Archive for the Category »Foreign Affairs «

On the Edge of Chaos

Human beings are curious by nature; it is an integral part of the human experience to observe effect, and try to find its causation.   To build a framework for understanding how our universe is ordered, so that we might more frequently encounter beneficent events while avoiding the calamitous.  Ever since Herodotus began the craft in the 5th century BC, historians have struggled to construct overarching narratives to describe the rise and fall of nation-states and empires.  As a result, historians, anthropologists and the general public have become accustomed to viewing imperial decline as a lengthy stage in a stately cycle rather than a short, significant cataclysm.   But we have perhaps over-engineered our analyses by misunderstanding the nature of the beast.  In the March/April 2010 edition of Foreign Affairs, Niall Ferguson—Harvard’s preeminent “rockstar academic”—argues that history is not as deterministic and pre-ordained as historians and laymen are often tempted to think.

Great powers and empires are, I would suggest, complex systems, made up of a very large number of interacting components that are asymmetrically organized, which means their construction more resembles a termite hill than an Egyptian pyramid. They operate somewhere between order and disorder — on “the edge of chaos,” in the phrase of the computer scientist Christopher Langton. Such systems can appear to operate quite stably for some time; they seem to be in equilibrium but are, in fact, constantly adapting. But there comes a moment when complex systems “go critical.”

…Whether the canopy of a rain forest or the trading floor of Wall Street, complex systems share certain characteristics. A small input to such a system can produce huge, often unanticipated changes — what scientists call “the amplifier effect.” A vaccine, for example, stimulates the immune system to become resistant to, say, measles or mumps. But administer too large a dose, and the patient dies. Meanwhile, causal relationships are often nonlinear, which means that traditional methods of generalizing through observation (such as trend analysis and sampling) are of little use. Some theorists of complexity would go so far as to say that complex systems are wholly nondeterministic, meaning that it is impossible to make predictions about their future behavior based on existing data.

– Ferguson, Niall.  “Complexity and Collapse: Empires on the Edge of Chaos.” Foreign Affairs 89.2 (March/April 2010): 18-32.  Print.

Mr. Ferguson goes on to tilt with the ghosts of Spengler and Toynbee (and their contemporary successors), arguing that “the proximate triggers of a crisis are often sufficient to explain the sudden shift from a good equilibrium to a bad mess.”  Looking beyond more immediate and obvious causal factors, to mine distant decades for a longer-term cause is “what Nassim Taleb rightly condemned in The Black Swan as “the narrative fallacy”: the construction of psychologically satisfying stories on the principle of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.”  I can’t imagine Ferguson will make many colleagues happy with assertions like those, but—assuming one accepts his primary argument for a more chaotic, less deterministic reading of history—his paragraph-length illustrations of rapid imperial decline are fascinating.

But what if fourth-century Rome was simply functioning normally as a complex adaptive system, with political strife, barbarian migration, and imperial rivalry all just integral features of late antiquity? Through this lens, Rome’s fall was sudden and dramatic — just as one would expect when such a system goes critical. As the Oxford historians Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins have argued, the final breakdown in the Western Roman Empire began in 406, when Germanic invaders poured across the Rhine into Gaul and then Italy. Rome itself was sacked by the Goths in 410. Co-opted by an enfeebled emperor, the Goths then fought the Vandals for control of Spain, but this merely shifted the problem south. Between 429 and 439, Genseric led the Vandals to victory after victory in North Africa, culminating in the fall of Carthage. Rome lost its southern Mediterranean breadbasket and, along with it, a huge source of tax revenue. Roman soldiers were just barely able to defeat Attila’s Huns as they swept west from the Balkans. By 452, the Western Roman Empire had lost all of Britain, most of Spain, the richest provinces of North Africa, and southwestern and southeastern Gaul. Not much was left besides Italy. Basiliscus, brother-in-law of Emperor Leo I, tried and failed to recapture Carthage in 468. Byzantium lived on, but the Western Roman Empire was dead. By 476, Rome was the fiefdom of Odoacer, king of the Goths.

What is most striking about this history is the speed of the Roman Empire’s collapse. In just five decades, the population of Rome itself fell by three-quarters. Archaeological evidence from the late fifth century — inferior housing, more primitive pottery, fewer coins, smaller cattle — shows that the benign influence of Rome diminished rapidly in the rest of western Europe. What Ward-Perkins calls “the end of civilization” came within the span of a single generation.

