President Barak Obama,
"If anyone has a solution, I will listen"
contribution by
Eric LaMont Gregory

San Bernardino

Paris

Eric LaMont Gregory responds to President Obama

23 November 2015
 
President Barak Obama 
The White House 
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW  
Washington DC  20500 
 
Sir, 
                                          … an enduring worldwide problem, requires an enduring worldwide solution
 
In relation to your recent statement, inviting anyone who has an idea as to how we counter the growing threat of random attacks on civilians that emanate from radical Islamic jihadists, often based in failing or failed states, kindly consider the following, to wit:
 
In 2005, this author wrote an executive summary for your predecessor on the subject of how to counter the worldwide systematic attacks on civilians by individuals and groups in what can be described reasonably as a campaign of global terror.
 
The introduction to that summary reads, in part, as follows:
 
“There are few more pressing problems facing the American people and our allies than the war being conducted against us by individuals and groups under the banner of Islam.  Unless this problem is addressed properly, it will be a constant menace to our security well into the foreseeable future.
   
While, it is difficult to fail to recognize the inordinate amount of resources, human and material, that have been committed, not only to counter the Islamic jihad terror campaign, but also by a real desire to do something permanent to solve post-conflict problems, nonetheless, it is also apparent, if not perplexing, that current efforts have not slowed the proliferation, neither of the attacks, nor the tendentious propaganda which supports the indiscriminate use of violence by the advocates of Islamic jihad.
 
This summary, points to the need for a more far-reaching approach to this problem than any which has been proposed, or which has been, or can be anticipated within the framework of current strategies.”   
                                                                                                                                     E LaMont Gregory, The Hour of Maximum Danger, 2005     
 
 
The United States and our allies, have reached the limit of the use of bilateral and multilateral initiatives of short or even medium-term duration in this regard.
 
We are faced with an enduring worldwide problem that requires an enduring worldwide solution.
   
The wherewithal to counter the now decades-old campaign of attacks on civilians will have to be in place for years, if not decades into the future.  And, that statement is clear and unequivocal.
 
At the same time, no rational civilian or military authority would contemplate the necessity, as you suggest rightfully, of an occupying force, without having considered every other possible alternative and contingency that would forestall entering into what may prove to be an engagement of indeterminate length.
 
That said, we have been engaged in efforts to contain radical Islamic violence for decades and as things stand, there is no coherent plan to bring that threat to an end.
   
A force will have to be constituted that meets several requirements and objectives.
  
Among the more salient requirements is that such a force must conform to the highest standards of law.
   
The Geneva Conventions make it a crime against humanity to hide among civilians to carry out military attacks and campaigns, and those same Conventions, while acknowledging that some civilian causalities may be inevitable in war, proscribe strictly any and all deliberate and systematic attacks on civilians (non-combatants).
  
Those who contravene the Conventions against attacking civilians and hiding among civilians to carry out their attacks commit crimes against humanity.
   
The Conventions are also clear as to the understanding that those who are not bound, that is, who do not carry out their military campaigns in accordance with the Conventions, are not protected by them. 

The Conventions and related Statutes, provide a basis for action against those who systematically and against the principles of Customary International Humanitarian Law, attack civilians.  And, are in accordance with the highest traditions and interpretations of the Common Law.
  
Therefore, the wherewithal for constituting a force to interdict those who commit crimes against humanity is clear and sound legally. 
 
There are a number of possible rational alternate ways to structure an international force to protect humanity against those who would commit crimes against it, and they have been considered in course and in detail.
 
However structured, the force would be under joint command, and given the likely duration of that force’s engagements, a revolving command structure.
 
Let us consider, if you will, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), the first United Nations peace-keeping operation.  UNTSO was established to monitor ceasefires, supervise armistice agreements, and to prevent isolated incidents from escalating into full-scale military engagements.  The precedent that the military observers and other members of UNTSO wore United Nations guard uniforms was also set in place at the time of the formation of UNTSO in 1948.  And, UNTSO has been the model for all subsequent UN peace-keeping operations since that date.
  
The Force whose structure is set out below, does not conform to neither the composition nor the operational remit of UNTSO.  Circumstances have changed immeasurably since those early days of the UN.
   
The modern Force, suggested in this writing, will have to contain the activities of non-state actors who are able to recruit operatives worldwide and strike civilian populations globally, and who are largely based in failed or failing states, and who also gain support from states that sponsor terror for a variety of reasons and an array of causes.  In addition, the new Force will have to have the authority to disrupt those who supply material support to those who commit crimes against humanity.
 
To elucidate the previous statement, the Force would have the authority to disrupt all those who facilitate in any way the ability of the ISIL group to sell oil, buy arms and to travel internationally.
  
Each nation will be called upon to contribute to the Force, the World Police Force (WPF), if you will, on the basis of their ability to contribute and any of a number of formulae, which exist to pattern current member states’ contributions to various UN agencies and initiatives.
  
In the first instance, given the urgency of the matter, the WPF would be composed of G20 member states. 
Interestingly, with a few notable exceptions, the members of the G20 have each called for an international effort to combat those who would disrupt world peace and security, and within the last few days both Russia and the UK have called for such a force.
 
As an example, when the Boko Haram group (Islamic State’s West’s Africa province (ISWAP)) violated every conceivable notion of the human rights of those 300 school girls, the WPF would have dispatched a force of 5000 troops to do the logistics and another 5000 troops in a relentless pursuit operation until those who committed crimes against humanity had been captured or killed and the school girls returned to their families.
 
In Syria, given the nature and scale of the problem, and until the new Force has gained the experience and had time to adequately train and coordinate the policing activities that it will be called upon to perform for an indefinite period of time, it is therefore, suggested that several G20 nations supply the force of arms to put an occupying force in place.  American, Russian, Chinese and Japanese troops would suffice, with Canada and several other nations taking up the large scale humanitarian effort.  And, once the occupying force is in place, the International Agency for Reconstruction and Development can be put in place to begin the process of undoing what years of war have wrought.
 
Basically, what is proposed is an international force of arms, with two main divisions, a rapid action force to deal with incidents like the taking of 300 school girls mentioned above, and an occupying force that is prepared to quell fighting that disrupts world peace and security and remain in place as long as is necessary to maintain peace and security.
 
The message that such a force sends out is clear, disrupt world peace and security and there will be a response, a rapid one and following that, a force that is prepared to be in place as long as it takes to maintain peace and security.
 
Mr. President, the establishment of such a force would be an enduring legacy for the achievement and maintenance of world peace and security.
 
Naturally, in this summary important and necessary nuances of this plan have been presented in outline form only, however should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.  
 

Best regards,

 
Eric LaMont Gregory MSc Oxon 

  

The Ultimate Vanishing Act

~  ISBN: 978-1-62857-662-7  ~

undeniably informative

order your copy toady! 

---   ---   ---