Affective Foreign Policy

The United States demanded the Taliban hand over Osama Bin Laden, who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the United States of America.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks killed 2,977 people and injured thousands at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

Still, the American demand was unacceptable according to the Afghan culture due to the tradition of guest rights and looking after guests, which meant the Taliban controlled the nation of Afghanistan in 2001 and could not just hand Osama Bin Laden over.

The situation would need to be handled with great delicacy and a great understanding of the culture, particularly the tribal and traditional culture within Afghanistan, which is alien for a Western civilisation like the United States to understand honestly.

According to Rory Stewart, a former Conservative MP who served as a cabinet minister within the United Kingdom’s government and had direct experience in the Middle East when he travelled from Turkey to Pakistan.

The United States approached the Taliban using different methods than the 20-year conflict in Afghanistan could have been avoided.

But with that stated, the former head of the British Army did state that the 9/11 attacks are best described as a strategic rape which deeply traumatised the United States, and there was no way the USA would have listened to reason at that time.

The Effective Application of Military Power

Effective deterrents are essential if a nation is to engage in foreign policy depending on its needs in the context of a maritime nation.

That nation needs a powerful navy, particularly nations like Japan, Great Britain, and the United States of America, which are maritime nations. To be effective in fighting continental powers, they require the assistance of continental powers operating on the continent.

It is costly for maritime powers to fund land wars due to the costs of adding and maintaining an amphibious strategy.

Unlike land powers, a maritime power must vote these financial resources on having an effective navy over having a sizeable army.

The British lacked the appropriate military force regarding its military capabilities that could have been used to directly threaten continental powers as part of a coalition on the European continent against Britain’s enemies, particularly Spain and France, in the 18th century.

During the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714), the British could maintain an army between 40,000 and 70,000 strong under the leadership of the 1st Duke of Marlborough, John Churchill.

Still, for internal political reasons, the British did not favour maintaining a strong military.

The British were trying to become an international global power on the cheap, and they paid dearly for the consequences of this long-term strategic mistake during Britain’s two world wars in the 20th century.

The British were massively unprepared to fight the land power of Germany.

Suppose it wasn’t for Britain’s alliance with the Russians and the Americans, particularly the French, during World War I.

It is unlikely the British would have emerged as the victor. At the very least, the war would have ended with a draw.