles away from those they attack is increasingly seen as the way of the imperial future. Drones, in fact, give the idea of remote-controlled war a distinctly post-modern, sci-fi gloss. The thought of victory at next to no human cost (to us) couldn't, it turns out, be more appealing in the "homeland." But don't be fooled: drones are just the latest twist in such a war strategy. Conceptually, remote-controlled war is, if not as old as Adam, then certainly as old as empire.
Or put another way, the urge of great powers to have the locals do most, if not all, of the dying for them is anything but new (even if replacing indigenous troops with machines has a distinctly modern, outsourced twist to it). After all, nineteenth century European powers regularly fought their colonial wars with tiny elites of white officers commanding large contingents of native proxy forces, trained, armed, and ready to enforce imperial interests. As part of his TomDispatch series on the "changing face of empire," Nick Turse has been tracking the sci-fi frontiers of remote-controlled war, American-style (and some of that work can be found in the new book he's co-authored, Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050). Now, he turns to machine-less proxy war, as Washington ensures that the oldest form of outsourcing of life and death once again has its grim (and unpredictable) day in the sun. Tom
Washington Puts Its Money on Proxy War:
The Election Year Outsourcing that No One's Talking About
By Nick Turse
In the 1980s, the U.S. government began funneling aid to mujahedeen rebels in Afghanistan as part of an American proxy war against the Soviet Union. It was, in the minds of America's Cold War leaders, a rare chance to bloody the Soviets, to give them a taste of the sort of defeat the Vietnamese, with Soviet help, had inflicted on Washington the decade before. In 1989, after years of bloody combat, the Red Army did indeed limp out of Afghanistan in defeat. Since late 2001, the United States has been fighting its former Afghan proxies and their progeny. Now, after years of bloody combat, it's the U.S. that's looking to withdraw the bulk of its forces and once again employ proxies to secure its interests there.
From Asia and Africa to the Middle East and the Americas, the Obama administration is increasingly embracing a multifaceted, light-footprint brand of warfare. Gone, for the moment at least, are the days of full-scale invasions of the Eurasian mainland. Instead, Washington is now planning to rely ever more heavily on drones and special operations forces to fight scattered global enemies on the cheap. A centerpiece of this new American way of war is the outsourcing of fighting duties to local proxies around the world.
While the United States is currently engaged in just one outright proxy war, backing a multi-nation African force to battle Islamist militants in Somalia, it's laying the groundwork for the extensive use of surrogate forces in the future, training "native" troops to carry out missions -- up to and including outright warfare. With this in mind and under the auspices of the Pentagon and the State Department, U.S. military personnel now take part in near-constant joint exercises and training missions around the world aimed at fostering alliances, building coalitions, and whipping surrogate forces into shape to support U.S. national security objectives.
While using slightly different methods in different regions, the basic strategy is a global one in which the U.S. will train, equip, and advise indigenous forces -- generally from poor, underdeveloped nations -- to do the fighting (and dying) it doesn't want to do. In the process, as small an American force as possible, including special forces operatives and air support, will be brought to bear to aid those surrogates. Like drones, proxy warfare appears to offer an easy solution to complex problems. But as Washington's 30-year debacle in Afghanistan indicates, the ultimate costs may prove both unimaginable and unimaginably high.
Start with Afghanistan itself. For more than a decade, the U.S. and its coalition partners have been training Afghan security forces in the hopes that they would take over the war there, defending U.S. and allied interests as the American-led international force draws down. Yet despite an expenditure of almost $50 billion on bringing it up to speed, the Afghan National Army and other security forces have drastically underperformed any and all expectations, year after year.
One track of the U.S. plan has been a little-talked-about proxy army run by the CIA. For years, the Agency has trained and employed six clandestine militias that operate near the cities of Kandahar, Kabul, and Jalalabad as well as in Khost, Kunar, and Paktika provinces. Working with U.S. Special Forces and controlled by Americans, these "Counterterror Pursuit Teams" evidently operate free of any Afghan governmental supervision and have reportedly carried out cross-border raids into Pakistan, offering their American patrons a classic benefit of proxy warfare: plausible deniability.
This clandestine effort has also been supplemented by the creation of a massive, conventional indigenous security force. While officially under Afghan government control, these military and police forces are almost entirely dependent on the financial support of the U.S. and allied governments for their continued existence.
Today, the Afghan National Security Forces officially number more than 343,000, but only 7% of its army units and 9% of its police units are rated at the highest level of effectiveness. By contrast, even after more than a decade of large-scale Western aid, 95% of its recruits are still functionally illiterate.
Not surprisingly, this massive force, trained by high-priced private contractors, Western European militaries, and the United States, and backed by U.S. and coalition forces and their advanced weapons systems, has been unable to stamp out a lightly-armed, modest-sized, less-than-popular, rag-tag insurgency. One of the few tasks this proxy force seems skilled at is shooting American and allied forces, quite often their own trainers, in increasingly common "green-on-blue" attacks.
Adding insult to injury, this poor-performing, coalition-killing force is expensive. Bought and paid for by the United States and its coalition partners, it costs between $10 billion and $12 billion each year to sustain in a country whose gross domestic product is just $18 billion. Over the long term, such a situation is untenable.
Back to the Future
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).