So it was, says Ferguson, with the Ming dynasty in China, Bourbon France, the 20th century Ottoman Empire, post-WW2 British Empire, and Soviet Union.  All went from initial calamity to complete collapse within the span of a single lifetime; usually just a decade or two following the initial catalytic event.  More often than not the catalytic event was (either itself or tied to) a financial crisis.  But these are all hors d’œuvre to the central message, which is that this arrangement of circumstances should sound very familiar and more than a little alarming to our southern brethren living here and now in the 21st century.

America’s debt is blossoming in a less-than-careful fashion; a few decades down the road, it would not take much—maybe just (as Ferguson posits) a negative rating by a creditor agency—to fatally undermine domestic and foreign investor confidence.  This is the road to oblivion; great nations die when citizens lose faith in their vitality.

Finally, a shift in expectations about monetary and fiscal policy could force a reassessment of future U.S. foreign policy. There is a zero-sum game at the heart of the budgetary process: if interest payments consume a rising proportion of tax revenue, military expenditure is the item most likely to be cut because, unlike mandatory entitlements, it is discretionary. A U.S. president who says he will deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and then, in 18 months’ time, start withdrawing them again already has something of a credibility problem. And what about the United States’ other strategic challenges? For the United States’ enemies in Iran and Iraq, it must be consoling to know that U.S. fiscal policy today is preprogrammed to reduce the resources available for all overseas military operations in the years ahead.

Defeat in the mountains of the Hindu Kush or on the plains of Mesopotamia has long been a harbinger of imperial fall. It is no coincidence that the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in the annus mirabilis of 1989. What happened 20 years ago, like the events of the distant fifth century, is a reminder that empires do not in fact appear, rise, reign, decline, and fall according to some recurrent and predictable life cycle. It is historians who retrospectively portray the process of imperial dissolution as slow-acting, with multiple overdetermining causes. Rather, empires behave like all complex adaptive systems. They function in apparent equilibrium for some unknowable period. And then, quite abruptly, they collapse. To return to the terminology of Thomas Cole, the painter of The Course of Empire, the shift from consummation to destruction and then to desolation is not cyclical. It is sudden.

This prospect should concern Canadians because without America, Canada would not exist.  Upwards of eighty perecent of our trade goes to America, and an impoverished America is one that cannot afford to buy Canadian goods, unless they will be sold at fire sale prices.  Because of our tight economic integration, a debt-ridden, cash-poor America must also mean an impoverished Canada—unless of course we suddenly and miraculously shift the bulk of our exports to other foreign markets.  But that is not all.

Canada is a wealthy nation in terms of actual and potential resources, but despite those riches, we defend ourselves very lightly.  Our military forces today do not possess adequate equipment, doctrine or personnel to successfully defend the remotest resource-rich areas of the country; the small, highly constrained CF today is clustered around the major population centres.  In a world without the protective umbrella of overwhelming American military force, Canada’s possession of her northern reaches could not long survive.  The decline of American forces to a strictly constabulary or garrison level, able to defend only CONUS, would have disastrous consequences for us, too.

As the Arctic region is further developed for commercial transit routes and petroleum extraction, some ambitious people will regard it and wonder why, given its light defenses, they should not secure those resources and revenue for themselves.  It doesn’t matter much who decides to take it, much as it didn’t really matter whether it was British or French pirates (not to mention their merchantmen and navies) that sapped the lifeblood of Spain’s far-flung colonial empire.  The point is that the putative owner will be displaced in favour of a more ambitious and persistent rival.  I would expect that within this century, at least one island in Canada’s Arctic archipelago will fall from our orbit, and we will have little capacity to do anything but grimace and bear it.  Or, like 19th century China, we may be compelled to sign a deleterious treaty, granting foreign powers the right to traverse our waters, extract our resources, and set up logistics facilities and communities abiding by the dominant power’s civil and criminal laws.  It may end up like the Caribbean, with the islands becoming a cornucopia of foreign-owned outposts, once the big fish in the pond determine that we do not have the capability or national will to hang onto it.

One hopes these potential outcomes remain far-fetched, and that America never becomes too enervated to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.  But it’s worth remembering that Canadians too have a vital interest in ensuring America’s health and prosperity.

See also:

Category: Foreign Affairs  Tags:  2 Comments

Unintended consequences

A few fascinating paragraphs from a New Atlanticist piece on Qatar, the “new Dubai.”

