Articles and Analysies
Current American Planning Strategies vs. Planning Strategies of the 50s’/By: Adil Bala (PhD)*
By [unknown placeholder $article.art_field1$]
Nov 10, 2006 - 9:07:00 PM

Current American Planning Strategies vs. Planning Strategies of the 50s’

By: Adil Bala (PhD)*

*Adil E. A. Bala, Sudanese, Entomologist, researcher, Houston, Texas, can be reached via: [email protected]

In the past, the American strategic planners dealt with the world’s problems with more measured wisdom. For instance, the US helped reconstructing Western Europe 1947-1952, by implementing the Marshall Plan. This plan should be remembered as the foundation of the today’s private and political interests. Nevertheless, the Americans are known as caring and sharing, but today, they have a fabricated image throughout the world because of their current strategic plans.

Examples for today’s planning strategy:

Failure to deal with Saddam’s regime that launched Scud missiles towards Israel, today’s American strategic plan “Iraq flowers” turned to be “Iraq quagmire”. Remember: 1) Even the Iraq PM Mr. Elmaliki (the so-called American friend) refused to condemn “HizbAllah” in the last war, during his visit the white House and 2) “HizbAllah”, with unprotected back, proved that Scud missiles have become old fashioned. Therefore, regardless of: when and how the American troops will withdraw, and whether there will be a civil war or not, in Iraq this American strategic plan created countless sunni’s and shiite’s “HizbAllah” with their back protected by Iran and others, who share the goal to free the “Al-Masjid Alaqsa, Tomb of stone”. So, basically, is there any way to see any benefit from this way of planning?

During the last Israel-HizbAllah war, it seems like Dr. Condoleezza Rice had been hurriedly briefed by the strategic planners and excitedly announced “the inauguration of the New Middle East Era”. Yesterday, the whole world responded as: “what’s wrong with the Americans?”

Examples of today’s Americans’ plans for Sudan:

{At the United Nations World Summit meeting last September, the United States and other participating governments agreed that the international community has a responsibility to protect innocent civilians when a government is unwilling or unable to do so. In a letter organized by the Stanford chapter of “Students Taking Action Now: Darfur” and hand delivered to one of the President's aides last month, by myself and 16 of my colleagues, we called on President Bush and Secretary Rice to lead the international community in honoring this pledge (Anthony Lake and Francis Fukuyama New York Times May 21, 2006)}.

The question is how they plan for that? See the following:

1. {If we get our way, we will send a large NATO force into Darfur that will protect the local population, administer humanitarian aid, and remain stuck there indefinitely with no clear exit strategy because we have not established a political goal beyond the end of the Janjaweed attacks. They (he meant Zagawa tribe which is minority in both Chad and Sudan) represent the same ethnic group—indeed, the same tribe—as the one in power in neighboring Chad, and if African borders were drawn rationally to represent underlying ethnic and tribal realities, Darfur should be part of Chad and not Sudan (Francis Fukuyama October 26, 06)}.

2. Senator Joseph R. Biden in 09/12/2006 led a bipartisan group (26 US Senators) in calling on the President Bush and urging him to take immediate actions: i.e.: Impose sanctions; if the Security Council does not act, the United States should work with its NATO allies to enforce a no-fly zone on our own; Security Council Resolution 1706 demands accountability for war crimes. Provide Congress with an accurate assessment of funding shortfalls in peacekeeping needs for both the immediate support to the African Union as called for in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1706, and for the transition and maintenance of the new U.N. force in Darfur.

3. {After three years of fruitless negotiation and feckless rhetoric, it's time to go beyond unenforced U.N. resolutions to a new kind of resolution: the firm resolve to act. It's too late for sanctions. It's time to get tough with Sudan again. The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy -- by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing. If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it. We Saved Europeans (in Kosovo). Why Not Africans? (Susan E. Rice, Anthony Lake and Donald M. Payn, October 2, 2006)}.

How would have yesterday’s American planners, tackled the Sudanese issue if they were in positions now? To answer this question let us pretend that this group (Baiden et al; Rice, Lake, Payn and Fukuyama) had a meeting. Mr. Baiden chaired the meeting and requested everyone to put his aforementioned ideas in a reversed form and in points: Here are the notes of that meeting:

Mr. Baiden: Thank you, the first speaker will be Dr. Francis Fukuyama:

Mr. Fukuyama: My points are:

1. The conflict in Darfur (unlike) German treatment of the Jews or the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda, did not emerge out of the struggle of a territorially-defined ethnic group for autonomy or independence from a bigger political entity.

2. Arabs are not minority in Darfur and all Darfurians have far more in common than we think.

3. The current Darfur conflict was not started by the government in Khartoum; it was started by Darfur rebel groups that were inspired by the SPLA’s achievements in 2005. Remember, the entire north sub-Saharan region is called Sudan. Additionally, Mini Manawi represents the same ethnic group—indeed, the same tribe (Zagawa)—as the one in power in neighboring Chad, and if African borders were drawn rationally to represent underlying ethnic and tribal realities, (Chad) should be part of Sudan. Simply because, nevertheless Zagawa tribe is minority in both Sudan and Chad, the Chad president and Mini Manawi are from this tribe. Also, the Chad president’s wife is Sudanese. Respecting the sanctity of existing borders looks more rational and Exxon-Mobil could have its direct business with Sudan.

