Abstract
During the Cold War, the fundamental objective of the US foreign policy was based on the Truman Doctrine which was to contain communism. This kept the US military strategy and foreign policy purely focused on Soviet military strategy and her foreign policy. The post Cold War era is totally different than the Cold War period. In the post Cold War era, the US is not only confronting with its sole competitor but with a larger faction of anti-Americanism, this faction of anti-Americanism has brought the global forces together who have been victims of US military, intelligence, economic and political interventions. Today, the Washington establishment that includes both Pentagon and CIA believes that Russians have managed to exploit the global faction of anti-Americanism and sooner or later the over stretched and extended US foreign policy would bow its head to her former ideological enemy. The IR literature then in real terms would conclude the ideological confrontation between the two rivals that had started in the aftermath of WWII by simply declaring the Russians as victors. This article will shed light on the unfolding of non-nuclear conventional weaponry like the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) by the Washington establishment as anxiety to evolving Russian military and intelligence warfare. An effort will also be made to provide comparative outlook of MOAB and Father of All Bombs (FOAB) developed by Russia to better understand the conventional capability of both rivals.
Gloomy Glory of the 21st Century
The world has changed since the old fashioned ‘politics above economics’ failed to generate the relevant discourse of power, rather ‘economics above politics’ is today’s reality. Explanations of political activities that explore only military strength of a nation in response to evaluating the strength of its opponent are becoming gloomy. Today, even without a strong military, a nation can achieve its political and economic interests, that is what globalization is all about. Do not feel comfortable when a practitioner of real politics is surrounding you or your political and economic interests. In this situation, a nation needs to learn the rules of the game such as if not coordination then in which context confrontation. The rest of the global forces shall be seen to be lucky mainly due to unavailability of a realistic force surrounding their interests. Interestingly that analogy has more to do with the competing interests of both USA and Russia. This is very true if one could simply read the narrative of the 27 year’s old interlude, the Cold War. Fascinating though but critical in terms of shifting the bipolarity into multi-polarity, which maximized the economic opportunities and so did the challenges.
A proclaimed victor of the Cold War, has the USA really found peace when it comes to rival of its Americanization? Definitely not! In fact, the definition of ‘rival’ has much more expanded from the time of former Soviet Union to Putin’s Russia and the Cold War period to New Cold War era. As explained above, in the Cold War there was only the Soviet Union who was considered the main and the only rival to the capitalist and democratic world, I mean the free world. The free world with all its zeal and zest defeated the evil world through a charismatic victory. The literature of international relations mostly written by the forces of free world has ended the competition between the two rivals of the Cold War. Francis Fukuyama did an amazing job while calling the shot, ‘the end of history’.1
But that was not the end at all, it was a proclaimed end that was envisioned rather actually concluded. Analogies like new world, an era of free world, era of globalization, or Americanization started floating in literature everywhere from comics to academic writings. An American dream to police the world and to teach the humankind ‘what is civilization?’ was meant to prevail. Let’s take Samuel P. Huntington into discourse, who brilliantly unfolded the civilizational context as the greatest challenge to the Western civilization.2 Sensational and contextual chronology of cultural framework was made available as the fundamental bread of threat to the free-world like McWorld vs. McJihad.3 This seems good for a victor who has just concluded an episode of triumph from an ‘evil empire’. The world needs the victor as it has shown commitment and courage to overcome the evil and unfortunately as Huntington told the world, is full of some bad civilizational evils. Glory awaits the glorious.
However, in real terms nothing was like that. The Americans framed the Soviets in the context of an evil empire. The so-called free world successfully outcast it’s rival due to their robust political and economic power. The Soviet’s politics and economy was defeated but not the ideology. The Cold War ideology of both rivals was nothing less than defeating each other’s political, economic, and military strengths. You can’t defeat ideologies through tangible competitions like wrestling, ideologies are somewhat defined by religions, inherited by cultures and are vested in the life style of nations. Nations fight and preserve the fundamentals of their ideologies. Ideologies are not like elections that changes the leadership or seasons which changes the fashion. It is a tangible doctrine of fundamentals that set aside all contradictions to its philosophy. Therefore, if capitalism and communism are considered two competing ideologies then Soviets only political and economic defeat cannot complete the equation of its ideological defeat. It must include the third pillar, military defeat which in fact never happened. Even at the time of Soviet disintegration, its military capability and advancements in associated technology was ranked as one of the best in the world particularly in reference to USA.