The emir and his government chief, strategic thinker Sheik Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani, who is both prime minister and foreign minister, and the national security staff see all their many accomplishments in dire peril should Israel decide to bomb Iran. From Iran’s nearest missile batteries to Qatar’s LNG port at Ras Laffan is only 100 miles.

“Two missiles on LNG loading docks as a supertanker takes on a full load,” said one ranking Western diplomat and Qatar “is out of business.” So Qatar endeavors to maintain “cordial” relations with what is perceived to be a military regime now in power in Tehran. Its Northfield cornucopia abuts, even overlaps, with Iran’s claim.

– de Borchgrave, Arnaud.  “Is Qatar the New Dubai?New Atlanticist, 5 March 2010.

This holds true for most Persian Gulf nations, their core economic assets are within easy reach of Iranian military forces.  Unless America is prepared to deploy a considerable number of assets to defend allied economies up and down the Gulf, this is one reason why Israeli air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities are simply never going to happen.

The other interesting angle is also one of unintended consequences:

There was also an emerging consensus that Iran had welcomed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and that Iranian officials in the Gulf were privately rooting for George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. One Iranian official was quoted as saying, “America got rid of our worst enemy and turned Iraq over to Iranian influence.”

On balance, I believe getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a net positive, for both American and Iraqi peoples.  Getting rid of Saddam so that Iran would emerge as the dominant regional power was probably not what the Bush Administration (nor its opponents) ever had in mind, though.

See also:

Nuclear strategies: India vs. Pakistan

One of the reasons I enjoy reading the gentlemen at ArmsControlWonk is that they consistently have decent open-source analysis grounded in realistic assessment of weapon (and development) capabilities.  It’s no exaggeration to say that it’s probably the best online information you can find in a non-classified source.  Although the authors and I are surely on opposite ends of the political spectrum, they do not (usually) go in for easy, empty platitudes.  I may not always agree with their prescriptions, but they do go to some pains to help one comprehend the methods by which they reach their conclusions.  Generally speaking, their writing tends to recognise that nuclear weapons exist for a number of rational reasons, are likely to continue existing as long as those reasons exist, and the only way to actually achieve deterrence and non-proliferation goals is to address the underlying security issues in a realistic fashion.

Earlier this week, Mr. Michael Krepon posted a note at ArmsControlWonk about Indian nuclear strategy, quoting extensively from a book (Crafting peace in Kashmir: through a realist lens, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2004) by retired Vice Admiral Verghese Koithara, Indian Navy.  The admiral’s brief but insightful discussion of the realities driving Indian and Pakistani nuclear strategy is worth thinking about.

The nuclear strategies of both countries emphasise deterrence, but there is a fundamental difference between the two in that Pakistan’s strategy is aimed at deterring a conventional threat from India, while India’s is aimed at deterring a nuclear one from Pakistan. Since a conventional confrontation is easier to develop and must almost invariably precede a nuclear one, Pakistan’s deterrence has to function much more actively than India’s.  This has an impact on force structure, force posture, and the relationship between conventional and nuclear strategies.  As the conventional military balance continues to shift in India’s favour, Pakistan’s reliance on its nuclear capability will increase and so will its effort to lower the nuclear threshold.  Thus Pakistan’s strategy is likely to emphasize not just ‘first use’ but ‘early first use’ in the coming years. The big problem for Pakistan is that not only is the conventional military balance in India’s favour, but so is the nuclear one.  Pakistan was able to maintain conventional operational parity with India for many decades, but is now losing ground rapidly.  Much the same is going to happen in the nuclear field.

– Koithara, Verghese (VADM, IN).  “Nuclear Danger.” Crafting peace in Kashmir: through a realist lens.  New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2004.  p. 113. [Emphasis mine]

Worth reading both the ArmsControlWonk impressions and, for more detail, the chunk of the “Nuclear Danger” chapter that Google Books excerpts.

See also:

Ne penitus misera patria deleretur nomenque Romanorum

“the unfortunate fatherland should not be erased to the end”

Britain appears to be agog that President Obama has not explicitly backed their country’s claim to the Falkland Islands in its never-ending territorial dispute with Argentina.

Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

Despite Britain’s close alliance with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the issue. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue

…“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told The Times. “The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

– Whithhell, Giles.  “US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute.” The Times (of London), 25 February 2010.

Even the left-wing Manchester Guardian is aghast that the United States is not backing its historic ally:

Washington’s neutral policy and its failure to uphold automatically the right to self-determination is fuelling the already widespread suspicion that Obama’s America has more respect for its enemies than its friends.

