This reality personalizes the news in a way that is uncommon. When there are riots in Athens, I think "I hope [insert name] wasn't too close to the riots while he was covering them for reporting to the Department." When there are bombs in the metro in Moscow, I think "I hope the Marine Security Guards weren't coming home from a nightclub on that train."
And when one hears an academic or journalist talking about this or that American support for a despotic regime, like that of former Kyrgyz strongman Bakiyev, I want to write or step into the news program and describe just how tough many of these issues are in reality. In the Kyrgyz Republic, like in most of the world, the choices facing American policy makers are not black and white, good vs evil and clear-cut. They are--God help me--nuanced issues that often come down to making choices that best advance our interests and our larger values in the context of the least-worse-choice.
Many of these commentators applauded Bakiyev's fall, while those who actually work and know the Kyrgyz Republic remained cautiously optimistic yet fearful that the inexperienced new government might not be able to keep the situation stable.
News comes today in the British press that not only has an ethnic cleansing wave of violence began, it has begun with the kind of sketchy, hard-to-verify reports of early genocide that characterized Rwanda. The Telegraph reports:
More than 62 people are reported to have died and some 800 injured during clashes with members of Kyrgyzstan’s Uzbek minority, which some eyewitnesses described as attempted pogroms. Uzbeks trapped in the southern city of Osh, where shops and homes have been set ablaze, said they were under seige from armed gangs of Kyrgyz men
"It's like a genocide, they're killing us all. We've got nowhere to run," said Muzzafar Saipov, an ethnic Uzbek local government official based in the centre of Osh. "All the fatalities are on our side, because we don't have any weapons. All we have in our hands are hammers and spades."
Such was the panic that at least four people were killed in a crush on the border with Uzbekistan on Saturday afternoon, as thousands of ethnic Uzbeks, mainly women and children, fled to safety.
On top of that, the new Government of the Kyrgyz Republic, led by President Roza Otunbayeva, has called for an invasion of her own country by Russia to stop the killing:
Roza Otunbayeva, who replaced Kurmanbek Bakiyev as president of Kyrgyzstan after a street uprising in April, said: "We need the entry of outside armed forces to calm the situation down. We have appealed to Russia for help and I have already signed such a letter for President Dmitry Medvedev."
Think of how bad the situation must be for this Kyrgyz woman, very highly educated, in the West, and very well regarded in the international community, must be to write to the Russian president and ask for armed intervention.
Meanwhile, I can find no news of the U.S. base in country or what our response is or will be.
How should the U.S. respond? What should we do? If we don't act, we could be looking at a second Rwanda, which we've said will not happen again. If we do act, we could be looking at racing with Russian forces to control key parts of the nation and, worse, left holding the bag: responsible for miles of ethnically tense territory in a far away and hard to reach portion of Central Asia.
If we don't act, we could be seeing the first step of the de-facto reconstruction of the Soviet Union. If we do act, we could be seeing a massive escalation of U.S. commitment in Central Asia.
If we don't act, we could eventually be dealing with Russia on the presence of an airbase critical to our mission in Afghanistan. If we do act, we could have to open fire on Kyrgyz people to keep them away from Uzbeks...in the full glare of the video cameras of the BBC.
What would you do?
Quite frankly, I wouldn't do anything at this juncture.
ReplyDeleteIn April, there was major unrest and rioting because of government corruption and the rising cost of living. In June, it's the Uzbek tribe clashing with the Kyrgyz tribe. This country has a rich history of political and social instability, and they fight at the drop of a hat.
Their economy is in the tank since the breakup of the Soviet Union, and I'm sure that adds to tensions.
I'd watch the situation closely, but my bet is that by next week, they'll be fighting over something else entirely. I'd expect periodic clashes between tribal groups; they've only been independent since 1991.
Interesting post, Jourdan. What would you do? Would you send in American troops, or UN peacekeepers?
I disagree about this:
ReplyDeleteIf we don't act, we could be seeing the first step of the de-facto reconstruction of the Soviet Union. If we do act, we could be seeing a massive escalation of U.S. commitment in Central Asia.
Because that was Georgia.
I am not certain what I'd do if it were in my power. Abstain most likely. At present I am very concerned that we're killing ourselves in a death by 1000 cuts.