In the aftermath of Soviet disintegration, Russia replaced the former. Today, Moscow is far well prepared not only on military grounds but also on economic and political fronts. The country is spreading its muscles deemed necessary to curtail Americanization in the world. Moscow is in a good shape to evaluate every single US weakness that could harm the so-called proclaimed Cold War victor. The potential of the Russians is such that they are capable of even intervening in the US elections, which is the symbol and hope for the free world. This achievement of Moscow had brought such an immense political and economic challenge for the USA that it will have to realize that in the years to come Russia would be defining and replacing the future of Americanization with its own terms and conditions. It has almost started mingling in the foreign relations of USA by putting confusion and mistrust between Washington’s traditional political and economic allies. The military unit, NATO has shackled its very spirit of protecting the Western interest against the Russians. Rather in view of many European voices, Moscow is considered an important player in the European politics and economics that must be engaged.
The reassertion of Moscow is a threat to Washington. So, what should USA have to do to neutralize the capacity and capability of the emergence of Putin’s Russia?
The Devils Deal
It’s the devils deal. That means terror and fear shall be unleashed on every part of geography that is classified as ‘strategic depth’ to your rival. In a nuclear era an option of kinetic warfare is very limited but opens a great avenue of non-kinetic warfare. In non-kinetic warfare, the use of non-state actors is the most cheapest and viable option to destroy the 21st century enemy. It is the view of this writer that the 21st century will practice this aspect of non-kinetic warfare and nations vulnerable to it must overcome their weaknesses or be ready to get consumed.
The Orchestration of Terror and Politics of Weapons
Weapons play an important role in the warfare. The political leverage that a state enjoys during times of conflict escalation is somewhat also connected with its military muscles. Weapons in this context not only are decisive to change the course of battlefield but they also play incisive role to upgrade the power projection over a militarily weak opponent. This perceptive race stayed at its peak during all times of the Cold War. The arms race between the two rivals submerged the projection of political power into the technological explanations of might, which even lasted in the aftermath of Soviet disintegration into modern Russia. This whole trajectory of power politics between the two dominant rivals highlights the military capability as a static variable and to define their relationship had played decisive and incisive role, altogether.
During the Cold War nuclear weapons played both decisive and incisive role to help maintain the status quo between the two bipolar powers. It was the end of the Cold War that deliberately undermined the military variable of strength by focusing on the political and economic aspects. The driving force behind projection of politics and economics was the victor of the Cold War, the USA. The American politics redefined the power projection of international relations by emphasizing the growing role of Western politics and Capitalist economy. The traditional rival was no more seen and identified as threat to the so-called free world. No doubt the nuclear option did play a significant role in restraining the two rivals for not going violent against each other, the reason was the mutual assured destruction.
The assumed absence of military variable and its role in international politics stayed absent for a while but not beyond 9/11, specifically. The orchestration of a non-state actor’s threat and refurbishment of military use against the unseen enemy brought the discussion back into the discourse of military as decisive and incisive variable of international politics. The USA led the military discourse along with one of the biggest defense alliance, the NATO. The politically and economically defeated rival (Russia) was no more irrelevant to the emergence of military discourse, which after all has been cherishing the technological inventions since the very inception of the idea of conventional and strategic weapons.
