Catching up on the blogs after my conference (about which more later), my OC buddy Kevin Drum cites a Washington Monthly article by Michael Hirsch, titled ‘No Time to Go Wobbly, Barak.’
Kevin aptly sums up the article:
Hirsh’s piece is long and worth reading completely. He’s actually making one of the most difficult kinds of argument of all, an argument that the current system is fine and doesn’t really need big changes. The UN is flawed but workable. Muscular diplomacy produces results. Liberal internationalism as practiced by FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton is still workable, even (or maybe especially) in a post-9/11 world.
Here’s Hirsch:
It’s true that the system could use some serious fixing up. But are we to imagine that our leaders have learned nothing worthwhile about how to govern international affairs in the nearly 2,500 years since the Peloponnesian War? In truth, American presidents have been merging idealism and realism in practice – some deftly, some not – at least since Woodrow Wilson. Cast your mind back six years, to the relatively quiet end of the Clinton administration. America presided over a flawed but remarkably functioning global community, one that we ourselves had had the biggest hand in creating. The founding of the UN in 1945, with its Security Council designed around Roosevelt’s Four Policemen concept – the United States, Russia, Britain, and China each overseeing stability in their regions – was itself a major attempt to combine idealist international law with realist armed might. And it was created as a conscious effort to fix Woodrow Wilson’s mistakes with the League of Nations. Progress! And after a shaky start, Clinton used that system deftly to stop a civil war in Bosnia, end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and usher China into the WTO.
and
First, end the war on terror. Just declare it over. It is a historical cul-de-sac, an ill-defined conflict without prospect of end on the terms Bush has laid out. Having gradually expanded his definition of the war on terror to include all Islamic “extremists,” among them Hezbollah, Hamas, and radical political groups yet unborn, Bush has plainly condemned us to a permanent war – and one in which we are all but alone, since no one else agrees on such a broadly defined enemy. So let’s replace the war on terror with the kind of coordinated effort that the fight always should have entailed: a hybrid covert-war-and-criminal-roundup confined to al-Qaeda and its spawn, conducted with deep intelligence and special forces cooperation among states within the international system. Only if the next president focuses narrowly on true transnational terrorism, and wins back all the natural allies we’ve lost, can he or she finally achieve America’s goal of making the tolerance of 9/11-style acts as anathema to the international community as support of slavery. No state, no matter how marginal, would dare harbor al-Qaeda-type groups any longer, or even be able to look away if the terrorists tried to settle within its borders. This is the only way to finish off al-Qaeda once and for all.
Raw meat to much of this crowd, but let me take a moment to speak directly to the hawks. You’d better get used to this, and come up with some kind of strategy for dealing with it. The political base within the US (and other countries) for offensive action in the WoT is pretty much exhausted. On the other hand, the failure of the Democrats to have any kind of integrated, sensible response to the issues underlying the WoT hampers them severely – that’s why Guliani does well in the polls when it ought to be a blowout by the Democrats.
Hirsch’s article is critical of Obama’s core foreign policy team, Samantha Power (author of “A Problem From Hell”) and Anthony Lake, both of whom talk about reimagining the international relations mechanisms of the world, and suggests that things were – pretty much OK – until Bush came along.
I keep getting stuck on one or two pesky little problems. That wonderful collection of international organizations – didn’t work so well when Yugoslavia collapsed, did it? it wasn’t until France and the UK decided to act unilaterally – with the strong support of the US – than anything was done.
And the UN has done – exactly what – in the face of a worldwide Islamist movement that has thrown up a series of expansionist and unspeakably violent terrorist groups?
Now Hirsch would disagree; he doesn’t see Black September, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda and the variety of other splinter groups active from Africa to the Philippines as common actors in a worldwide movement that creates new gangs almost as fast as old ones are killed or captured, he sees them as “… small, fractious terror group[s]…”.
So I’ll disagree with Hirsch’s core premise; that the international system has worked well for the last 40 years. The failure to resolve issues in Yugoslavia; the failure to resolve issues between Israel and Palestine; the failure to resolve issues of genocide in Darfur and Zimbabwe – these aren’t any kind of success I want any part of. The fact is that Clinton’s approach to Islamic terrorism was remarkably effective – he found and arrested a number of terrorists. And the movement grew is stature, power, and deadliness all the same.