…If the dispute became serious, [British] diplomats are certain that Obama would back Britain, and most Latin American governments would quietly applaud him.

I am sure they are right, but I am equally sure that Obama’s critics are not all wrong however much they overdo it. There will not be a second Falklands war this year because the Argentinians know we would defeat them. But if not over the Falklands then on some other crisis, Obama will have to make up his mind whether he wants to be a liberal president or to follow the worst rather than the best traditions of neoconservatism and hold that basic principles can always be sacrificed for the sake of a usually deluded view of the American national interest.

– Cohen, Nick.  “Obama should back our claim to the Falklands.” Manchester Guardian, 28 February 2010.

South American nations are falling into line behind Argentina, of course, and this—combined with studious US neutrality—has upset the British.

I cannot say that I am overly surprised, though.  This president has demonstrated clearly, from his first few meetings (or lack thereof) with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, that Britain (and Europe) are yesterday’s news, worth little thought and expenditure of energy.  It should likewise be obvious to observers of United States foreign policy and defence that isolationist sentiment has risen, as it has historically whenever the American economy enters a prolonged period of contraction.

Given that the United States has issued its Honorian rescript and told the foederati to look to their own defence, one wonders why the tribes of Europe refuse to do so.

I am not an apologist for the president’s foreign policy, but there is admittedly a certain logic in re-orienting US relations so that its energies get spent primarily in its own hemisphere and in Asia, where future superpowers are developing.  Historical ties aside, this picture does not look good for Europe.  It is a continent awash in economic, financial and social troubles, unable to come to grips with home-grown radicalism, and unwilling to adequately fund its own defensive forces.  At the very least, it does not appear logical to tie America’s fortunes to that of its slowly drowning European cousins.

The real problem arises because in previous eras, America’s isolationism was underwritten by the existence of the British Empire, which continued to expend its treasure and resources keeping sea lanes open and international trade flowing, maintaining national borders of competing regional states, and so on.  Today’s American empire is itself isolationist, and a world without a global superpower ensuring security of trade and stability of borders is a recipe for increasingly predatory behaviour amongst rival nation-states.

Still, this is the world to which the Obama Adminstration has set its course, and it has not been delinquent in signalling such to its many allies and client states.  Is it the fault of the president that no one seems to take him seriously in this regard?  Or is it the fault of those who receive the message, but cannot quite bring themselves to believe its contents?

It is time for Britain, and Europe at large, to understand that they really are on their own, however unpalatable that might seem.  America’s focus has shifted elsewhere.  You must look to yourselves for your own defence.

See also:

Category: Foreign Affairs  Tags:  2 Comments

Full cooperation

If I were the Israelis, my “full cooperation“—assuming that it was my agents in the first place—would be:

  1. Yup, we got him.
  2. You’re welcome.

See also:

Category: Foreign Affairs  Tags:  One Comment

PLA officers favour economic offensive against US

Imperialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers, c.1965 (Stefan Landsberger's Chinese Propaganda pages)

There’s nothing wrong with a nation’s uniformed officers musing about possible moves and counter-moves against strategic competitors.  Nor is there anything instantly objectionable about an industry lobbying its national government to take action against the objectionable policies of a major trading partner.  Even the best of friends may, at some point, end up in a bitter war of words or trade (cf. Canada, softwood lumber).

But in China, where industrial titans can also be uniformed officers in the PLA, those off-the-cuff, thinking-out-loud musings seem a lot less innocent.  Especially when it is coming from the men responsible for developing the PLA’s senior leadership.

The calls for broad retaliation over the planned U.S. weapons sales to the disputed island [Taiwan] came from officers at China’s National Defence University and Academy of Military Sciences, interviewed by Outlook Weekly, a Chinese-language magazine published by the official Xinhua news agency.

The interviews with Major Generals Zhu Chenghu and Luo Yuan and Senior Colonel Ke Chunqiao appeared in the issue published on Monday.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) plays no role in setting policy for China’s foreign exchange holdings. Officials in charge of that area have given no sign of any moves to sell U.S. Treasury bonds over the weapons sales, a move that could alarm markets and damage the value of China’s own holdings.

While far from representing fixed government policy, the open demands for retaliation by the PLA officers underscored the domestic pressures on Beijing to deliver on its threats to punish the Obama administration over the arms sales.

“Our retaliation should not be restricted to merely military matters, and we should adopt a strategic package of counter-punches covering politics, military affairs, diplomacy and economics to treat both the symptoms and root cause of this disease,” said Luo Yuan, a researcher at the Academy of Military Sciences.