In the post 9/11 episode of military strategy, nuclear weapons have no relevance to deter the enemy (the non-state actors) that moves from one region to another. It is assumed by the writer that the so-called phenomenon of non-state actors is a deliberate military project to achieve interests of power politics in the age of globalization. Maintaining the same assertion, it can be concluded that the movement of non-state actors might be managed and controlled by the Washington establishment as wild cards to achieve national interest of the USA in particular and the Western world in general. It started as from revenge against the so-called Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to the farce of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq; from humanitarian intervention in Libya to orchestration of ISIS in the Middle East; from responsibility to protect in Syria to exploitation of international laws against weak Muslim regimes; in conclusion this was nothing but strategic manipulation.
The newly orchestrated non-state actor enemy if compared to a snake would bite the master who feeds it milk it every day. The masters feed the non-state actors so they can stay alive and unleash poison of terror wherever seemed necessary. All this helped the Western political elites and military establishments to drive the phenomenon of terrorism to destabilize the regions that holds the potential to replace or at-least resist the Western world order. One of its enemies (the Soviet Union) was already defeated in the Cold War and now it was the turn of the rest, enthusiastically planned through the use and implantation of non-state actors. The event of 9/11 provided the excuse to implement the so-called war against political rivals…..I mean war against terrorism.
The unfolding events in the aftermath of 9/11 even trapped the Russians, who once remained an active rival and adversary to USA in its essence. Moscow, willingly or unwillingly became part of the post 9/11 Bone Conference allegiance of war against terrorism, which lasted until it touched Syria, a flash point of Russian interest. From then onwards, the politics of non-state actors was no more the only mean in the hands of the West. Moscow joined the league. The mantra of non-state actors is now driven by the traditional rivals against each other. Regional countries did play the orchestra of terror to achieve their limited objectives but at the top both USA and Russia jostle against each other. Public proclamation of war under realism to role of international organizations under liberalism has been set aside and a new strategy of non-state actors as part of non-kinetic warfare is adopted as determinant of foreign policy.
The puppet show of non-state actors is driven not only on the ground but it is supported continuously through implantation of false and misleading information in the mainstream electronic and print media. Billions of dollars are spent to highlight the horror and compel public opinion to recognize the forces of terror as legitimate threat to humanity. It appears as if the whole world has become a battleground and people of the free world became slaves of the Western political objectives. But those States who were direct victims or competitors of the Western world remained resilient to adopt the orchestration of terror espoused by the Western world. Among many the Russians remained untouched and resilient to US adventurism, so did countries like Pakistan who fought everyday to defeat the orchestration of Western terror.
Therefore, the so-called rivalry of the Cold War has now resurfaced under New Cold War. Syria has become the flash point for Russians. Since then both Russia and USA have been applying all elements of power, including their modern military weapons. Installation of SU-300 anti ballistic missile defense by the Russians in Syria is manifestation of Moscow’s resilience to protect its interest at any cost. Moreover, the recent American attack on Syrian air base with 59 cruise missiles challenged the Russians, the American assault was rationalized as reaction to the chemical attack on innocent Syrian people. In fact, it was a clear message to the non-state actors fighting on behalf of US interests in Syria and against those who fight for Syria and Russia.
When defense forces of a nation fight wars they are protected by all elements of power a state could tangibly exercise. They are sent in the battlefield to fight for the political and economic interests of the country. Therefore, the commitment of the armed forces are not only legal but emotional and poignant until the context of survival. The theatre of war has changed so has the means of warfare. Today, the theatre of war is selected as an offshore territory and the military as a sole mean of warfare is replaced with the non-state actors. The way defense forces of a nation are supposed to be protected, the same way the non-state actors fighting on behalf of state actors are also sponsored and protected. This means a pseudo war theatre must be constructed to support the real battlefield where the army of non-state actors is fighting and waging a war against the enemies. As a matter of fact the pseudo war theatre must have potential to show its resolve to use weapons of real warfare to create a balance and threat to the opponent forces that uses the same analogy of warfare. Nuclear weapons are not meant to play any role in the pseudo war theatre and in its associated resolve to unleash terror on forces of enemies. If used then it would presumably initiate the reciprocal response that means nuclear for nuclear.