So no thank you, Mr. Hirch, I’ll welcome some changes in the international system, and the fact that Obama is being led by people who propose them is a feature, not a bug.
Having said, that I’ll make two followon points.
First, that it’s not likely that we’ll see a ‘For Sale’ sign on the UN headquarters any time soon. The reality is that institutions will change, but they will also persist. And as an interesting note, I’ll suggest that it may well be that one of the drivers of badly-needed institutional change may well be none other than – Cowboy George W Bush. Having broke the norms and walked away having said, “Frankly, I don’t give a damn…” everyone – both within and outside the US – seems anxious to get us back in our seat. That may be a good thing, and it may be something Bush can manage (and is, as he is managing the international coalition against Iran extraordinary well), or something for the next President to pick up.
Hirsch:
…Ronald Reagan, Bush’s putative model, acted more like Ike once he found his footing in office. People mainly remember the “evil empire” rhetoric from his first term and the overreaching of Iran-Contra from his second. What they forget is that Reagan outraged his right-wing China lobby by phasing out arms sales to Taiwan in 1982, and that he angered anti-Soviet hard-liners by moving from rhetorical brinkmanship to genuine negotiations with the Kremlin (prompting none other than Richard Perle to resign in protest in 1987).
…but isn’t that the same thing that Bush is doing now? (Hirsch again)
The best proof of how far overboard Bush went in his first term is how much he’s retreating from those extreme policies, and re-embracing the international system, as he enters the final two years of his presidency. Many of the neocon ideologues of the first term are gone, or marginalized. Bush’s current effort to isolate nuclear-minded Iran – including a very effective policy of asphyxiating Iran’s economy by pressuring international banks into cutting off dealings with it – depends entirely on the UN Security Council resolution passed last year, which legitimizes sanctions. And in mid-February, the president endorsed a fuel-for-nukes accord with North Korea, under which Pyongyang will immediately get 50,000 tons of emergency fuel oil with nearly a million more tons to come in return for shutting down its nuclear program. The agreement is plainly a betrayal of the administration’s previous principled stand against the “nuclear blackmail” that it accused Bill Clinton of succumbing to, and represents a 180-degree turnabout from Bush’s previous refusal to negotiate with a regime he viewed as illegitimate – so much so that its fiercest critic was none other than John Bolton, who had just resigned as UN ambassador. And it reportedly took the White House’s most senior neocon, Elliott Abrams, by surprise. Former senior administration members told me the pact could have been concluded only because several key hard-liners – including Rumsfeld and Bolton – had left, and because Cheney’s influence had waned.
I’ll revisit this issue in a year or so.
And finally, to get a real sesne of how I feel about the international institutions Hirsch loves so well, I’d suggest that you go rent Terry Gilliam’s brilliant movie ‘Munchausen’. Set in a proxy Vienna, as the Turk cannonades the city and prepres to sack it, the Administrator (‘First Citizen’ as I recall) Horatio Jackson rules with the iron hand of reason and law,and with little care for the reality around him.
…you have to see it, really. I don’t have time to transcribe his better speeches (although if any readers want to, I’d be happy to post them). But here’s one — Jackson and the Sultan are negotiating, as they do every week.
Sultan: What about the virgins?
Horatio Jackson: Sultan, forget about the virgins! We’re out of virgins!
I’d submit that Hirsch does present an integrated response; it’s just not gimmicky and shiny.
bq. The political base within the US (and other countries) for offensive action in the WoT is pretty much exhausted.
AL – True, true, in this country. What is not addressed is that the retreat from Iraq and the ME being engineered at DNC headquarters only enforces the idea prevalent in Jihadist circles that the US does not have the stomach for a protracted conflict. This idea they have, is at the present, true. What this statement does not address is that the Jihadists are still plenty willing to see us die and facilitate the process. They have not run out of energy. And THAT is a BIG problem. Just because we say it is over don’t mean it is over.
Which brings me back to the assertion of Tom Peters about who decides the winner of the conflict. It is not the side that asserts, “I Won!” but the side that asserts, “I Lost! Please stop killing me and mine.” Which in the present day in the ME is…… us. (US?)
bq. And the UN has done – exactly what – in the face of a worldwide Islamist movement that has thrown up a series of expansionist and unspeakably violent terrorist groups?
Yup, the Useless Nitwits at Turtle Bay have only enriched themselves, perpetuated a system of child porn and prostitution rings run in rural Africa, allowed genocide under their noses in the same areas of Africa (too busy running child prostitution rings with the local children?) and generally taken global malfeasance and corruption to new heights. I say they be runn out of NY, the property used to house NY’s homeless in a workfare type program or some such. But the idea of a ‘United Nations’ is long set into the West and needs to be unceremoniously buried.
The punch line is that the DNC may get their pipedream to come true and be back in the WH soon. But, will they have real solutions to real issues in the world or just more of the feel-good PC – multiculti crap that leaves the US set up for more bigger, badder and deadlier scenarios like 9-11?
I think their lasting legacy will be the latter because they do not have a grounding in the real world. Fang, nail, tooth, claw.
The Hobo
Armed Liberal: “Raw meat to much of this crowd, but let me take a moment to speak directly to the hawks. You’d better get used to this, and come up with some kind of strategy for dealing with it. The political base within the US (and other countries) for offensive action in the WoT is pretty much exhausted.”
I don’t believe there is much of an answer available for the time being for those who think that Islam is the problem.
It turns out the best these hawks can do is help elect men like George W. Bush, who believe Islam is a religion of peace and that Islam is the answer, and who will continue to run the war on terror on the basis of that assumption. If that assumption continues to be wrong, as it has been ever since Muhammad (pbuh), prospects for success will continue to be bleak, and burnout – the logical consequence of a policy or way of life that consistently fails to deliver the expected or desired payoff – will not be avoidable.
There is no hope to be found in the Republicans in the federal legislature. They refuse to read on the problem, and they’ve fortified their determined ignorance by supporting bipartisan campaign reform legislation to diminish criticism of incumbents at the only time that politicians really care about it. They have’t learned good lessons from defeat either. So the collective answer of the Republican elite amounts to: we won’t look, we won’t think, you can’t make us, and if you rebuke us we may send you to jail. This is not a hopeful basis on which to construct solutions to real problems that would work and reduce burnout.
I think ultimately the solution will have to include buying back control of our political class, but it’s had for Joe Six-pack War-hawk to bid against Saudi oil money.
For Americans, there’s also the Hail Mary play of voting Democrat and hoping that if we declare peace and flee Iraq, this may precipitate a Sunni-Shiite Muslim civil war. While we apparently can’t aim to write off Muslim resources and just do it, they are so aggressive that they may not be able to refrain from doing it to each other if we let them.
But the price tag for the Hail Mary play is high.
(1) Defeat is Hellish costly, and the implications for our morale, our belief in our values and institutions (especially our armed forces), and our alliances will be bad.
(2) There is no back button, and if it turns out that, say Iran simply controls Iraq and sets up a nuclear jihad terror empire, tough. We abandoned control, and from then on our only strategy was hope.
(3) Even if the Hail Mary play works it only buys us some time, which we would need to use to strengthen ourselves, and there are good reasons not to vote leftie if you want to live in a better country. For pro-lifers, voting left may simply be unacceptable.
For the time being, I think it’s better to concentrate on other issues than the war. A war that has little prospect of success, and that is so ill-conceived that success would likely be harmful to us (setting up a hostile Muslim state) is not a good issue in which to sink lots of credibility, money and energy.
That’s an unsatisfactory answer, and I’d love to have a better one.
For the long term, the issue is to cultivate new candidates for political office who have read the proper books.
Drum and Hirsh are like the medieval peasants burning witches or flagellating themselves as penitents in response to the Black Death.
For Islam wishing to destroy modernity they deny the obvious and pretend it doesn’t exist.
As noted, the enemy gets a vote. The more Dems offer surrender (and Clinton basically ignored terrorism, he was remarkably ineffective in true Dem fashion) the more Jihadis think one more BIG terror attack against the US will force a total surrender to the Caliphate.
Dems have met with Hamas, secretly, and Dean is going around offering foreign leaders a surrender in the War on Terror. Heck Clinton’s Sandy Burglar destroyed the after-action reports of the Millenium bomber (because it exposed the disaster of the Clinton Admin and only good luck stopped the plot).
Iran is moving ahead with nukes. They are suffering but certainly moving forward with their nuclear progam and killing our soldiers in Iraq and threatening terrorism against the US worldwide and at home. The deal with NK is kicking the can down the road, they still have nukes, are not obliged to give them up, and will continue to sell whatever they want including nukes to terrorists.
Pakistan is still nuclear, and slowly moving to total Al Qaeda and Taliban control. What happens when bin Laden rules Pakistan?
The failure of the UN is manifest: the Balkans, Rwanda, Saddam, Iran, North Korea, and Darfur. Only the US has expeditionary level forces capable of going anywhere in the world. While European, not to mention Russia and China act as patrons and protectors for rogue states tied to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Iran got it’s nukes through German, French, Russian, and Chinese help. North Korea acts with impunity through it’s Chinese protector. Darfur is a nightmare because China acts as the Sudan’s protector.
What military force can the UN summon to make states do what the UN desires? How can the UN itself come to an agreement when Russia and China and Europe acts as protectors for regimes like Saddam’s or Sudan’s?
What is true is that the Cold War duopoly had certain stability inherent once Stalin and Mao were dead. It also kept half the globe enslaved. But regardless nuke tech is over 60 years old and if non-state actors want them they will get them. “Believing” in the UN is like clapping hard for fairies in Peter Pan. The UN can’t address that issue.
More thoughtful ex-Dems (in all but name) like Sam Nunn have stated that it’s only a matter of time before Western Cities are nuked.
[If public support for the WOT was collapsing, how come Dems’ “let’s surrender now” votes keep failing in the Congress? Don’t forget the enemy gets a vote. A nuked DC and NYC and Dems “surrender now!” line doesn’t look so good.]
I’ll add that even TED KOPPEL, a hard-left looney, has said that the War on Terror will last generations. Long after Bush has left.
I think Drum and Hirsh have a lot of wishful thinking. If only we could pretend really really hard it was 1994 again. Largely because they have no interest, expertise, or will to be involved in military affairs.
He gives soft talk and platitudes and then puts this BUSH style paragraph:
“No state, no matter how marginal, would dare harbor al-Qaeda-type groups any longer, or even be able to look away if the terrorists tried to settle within its borders. This is the only way to finish off al-Qaeda once and for all.”
Did he didnt learn that any proposeful ACTION will be blocked unless the other powers have something big win from it?
-Europe will dispise any action unless it is to stop unrest in their borders (Yugoslvia) Only in that they dont have any problem with bombing and warfare. Outside that is evil warmongering.
-China will dispise any action unless it is Taiwan. Other than that they will happy bleeding US soft power. They deal with muslim arrest without any problems.
-Russia will enjoy anything that bleeds US since it wants to get a foot in Eastern Europe.
Russia except for Koweit Liberation at time were Moscow was still dazzled by inside power fighting always have been against USA.
In this strangely naif peace it still mises that 93 WTC attack and 2001 WTC attack was made under pre-Bush system.
“That may be a good thing, and it may be something Bush can manage (and is, as he is managing the international coalition against Iran extraordinary well)”
Until now the only thing that is shown from Iran and Korea is an incentive to any dictator to get Nukes.
I don’t think it’s useful to discuss what institutions would be helpful for an anti-Islamic international policy, and talk as though it would be the duty of some political class to build such institutions now. The present political class will have nothing to do with any such agenda.
So it’s quite all right to leave in place institutions such as the United Nations.
Jim, I’m inclined to believe that what will collapse this stalemate is some event from outside – probably a bad one – and that we’ll get much more Jacksonian no matter who sits in the Big Chair.
A.L.
I don’t see a retreat as a big problem.
If we retreat the jihadis will get emboldened and we will sustain bigger attacks from a worse position.
Kind of like the run up from WW2 – 1936 Rhineland crisis to June 1940 – the fall of France.
So my answer to Hirsh’s argument? Small war now or bigger one later? I’m fine with either decision. Eventually reality will intervene to correct misapprehensions.
A.L.,
Great minds etc……….
I’m curious since I don’t read this blog that often.
Did you folks support the sacrifice needed to field a large increase in our Army (several hundred thousand at least) and the commitment of substantially more troops to Iraq? This was needed for proper counter-insurgency and nation building.
This “surge” is pretty feeble and by even Petraeus’s estimate only has a one in four chance of “succeeding”.
If you and the nation are not willing to sacrifice and increase the army significantly, calling for unilateralist solutions to some broad WOT against Islamic movements everywhere will be just breast beating.
