Whatever Happened To The Punitive Expedition?

What a great old term--punitive expedition. Kind of makes you think of Queen Victoria's pith helmeted boys heading up some African river or Northwest Frontier canyon to teach some uppity indige types a lesson in proper manners. Or, perhaps the US cavalry riding on out to slap some pesky redskins back onto the reservation.

Of course punitive expeditions, even if not under that quaintly accurate name, are still alive and well today. They have to be. Reality demands that,

What does a nation do when the sanctions don't work? When diplomacy fails? When patience runs out? When the nuisance refuses to abate itself?

Americans shy away from punitive expeditions under any name. Even if the neocon ninnies were not calling the play during the post-9/11 months We the People wouldn't have felt at all comfortable with simply going into Afghanistan on the ground and in the air with the goal of killing as many al-Qaeda leaders and adherents as possible, and, along the way, doing the same to the maximum number of Taliban.

We could have administered what used to be called "condign punishment" to both the al-Qaeda mass murderers and their Taliban protectors. The outrage of 9/11 assured both political will and popular support for a punitive expedition--even one which would have perforce resulted in significant civilian casualties.

Absent the neocons and their strange delusion that fully functioning, pluralistic democracy and free enterprise can be installed via "shock and awe," American sensibilities would have demanded that we do more than simply vanquish the sinner. Our unique view of the world would have required that we raise the prostrate sinner to his feet, dust him off, offer him new clothes and abjure him to go and sin no more.

We the People would have required nation building as the ultimate goal no matter how unrealistic that might be. And, no matter how inappropriate a role for our military it might be.

Thus the neocon ninnies were aided and abetted in their flights of fancy by the moral sensitivities of the American public with the result that we are still in Afghanistan more than six years later. Still in Afghanistan and currently facing defeat. High price to pay for ignoring the plausibility and realism of a purely punitive expedition.

If the crime is great enough as it was on 9/11, a country may prosecute a punitive operation with support by both its domestic population and that of the political elites abroad. If the crime is small--a misdemeanor by international standards--then a country pursues punitive action at great peril to its global reputation and standing.

Israel discovered the reality that the crime must merit the punishment during its ill-considered expedition into Lebanon in summer 2006. The crime was the kidnapping of two IDF members by Hezbollah. Aggravating circumstances were provided by occasional rockets incoming from southern Lebanon.

The Israeli punitive expedition which included massive air strikes on infrastructure targets (what nuclear strategists called "counter-value targeting") meshed with both air and ground operations purportedly directed against Hezbollah arms dumps and personnel but actually rather indiscriminately applied to anyone and everyone in southern Lebanon. With the noteworthy exception of the United States, the global response to the disproportionate Israeli action was condemnation.

The crime did not merit the punishment.

Ultimately Israel suffered the greatest military and diplomatic defeat in its history. Hezbollah emerged as the clear winner by any measure which might be applied. Also winning in the contest were the mullahocracy in Tehran and the hardest hardliners within the Palestinian community and the Arab population generally.

(It should be mentioned that the US was listed, not among the "winners" but along with Israel in the "loser" category.)

We have to get a grip on the concept of punitive expeditions now more than ever since high on the list of foreign policy challenges faceing us is the matter of nuclear proliferation. Not only is Iran on the "path" (to quote Dr ElBaradei) but North Korea is apparently getting back in the plutonium production business.

While the New Hermit Kingdom of the North may further impoverish its citizens by extracting more plutonium from the several thousand fuel rods taken from its (perhaps only temporarily) decommissioned reactor, it can add several more kilos to its store of Pu239. In the mind of Kim jong Il or the minds of North Korea's very hardline military commanders, the risks are far outweighed by the potential benefits.

Six or eight Nagasaki size and type bombs when coupled with North Korea's 1.2 million man army represents a very large diplomatic blackmail potential. Cowing South Korea into compliance with the North's policy dictates might move from the thinkable to the doable.

If anything, a North Korean nuclear threat represents far more of a clear and present danger to US strategic interests than does the potential (within as few as six to twelve months) Iranian Mahidi bomb.

Given the low likelihood of sanctions and diplomatic palaver stimulating a sudden, genuine desire on the part of the Hermit Kingdom of the North to surrender its plutonium to some other, more responsible custodian, what should the US do next? (The Geek recommends that as a question to be posed at the foreign policy debate between Senators McCain and Obama.)

One option is a air delivered punitive expedition. Leaving aside the very real question, "Will it work?" the nature of the crime needs to be explored.

Has Pyongyang's intransigence reached a level such that either world or US domestic opinion would accept a series of strikes which, if successful, carry the risk of liberating a large amount of radioactivity to the environment?

(While considering that question, keep in mind that the jet stream blows from west to east. Then look at a world map.)

Rogue states and trans-national terrorist groups are not going to evaporate simply because we would find that convenient. As a result, the punitive expedition (however one might like to cosmetically cover the harsh term) must and will remain an option for the US and other states. This means we must have a serious conversation about both "crime" and "punishment."

This means in turn that the often criticised Bush Doctrine must be revisited as it was not so much inherently incorrect or unjustified as it was poorly thought through and presented. We must have not only the right of self-defense but also a properly grounded right to abate threats and punish those who threaten.