Therefore, to avoid such a backlash of total warfare the masters of this innovative form of warfare need to develop a new weapon. Actually, this is sub-conventional guerilla cum insurgency warfare that has mixed all characteristics into one cocktail of warfare. Here to deter the forces of enemies (who again are the non-state actors), the driving forces must have credible weapons of conventional deterrence to hit them hard even deep in the canyons or mountainous caves.
To fix this paradox of new warfare, USA developed a non-nuclear conventional weapon; the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) in 2003. The weapon became operational as part of US military strategy when in 2017 it was used in Afghanistan on ISIS/Daesh hideouts, who were hiding in deep mountainous caves – almost 94 militants were killed.4 The Russians have also made the weapon to challenge US military modernization, they developed the Father of All of Bombs (FOAB) in 2007 that is mostly recognized as four times more destructive than the American MOAB. The MOAB is the most powerful conventional bomb ever used in combat in terms of explosive material weight. The explosive yield is comparable to that of the very smallest tactical nuclear weapon systems such as Pakistan NASR.
The Mother of All Bombs vs. the Father of All Bombs
a. The American MOAB
The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) commonly known as the Mother of All Bombs is a large-yield bomb, developed for the United States military by Albert L. Weimorts, Jr. of the Air Force Research Laboratory. At the time of development, it was touted as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal. The bomb is designed to be delivered by a C-130 Hercules, primarily the MC-130E Combat Talon I or MC-130H Combat Talon II variants. The basic operational concept bears some similarity to the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter, which was used to clear heavily wooded areas in the Vietnam War. Decades later, the BLU-82 was used in Afghanistan in November 2001 against the Taliban. Its success as a weapon of terrorization led to the decision to develop the MOAB as part of the ‘shock and awe’ strategy.
GBU-43s are delivered from C-130 cargo planes, inside which they are carried on cradles resting on airdrop platforms. The bombs are dropped by deploying drogue parachutes, which also extract the cradle and platform from the aircraft. Shortly after launch, the drogues are released and bombs fall freely. GPS satellite-guidance is used to guide bombs to their targets. The MOAB is not a penetrator weapon and is primarily air burst weapon intended for soft to medium surface targets covering extended areas and targets in a contained environment such as a deep canyon or within a cave system. Since 2003, 15 MOABs have been manufactured at the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester, Oklahoma. The first operational usage of the MOAB was during the 13 April 2017 airstrike against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria militants in Afghanistan.
b. The Russian FOAB
In 2007, the Russian military announced that they had tested a thermobaric weapon nicknamed the Father of All Bombs (FOAB). The weapon is claimed to be four times as powerful as the MOAB.
Conclusion
It was the induction of Fat Man and Little Boy by the United States of America that decisively brought an end to the WWII in 1945 and pushed the Japanese Emperor to the wall with no option but to surrender. The use of nuclear weapons abruptly ended the war but also gradually spawned a political competition among the victors that lasted until disintegration of the former Soviet Union. The Cold War was shaped more to maintain a status quo rather breaking it.
Starting from the nuclear episode of WWII till the inclusion of Mother of All Bombs (MOAB), the United States of America is the driving force of modern military strategy.5 The induction of nuclear weapons during the 20th century brought a new era of political confrontation between the former Soviet Union and USA. In-fact, nuclear weapons unleashed the Cold War not only as the political confrontation between the two powerful states of the 20th century but also as an ideological rift that divided the world into two blocks. The disintegration of the former Soviet Union did conclude the status quo of the Cold War period but failed to accumulate the ideological differences between the two biggest rivals. The post Cold War period was seen another victory mostly by the Americans who envisioned and dreamt for a new world. As a matter of fact, the post Cold War period brought much more complexities for the Americans and most of its foreign policy was exposed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the famous World Trade Centers in New York. The post 9/11 US reaction not only overstretched its military muscles but also introduced aggression in its foreign policy.