“Just like two people rowing a boat, if the United States first throws the strokes into chaos, then so must we.”

Luo said Beijing could “attack by oblique means and stealthy feints” to make its point in Washington.

“For example, we could sanction them using economic means, such as dumping some U.S. government bonds,” Luo said.

– Buckley, Chris.  “China PLA officers urge economic punch against U.S.“  Reuters | US, 9 February 2010.

China is free to pursue its own national interest, of course, but it’s hard to see how the interests of an autocratic corporatist state can long coincide with those of a mature democracy.  One might even say that it is hard to imagine how tighter integration of the Chinese and American economies will lead to anything other than increased conflict.  It is not as if both nations are headed in the same direction, reaching for the same goals.  One is a young lion, anxious to test his growing strength and expand the horizons of his autonomy; the other is an old lion, struggling to maintain the fading status quo.  They will inevitably end up in conflict; one can only hope that it does not become a contest of arms.

Thus it is probably also a good time to remind our southern neighbours of this:

There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

– Washington, George.  Farewell Address, 19 September 1796.

See also:

UAVs over Haiti

There are some who hyperventilate whenever the employment of UAVs is mentioned, imagining them to be nothing more than platforms for the trigger-happy to launch missiles at Afghan wedding parties.  Thus when unmanned aerial systems come to our shores or get sent to an area where kinetics do not seem to be required, the hand-waving ratchets up.   This, however, is the kind of capability they can bring to humanitarian efforts:  Examining the urban infrastructure and identifying passable and unpassable roads—somewhat necessary if you hope to use those roads to reach the injured and needy.

This image from an RQ-4 Global Hawk shows passable and obstructed roads in Haiti. This photo demonstrates the assistance Global Hawk is providing to relief and rescue organizations in Haiti. The image taken by a Global Hawk from Beale Air Force Base, Calif., and analysts from the 480th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing's 548th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group at Beale AFB provided assessments of the image to assist in all aspects of recovery and relief. The 480th ISR Wing is a subordinate unit of the Air Force ISR Agency, which has its headquarters at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. (U.S. Air Force photo)

See also:

DoD to open second Haitian airport (MTJA Jacmel)

U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. Jason Douville (middle) from the 1st SOSS out of Hurlbert Field, FL., and Combat Controllers fly back to the Port Au Prince airport after conducting runway and hospital assessments in Jacmel, Haiti on January 17, 2010. Jacmel is located on the other side of Haiti with a city population of 50,000. Their Hospital was destroyed by the earthquake and are treating patients outside the hospital. About 350 people have lost their lives in Jacmel due to the earthquake according to Emmet Murphy Chief of Party ACDIL VOCA. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Jeremy Lock)

100117-F-1644L-086, originally uploaded by US_Air_Force.

With Port-au-Prince’s overworked airport (MTPP) now straining to handle over 200 aircraft movements per day, USAF combat controllers have examined the airfield at Jacmel (MTJA), on Haiti’s southern coast, and decided to utilise it.

1/19/2010 – WASHINGTON (AFNS) — As some 200 daily flights transit through the congested and sole functioning Haitian airport in the capital of Port-au-Prince, the U.S. military officials are going to open a second runway in the city of Jacmel within a day.

The airfield will receive C-130 Hercules deliveries that initially will support Canadian humanitarian assistance efforts centered in the southern city about 30 miles southeast of the Haitian capital, a military official said.

“The first (additional) runway in Haiti proper will go into operation in the vicinity of Jacmel within the next 24 hours,” Army Maj. Gen. Daniel Allyn, the second in command of U.S. operations in Haiti, told Pentagon reporters Jan. 19.

– Kruzel, John J.  “U.S. to open additional runway in Haiti.” American Forces Press Service, 19 January 2010.

Here’s a look at the field itself:

Jacmel Airport (MTJA)

REF: N18° 14′ 28″  W072° 31′ 07″, Elev 167ft.
OPR: Autorité Aeroportuaire Nationale
SERVICES: (Fuel, etc. ) Unknown
RWY DATA: Rwy 01 (005°) /19 (185°) 3300 x 95ft, asphalt.
LIGHTING: None
COMM: ATF 118.5

As with all Haitian airports, it has a single runway and tiny apron/ramp area.  The runway is certainly long enough to accomodate tactical airlifters such as C-130s; however it is 200 feet too short (and probably not structurally strong enough) to permit C-17s to land there.  The apron area is large enough to accommodate two C-130s or perhaps four or five light twins; rotary-wing aircraft can be parked on the grass to conserve ramp slots.  Unless USAF brings portable visual or infrared lighting systems, the field will be restricted to daytime operations only.

