First Published: 2012-10-24

 

Shipping Arms to Potential Terrorists

 

The idea of arming a favored side in a civil war has become popular among US policymakers chastened by the disastrous Iraq War, but there are grave dangers in that approach, too, especially the uncertainty of who might get the weapons and how they might be used, says the Independent Institute’s Ivan Eland.

 

Middle East Online

We are regularly told by interventionists — whether they be US government employees or neoconservative government wannabes — that the United States can readily determine who is friendly and who is not in remote civil wars in the developing world.

The first basic rule in any war — whether it be a conventional or counterinsurgency war — is to know who is on your team and who is not. To the uninitiated, this might seem like an easy task. And in a conventional war, in which both sides wear distinctive uniforms, it is much easier than in a counterinsurgency conflict, in which the enemy wears no specific uniform or mark of designation and the enemy’s strategy is to strike and then melt back into the general population.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban guerrillas actually put on their enemy’s uniforms, those of the Afghan military, and try to kill Afghan soldiers or their international allies. This problem of “green-on-blue” attacks has been well publicized recently.

The growing number of such attacks has accounted for 15 percent of the deaths of international troops this year, including a recent suicide bombing by a member of Afghan intelligence that killed two Americans and even more fellow Afghan intelligence personnel. And Afghan intelligence troops are supposed to be more rigorously vetted than other Afghan security forces.

US training of Afghan soldiers now has been significantly impaired because of US suspicion of Afghan forces. The US military commanders in Afghanistan regularly tell us that most such green-on-blue attackers are not Taliban infiltrators but disgruntled Afghan soldiers. But statistics in war are often manipulated, and those commanders have a great incentive to minimize the lethal problem of guerrilla infiltration in the Afghan security forces’ ranks.

The US government has proven that it can’t even vet government organizations it is assisting, let alone individual soldiers. Since 9/11, the US has given tens of billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan, which has an intelligence agency, or parts thereof, that is clearly aiding the Afghan Taliban enemy.

And the US government still is not getting it: this is the same Pakistani intelligence agency that, in the 1980s, gave most of the weapons donated by the US to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan to the most radical Islamist guerrillas, thus spawning al-Qaeda.

This lesson — that during a chaotic brushfire war, it is hard to make sure weapons don’t get into the hands of the wrong, dangerous people — has not only been lost on the US government, but even more so on Mitt Romney and his neoconservative foreign policy advisers.

As if the Obama administration’s encouraging Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to send small arms to the Syrian rebels — by helping those countries vet the Syrian groups that get the weapons — weren’t bad enough, the high-testosterone Romney crowd wants to up the ante by sending heavy arms, such as hand-held anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, through these countries to the insurgents.

The problem with this potentially disastrous proposal became apparent when it was discovered that Syrian Islamists are receiving the lion’s share of the small arms already sent. So much for US intelligence’s ability to vet arms recipients during an anarchic civil war.

All we need is radical Islamists with an ability to shoot down civilian airliners or use hand-held anti-tank weapons on buildings, energy facilities or other key infrastructure. New video exists of the first use of heat-seeking, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons by Syrian rebels.

Thus, radical Islamists could already have this ability, because huge quantities of such hand-held weapons were reportedly in Muammar Gaddafi’s weapons storehouses in Libya. Unfortunately, these weapons were “liberated” along with the country when a US-led coalition overthrew the Gaddafi government.

Predictably, given the tribal schisms in Libya, these heavy weapons may very well have fallen into the hands of the many militias that fought Gaddafi in that civil war and are now destabilizing the country and killing US diplomats.

Some of these Libyan heavy weapons also may have migrated to Syria via the black market or other means, and they certainly would arrive there if a future President Romney provided them directly to Syrian rebels to overthrow the Syrian government. Apparently, the Romney neocons haven’t learned that overthrowing dictators doesn’t necessarily lead to positive outcomes.

The case of Libya also shows that government interventionism usually requires more government meddling to “fix” problems with the initial foray. The US government is now funding the creation of a Libyan commando unit to counter the tribal militias and Islamist radicals, such as those that assassinated the US ambassador and other diplomats, which it unleashed by taking out Gaddafi.

Of course, the US will need to vet recruits to the new commando force to make sure it is free of Islamist radicals. The New York Times quotes Frederic Wehrey, an expert on Libyan security, as noting, “Overall, it’s a sound strategy, but my concern is that in the vetting they make sure this doesn’t become a Trojan horse for the militias to come in.”

But given the poor past history of the US vetting security forces in messy war zones, it may not be a sound strategy at all.

Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland has spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His books include Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for IraqThe Empire Has No Clothes: US Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting “Defense” Back into US Defense Policy

Consortiumnews

 

Frustration grows over Huthi occupation of Yemen capital

Kurd troops launch offensive on IS on three fronts

Indian PM warns US to repeat Iraq 'mistake' in Afghanistan

Erakat likens Netanyahu to leader of ‘Islamic State’

Syrian refugees try their luck in Latin America

Israel settlers forcefully occupy 25 homes in East Jerusalem

Gunmen wound Saudi policeman in Shiite village in Eastern Province

Voters to choose among 27 candidates in Tunisia presidential race

Iran offers military equipment to Lebanon army

Iran extends compulsory military service to 2 years

US-led air strikes pound ‘Islamic State’ near Syria border town

Britain plans action against extremism ‘in all its forms’

Vigilante groups terrorise Syria refugees in Lebanon

Balkans clamp down on jihadist recruitment

Israel PM warns Iran poses gravest threat to world

Kuwait strips 18 nationals of citizenship

Ahead of Tunisia elections, Ghannouchi appeals for US support

Israel deploys extra forces as two faiths mark major holy days

Egypt, Libya plunge in good governance rating

Saudi Arabia breaks silence on Huthi occupation of Yemen capital

Air strikes fail to halt advance of IS jihadists in Syria

Rival Libya factions meet for reconciliation talks

Iran-P5+1 nuclear talks ‘to resume’ by mid-October

HRW criticises human rights rollback under Erdogan

Syria's Nusra Front chief warns to transfer battle to West

Obama admits to making serious mistake: We underestimated ‘Islamic State’

Germany begins training Kurdish fighters from northern Iraq

Jordan takes ‘precautionary measures’ to secure borders

Egypt acquits 112 on charges of violating protest law

Shiite dissident dies in gun battle with Saudi security forces

Iraq forces repel IS attack on strategic town west of Baghdad

Russia raises suspicions about US ‘military interference’ in Syria

Yemen capital reels under control of Huthi rebels

Dubai Ruler: Victory over ‘Islamic State’ requires three bigger ingredients

Nusra Front threatens retaliation against coalition nations

Nusra Front urges Lebanon to negotiate for captive soldiers

Iran warns ‘Islamic State’: If you advance, we will attack!

Huthis settle score with Yemen national security apparatus

Egypt postpones verdict in murder case against Mubarak

US-led coalition expands campaign against ‘Islamic State’ in Syria

Yemen Shiite rebels urged to pull out of capital

Time for Iraq's Christians to put up fight against jihadists

Arrests prompt clashes in Arab east Jerusalem

Britain nabs more Islamist suspects

How much is cost of US air war on IS?