4. The norm since independence has been to respect the sanctity of existing boarders. Americans and Europeans conveniently forget that their own state-building process was accompanied by a huge amount of violence, involving massive changes of borders: the thirteen colonies didn’t belong in the British empire; Texas and California didn’t belong in Mexico; (So, why do we need) the less than 30 African sovereign states to be over 300 unviable entities accompanied by a huge amount of ethnic cleansing? This is why Bob Zoellicks’ ceasefire did not address the larger question of Sudanese sovereignty over Darfur. Furthermore, Katrina in the South and the Latino protests in California do not mean returning them back to Mexico or they prospect in full independence.

5. Based on that, United States is far too larger and diverse (Europeans, Afro-Americans, Latinos etc.) than Sudan and is the current Super Power. In the long run, I don’t see any reasons why Sudan should not have the same options as United States. Well-intentioned outsiders need to think about the long-term political outcome they favor as well. We should want united Sudan to become a permanent Model for the Africans and the international community.

6. Africa is at the end of a long, painful state-building and state-consolidation process. It is rational that West pretends that African states have the same sanctity as their own.

7. You can figure out for yourself what it would mean to reorient Western policy to one that allowed the Sudanese to develop themselves rather than break it up or simply freezing the current status quo until the next round of violence flares up.

Thank you.

Mr. Baiden (the chairman of the meeting): It is your turn, the trio (Susan Rice, Anthony Lake and Donald Payne):

Thank you, sir. Here are our points:

1. In 1999, when US still had some of its good image, our intervention in Kosovo had a reasonable support. Unthinkable in the current context? True, the international climate is less forgiving than in 1999. Iraq and torture scandals have left many abroad doubting our motives and legitimacy. Some will reject any future U.S. military action. It means a lot for us to repair this image.

2. Additionally, history demonstrates that there is one language Sudanese, in general, hate: the credible threat or use of force.

3. Nevertheless, the Security Council recently codified a new international norm prescribing "the responsibility to protect", the United States, would neither strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets nor would it blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Simply because, repeating use of sanctions and excessive force, allows the other nation to deter the United States by one way or another i.e. threatening terrorism and setting a terrible precedent. It would also be arrogance and immoral.

4. For such reasons; the president appointed Andrew Natsios, a former administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, as his special envoy for Darfur. An envoy's role is to negotiate.

5. The real question is this: Will we use Marshall plan to reconstruct Africa, starting from Sudan, as we did, to reconstruct Europe in 1947-1952? In this new case, if the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it.

Thanks sir.

Baiden: It is our turn (the Baiden et al.)

In support of these ideas we could add the following:

1. Should the Sudanese in general are glad from the National Congress Party (NCP) where is the problem then? But also the NCP and SPLM were collaborated well with US in achieving the Peace Agreement. Cessation of the war is a great achievement for this peace agreement. They need now to develop their nation and we have to help them.

2. Approximately 6-8 millions Sudanese of diverse backgrounds welcomed the arrival of Dr. Garang in Khartoum. This wonderful celebration indicates that to be a Southerner, non-Muslim and SPLM member will not prevent you from being the president of Sudan. The point will be how to hold on to the Sudanese hearts and minds? For now, the challenge for SPLM isn’t to secede and rule the south but to lead with the other political parties, in a democratic manner, the whole of Sudan. It is not easy and it takes time but it is possible and far more reasonable.

3. Therefore, we support your idea, Dr. Fukuyama, that the diversified US be a model for the united Sudan. One reason for that, despite the US Task Forces in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and others in Ethiopia, even the cessation of southern Sudan will be a model and the whole region will end up with infinite number of unviable entities. Such scenarios could start with autonomy of northern Uganda, Kenyan tribes, Oromo and many others in Ethiopia etc and would engulf the whole region. We need to avoid such a hard quagmire.

4. Plan, test, make a mistake and correct it, is one of our principles in USA. To be a role model we have to give the Sudanese this right. Moreover, we have to support them to come out with their own reconciliation process or at least they could follow that of South Africans or Moroccans.

5. We also support your idea, the trio, in offering Marshall plan to the united Sudan to implement their plans. The benefits, beside ours, will be helping them, they become a model, and they will help develop their neighbors, the Africans and could become the G9, why not?

6. Tomorrow you will read: Biden Leads Bipartisan Effort to Call on President to Take Immediate Action in Marshal Plan to united Sudan. In our letter we will say: Mr. President we are committed to working to support your efforts to address this urgent matter

My question for you is: Which way of the American planning do you prefer, current or that of yesterday?

References:

Anthony Lake and Francis Fukuyama, New York Times May 21, 2006

Biden et al: http://uniteourstates.com/about/releases?id=0035

F. Fukuyama: http://www.the-american-interest.com/contd/

Susan E. Rice, Anthony Lake and Donald M. Payne:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100100871.html

* Adil E. A. Bala, Sudanese, Entomologist, researcher, Houston, Texas, can be reached via: [email protected]