We can assume that fuel services are nil, at the moment, so as with MTPP, arriving aircraft will have to tanker their own fuel.  Canadian CC-130E/Hs have an effective range with max payload of approximately 1000 nautical miles (nm), however the main allied relief staging area, Homestead ARB, is 616nm from Jacmel.  This means that CF CC-130s operating into Jacmel will have to sacrifice payload for fuel; which they would have to do anyway in order to make the journey down to Homestead from Trenton (1,125nm).

Navy circle indicates CC-130 range with max normal payload, 1000 nautical miles. Because aircraft will need to tanker their own return fuel to Jacmel, they can not arrive with maximum normal payload.

Finally, some images of Jacmel Airport, sourced from Flickr.

Jacmel Airport, originally uploaded by Haitian Children’s Home.
Jacmel’s airport, originally uploaded by badfish006.
Jacmel 066, originally uploaded by JamesD1967.

UPDATE 030936Z FEB 10: Just noticed an informative Winnipeg Free Press report; routing between Trenton and Jacmel is being handled via Kingston, Jamaica.  The strat-lift CC-177s are transporting supplies and equipment between Trenton and Kingston, and the tac-lift CC-130s move the payload from Kingston to Jacmel.  More info on Jacmel in this post—MTJA airfield flow and relief operations.

See also:

Airdrop north of Port-au-Prince

Some images excerpted from a photo essay on AF.mil, covering the January 18th airdrop of food and water to a drop zone five miles north of Haiti’s capital city.

Air Force combat controllers exit a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter to set up for an air delivery of humanitarian aid into Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Jan 18, 2010. The combat controllers are assigned to the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron at Hurlburt Field Fla. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. James L. Harper Jr.)

Air Force combat controllers talk to passing Haitians prior to humanitarian aid being air dropped into Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Jan 18, 2010. The combat controllers are assigned to the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron at Hurlburt Field Fla. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. James L. Harper Jr.)

A C-17 Globemaster III delivers humanitarian aid into the outskirts of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Jan 18, 2010. Department of Defense assets have been deployed to assist in the Haiti relief effort following a magnitude 7 earthquake that hit the city on Jan. 12, 2010. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. James L. Harper Jr.)

A U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III airdrops humanitarian aid into the outskirts of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Jan 18, 2010. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. James L. Harper Jr.)

An Air Force combat controller watches pallets after an air delivery of humanitarian aid Jan 18, 2010, in Port-au-Prince, Haiti for distribution. The combat controller is assigned to the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron at Hurlburt Field Fla. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. James L. Harper Jr.)

An Air Force combat controller packs up equipment after an air delivery of humanitarian aid in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Jan 18, 2010. The combat controller is assigned to the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron at Hurlburt Field Fla. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. James L. Harper Jr.)

An Air Force combat controller packs up equipment Jan 18, 2010 after an air delivery of humanitarian aid in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The combat controller is assigned to the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron at Hurlburt Field Fla. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. James L. Harper Jr.)

See also:

Good cop, bad cop

You might be surprised (or not) to learn the UN peacekeepers are the bad cop.  No points for guessing who the good cop is.  (From commenter JKB at Neptunus Lex.)


Watch CBS News Videos Online

A U.S. Army Captain called this “controlled chaos.” Military and police forces from around the world who speak different languages are working to maintain order. Late Monday morning that “chaos” turned to confrontation.

U.N. peace keepers were given orders to clear the street. They did so with force. Unable to speak the native language Creole or even English, the Jordanian… Pakistani and Indian forces mostly did their talking with nightsticks and rubber bullets. No one was seriously injured. But tensions are building.

The American soldiers on hand – members of the 82nd Airborne – showed restraint. Their helmets were off and their guns were intentionally unloaded.

“It seems like you guys are showing great restraint, while some of your colleagues, aren’t,” Pitts said.

“We all have our different methods and styles in which we control situations,” said Sgt. Mike Ames, U.S. Army. “We’re here to help them, not to push them around.

– Pitts, Byron.  “U.N. Peacekeepers Confront Crowd in Haiti.CBS News, 18 January 2010. [Emphasis mine]

See also: