Political absolutism: a disaster in making

SAMSON SHARAF
The US strategic mind is obsessed with dominance. A constant drift from a measured military response to countervailing strategic dominance is visible. At the heart of such thought is the containment and control of Eurasia in which Pakistan constitutes the formidable Southern Front.
The past 50 years have witnessed the gradual rise of neo-strategists who believe that use of covert violent activities can achieve political objectives both in tandem and whilst bypassing the defence establishment. They reflect aspirations of cartels, energy giants and economic czars riding the technological edge.
This primacy of civilian leadership over military affairs ignited a new debate during the Korean and Cold Wars, especially in formulation of evolving nuclear doctrines. The mathematicians and social scientists were the first generation of civilian nuclear strategists. At the extreme, Ken Booth had hypothetically assessed a development as scary as 'nuclear absolutism'.
Though the world is still spared such a doomsday scenario, the tip of the iceberg is visible when civilian controlled intelligence and long arm establishments operating under directives of the highest echelons of US policy resort to organised violence through covert means world over (see Seymour Hersh's article on assassination of Hariri and Benazir Bhutto). Operating outside the Congress and Senate select committees, it erases and violates those transition points in the policy spectrum where a considered decision is made by statesmen to resort to limited violence in tandem with other means. Entire theses of Quincy Wright and Julian Lider (the two modern scholars on war) are thrown overboard when limited interventions become Burnout Wars for countries.
In Iraq such interventions not factorised in the military plans, were lethal, and counter productive. The methods varied from precision munitions to drones and stage managed acts of violence. Placement of highly trained civilian disguised security companies in zones of interests, served multiple objectives including rapid reaction, assassinations and toe hold operations. Sometimes these instruments worked in tandem with CENTCOM.
The danger in such a policy is the creation of schisms and strategic dysfunctionalism within the establishment. It also leads to complications in unity of command amongst interacting and inter-nation armed services. The latest example is the almost simultaneous release of Kerry-Lugar Bill and McChrystal Report. The former safeguards Indian interests for long-term political objectives while the latter sees Indian role an impediment to military operational progress. CENTCOM wants additional troops for a victory while the State Department wishes to hang around long enough to achieve other objectives.
This is called 'shaping the environment'. The craft began with the Berlin Airlift, manifested in revolutions and counter revolutions of South America and is now the war for Pakistan. Such interventions are well thought, complemented by deliberate and articulated leaks, narratives of threat perception, assessments by the media and research organisations, economic arm-twisting and diplomacy. Fault lines and vulnerabilities of target nations are exploited and locals like Chalabis/Khalilzads rented. The game played with remarkable alacrity continues; as does the attrition of Pakistan.