ReplyDeleteI've lost faith in most of our senior leadership all the way down through the Senior Executive Service (SES), and the contagion of ignorance is working it's way down in the actual civil service ranks now (GS01-GS-15)....once GS-15 the lust for an SES slot is negatively motivating IMO.
I'm of similar opinion of major private sector enterprise, and obviously of Congress in it's entirety....when an actual independent minded Democrat like Bart Stupak is cut down by his own and bent over the couch for political sodomy, I lose faith in the system...and I wasn't particularly a fan of Stupak's.
I see our military as better equipped, better trained and tougher than ever before, so much so I wonder if I could have cut it in today's Army. BUT....with 750+ flag rank officers for a much smaller field force, one that can't move without NGO's carrying the water, so to speak, I'm concerned.
Not long ago it was 9 support element personnel for every combat arms front line trooper. We won a World War with that ratio. Today, with NGO's it seems higher than that ratio...and we're bogged down in piss ant fights.
Next, because I a monumental dumb ass and still consult with my former Army organization, particularly with my successor and former employees, I am privy to planning and doctrine documents that literally fry my skull in their absurdity and make work....which really, in fact, hides even more make work in a structure that is a pyramid literally stood up on it's point, base to the sky....the work is done at the pointy end with "management" filling the corpulent base on top. If I'd not be jailed for posting some recent items I've been sent to read and comment on, including documents pertaining to the Gulf disaster, I would put them up here and defy ANYONE to interpret, even Jourdan.
Funny thing is I see Jourdan's re-enlistment, so to speak, as a positive thing (though I have no knowledge of just what it is, nor a need to know either)...skills brought in from outside, or back in, or up from honest ranks. Problem is it doesn't happen near often enough. The layer of senior institutionalized self-serving political lard is nearly impenetrable.
I find this cynicism of mine unsettling and depressing. Maybe I'll think differently tomorrow.
I said Jourdan's "re-enlistment" was a positive thing. That, even though we've disagreed vehemently at times. So why? Because I believe he's a true believer, someone who can be perceptive, someone who won't elect the "easy" way if the hard way works better, and more importantly, someone who won't miss the easy obvious way ahead when it is better, even if politically unpopular or moribund in bureaucracy.
ReplyDeleteBut mostly, because I suspect he's likely to move out, get off a dead ass, and do something when it is called for...not form a committee or call a meeting. It's only my guess, but I think I'm right.
What would I do if I were in power? I would consider letting them go at each other -- but if they did ANYTHING that threatened us, I would wipe them off the map. If they want to be barbaric amongst themselves, then so be it. But I would refuse to play the "why do they hate us?" game. Touch us, you don't exist anymore.
ReplyDeleteAt this point I would probably open the USAF base as a refuge for women and children, and warn those who want to hurt them that any assault will be met with deadly force.
ReplyDeleteBut, remember, I am a strong proponent of the old-fashioned and highly sexist 'Women and Children First' philosophy.
What would you do?
ReplyDeleteI would make reference to the Kyrgyz President's request, and make a public offer to help Russia with logistics and transport with the intervention.
+ puts us on the right side of the issue on humanitarian grounds
+ (and might actually help - we do have a big footprint with the airbase and all)
+ eliminates chance of uncontrolled / unpredictable encounters with Russian military
+ puts us in the conductors seat with respect to the orchestration of operations
+ makes us look "big"
+ makes Russia look "small" if they refuse the offer - if we then do nothing, we can say "hey, we offered, but since Russia wouldn't cooperate, we didn't want any bad confrontations"
+ possibly makes friends in new Kyrgyz regime - they wouldn't have asked Russia if they weren't desperate; coordination of US forces with Russia reduces chances that humanitarian op results in Kyrgyzstan ending up as a republic in USSR 2.0.
drawbacks:
- detracts from Afghan mission
- possibly unpopular politically - US gov has its hands full right now
- unforseen risk of getting "played" by Russia somehow - situation will require close monitoring as it unfolds dynamically.
That's my take FWIW.
I would also, if I were the US base commander, have my own video people at every interview, to be able to put all remarks in context promptly when framed up and misquoted by the BBC.