The US military dropping a massive ordnance air blast bomb - "mother of all bombs", MOAB - in Afghanistan triggered elation and outrage across its national and international terrain; populism and nationalist perspectives supported it, while the pros and cons of military combat, strategies of engagement and judgment of commanders' discretion are being debated.
The idea is not to defend the liberal argument to critique the use of colossal funds in this execution or justify the nationalist ethos of venturing out to the enemies of world peace - namely violent non-state actors prevailing in West Asia.
The legality of the attack has to be argued with legitimacy and rationality. The modern world is complex and the idea of security has undergone a paradigm change. Further, the sudden use of force that finds sanctity as per Article 2 of the American Constitution cannot exist in isolation of the moral outrage that it brings along.
Use of combat strategy is not new. Even in the past, former US president Barack Obama dropped bombs. Donald Trump eulogises the slogan of "Make America Great Again" and highlights the constitutional prowess to authorise the army.
The MOAB paraphernalia comes at a time when the ISIS has been increasing its footage. The resonation of the US strike is attempted to send a signal to North Korea as well.
The dropping of a 21,000-lb (about 10,000 kg) bomb in Afghanistan comes shortly after a similar US strike on Syria’s airbase.
An aggressive approach towards opponents in foreign affairs to send out a message definitely raises fears of a crisis in future.
Public euphoria over the new chief executive giving primacy to America over others, protectionist fears, alarm over driving the outsider to go back also do not augur well for the globalisation narrative of the world at large.
|Donald Trump eulogises the slogan of "Make America Great Again".|
Alongside borders, somewhere the globe seems to be getting rigid and unwelcoming of the other.
The US president's vision seems to be moving away from what was presented at the inaugural address. It seems that national interest is being projected on a thin and narrow note that places war and weapons over jobs.
It is projecting a contrasting perspective - that a narrative of America that can end wars and propagate peace initiatives is not dear to the president. The space for lofty democratic ideals that made up the nation seems to be shrinking. It's dying each day in the attempt to portray itself as a bigger partner in the game.
Any military strategy has to be rationalised on the yardstick of commensurability and due diligence. Attacking out of the blue at a place where ISIS presence is marginal raises questions over military judgment. The collateral damage caused definitely ignites gloom for the innocents being targeted.
Striking and elimination of people is never a judicious strategy for anything. No just explanation has been tendered as to what thought process was behind such interventionist and intrusive actions in foreign lands.
The theatrics of display of might were triggered, and sadly gave no outcome other than stoking fears and giving peace a backseat.
Let's all deliberate to save the world from receding into a dangerous arena.