The induction of MOAB in the US conventional military strategy has initiated the birth of new era of military confrontation between the traditional Cold War competitors. For kinetic interests, the non-kinetic means would become the sole source of military execution. The definition of non-kinetic sources is dependent on the capacity, capability, and political interests of the states. In view of the author, the rough explanation would include cyber warfare, use of electronic, print, and social media, implantation of likeminded political generation, dedicated funding to control the national narratives through community of intelligentsia and researchers, exploitation of the elements of national resilience, focused and deliberate investment on the neighborhood to isolate the enemy, and raising an army of non-state actors as wild cards to compel political events in favor of the driving force.
Non-state actors (intelligence based covert operations and their extended army of non-state actors) would play a key role in achieving traditional and non-traditional objectives of states in the 21st century. There are only seven states in the World who have the capacity, capability, and strong political interests to fully operationalize the non-kinetic aspects of modern military strategy. Among them at the top are the United States of America, the Russians, and Chinese. Israelis, Indians, Iranians, and Pakistanis are also able to execute any non-kinetic strategy that includes army of non-state actors.
The above seven players will not work in isolation rather they are likely to join the greater faction of non-kinetic warfare. It seems that the USA would frame an alliance with Israel, whereas Russia will go with Iran. China and Pakistan would most probably form an alliance of economic integration to stay neutral and do their best to woo India to join their group. India is the wild card for USA to engage both China and Pakistan into the equation of non-kinetic warfare. In other words, both China and Pakistan are dependent on Indian decision. If neutral then neutrality prevails in the region but if Indian forms an alliance then orchestration of terror would be unleashed in the region. As a matter of fact, Indian intentions to join such an alliance are no more secret. Capturing of Indian RAW agent Kulbhushan Yadav and death of 13 of its agents with ISIS militants after MOAB attack in Afghanistan is very much indicative of her active participation in the orchestration of terror.6
Bibliography
1. Herman Kahn, Thinking about the Unthinkable (New York: Horizon Press, 1962)
2. Herman Kahn and Anthony J. Wiener, The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation of the Next Thirty-Three Years (New York: The Hudson Institute, Inc., 1967).
3. Robert Lempert, “Can Scenarios Help Policymakers Be Both Bold and Careful?” in Francis Fukuyama (eds.), Blindside: How to Anticipate Forcing Events and Wild Cards in Global Politics (New York: Basic Books, 2007).
4. Steven Bernstein, et al., “God Gave Physics the Easy Problems: Adapting Social Science to an Unpredictable World,” European Journal of International Relations 6-1 (2000).
5. Pierre Wack, “Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead,” Harvard Business Review 63-5 (September-October 1985a).
6. Peter Schwartz, Inevitable Surprises: Thinking Ahead in a Time of Turbulence (New York: Gotham Books, 2003).
7. Steven Weber, “Prediction and the Middle East Peace Process,” Security Studies 6-4 (1997).
End Notes
1 For more details please see, Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and The Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1996).
2 A good civilizational perspective can be find in, Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996).
3 Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld (New York: Ballantine, 1996).
4 Helene Cooper and Mujib Mashal, “U.S. Drops ‘Mother of All Bombs’ on ISIS Caves in Afghanistan,” The New York Times (April 13, 2017). Available online at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/asia/moab-mother-of-all-bombs-afghanistan.html?_r=0 (accessed on April 15, 2017).
5 Krishnadev Calamur, “Why Did the U.S. Use the ‘Mother of All Bombs’ in Afghanistan?,” The Atlantic (April 13, 2017). Available online at: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/mother-of-all-bombs/522960/ (accessed on April 15, 2017)
6 Rajesh Ahuja and Rezaul H Laskar, “13 suspected Indian IS fighters killed as MOAB hit Afghanistan: Reports,” Hindustan Times (April 18, 2017). Available online at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/13-suspected-indian-is-fighters-killed-as-mother-of-all-bombs-hit-afghanistan-reports/story-q0klSwa0SH2CocXkyHMAWK.html (accessed on April 18, 2017).