And if the nation is not willing to make that sacrifice, then Hirsch may be right. We should redefine the war more narrowly as against Al Qaeda and it’s offshoots. In that struggle we will have many allies, and few enemies. If we pursue a war against Iran, Hizbullah, the Palestinians etc. etc., we will have almost no allies and many enemies.
chew, yes, I’ve been arguing for a bigger Army for some time, as well as other steps (major energy conservation/transformation etc.).
I’ll suggest that we already have a lot of enemies who think they are at war with us. We’ve ignored them for a long time, and they’ve gotten stronger.
A.L.
I support a real military build-up, and was disappointed that the Australian government didn’t go for it.
You mean like Iran (who has admitted this)? Pakistan, which has nukes and is sliding under their control? Unstable Saudi Arabia, who still plays the double game while it prepares to build/buy nukes of its own and buys Democrats and Republicans to keep their gold toilet seats? Somalia? The tri-border area in South America? How’s Nigeria doing?
“No state, no matter how marginal, would dare harbor al-Qaeda-type groups any longer, or even be able to look away if the terrorists tried to settle within its borders.”
Sure, it’s easy to say stuff like this. All you need is an absolute readiness to lie. About that fact that many countries do not the capability to do this even if they wished. About the fact that many countries are cooperating with AQ right now. The answer to the argument is to expose the lie.
Beyond that, note that the UN is a linchpin (perhaps “fetish” or “totem” would be a better term) of that lie, which means the UN and its failures needs to become a hotter issue within the USA. That’s bad news for folks who think the UN is even potentially a good thing, but when it’s used as cover for a strategy of long-term strategic defeat by people like Yglesias who openly wish for the non-existence of their country, there is no other option. The political strategy of its ‘backers,’ (better: “users”) and its own readiness to take side in internal political disputes, has placed the UN in harm’s way.
There are many ways to approach this, but the most basic is to aggressively point out its lack of credibility (barring religious belief in it, it should have none), make US participation continually uncertain (inevitable side effect of “hotter issue”), commit no US troops or military resources to it and immediately withdraw US troops or assistance under any GOP administration (“hotter issue”), and in response to any conflict that is not a strong strategic interest say “that’s the UN’s job to handle, good luck and let us know.”
Given the nature of Islam, there is war in our future. The strategic “answer” to people like Hirsch has been done before, and consists of undermining the untruths, preparing the ground for a different approach among the base, and waiting for a quality leadership team that could run with it.
Unlike the Cold War, in this case the approach being prepared for will have to be one of maximum violence: more rubble = less trouble. No nation building, no reform, no targets off limits – just destruction of our enemies’ societies, on a level that inspires wailing and horror among onlookers (which is how wars really get settled throughout history). If necessary, a Carthaginian peace.
It would be convenient if our enemies would effect this themselves, without us, and they may well do so per “3 Conjectures.” If not… there’s more than one way to drain a swamp, and we’ve tried the nice one.
What is the international institutional response to Afghanistan? Troop withdrawals? Token military commitments? The U.S. has committed to $10.6 billion to Afghanistan reconstruction efforts, and Europe has pledged $777 million over four years.
Will this state of affairs change if Obama is President? With a majority of Americans now opposing the war in Afghanistan? (I have to assume that means almost all self-identified Democrats oppose the war, no figures though).
So what to show for a UN mandate and a NATO mission? The Emperor is wearing no clothes.
_”Unlike the Cold War, in this case the approach being prepared for will have to be one of maximum violence: more rubble = less trouble. No nation building, no reform, no targets off limits – just destruction of our enemies’ societies, on a level that inspires wailing and horror among onlookers (which is how wars really get settled throughout history). If necessary, a Carthaginian peace.”_
I didn’t realize this was the “nuke em” nut case brigade.
All this and cut taxes too, I bet. Are you free lunch breast beating Republicans here? Or should we have a draft and sacrifice for our values like those manly Spartans you so admire.
Are these violent fantasies born of fear or hate? If fear then join the army. If hate then you have become what you claim to fight against.
chew –
One of the themes of my blogging since I started was that we needed to find a way to defuse the conflict between the nutball Islamists and the West before the “nuke ’em all” variant becomes too politically feasible to stand against. Note that noted right-wing pundit Duncan Black (Atrios) has taken this position as well…
A.L.
AL
Good for you.
I seem to recall Black was talking about nuking in response to a nuclear attack on the US, not a conventional attack, but I could have mis-remembered.
That position would be in line with the standard nuclear deterrence thinking that has created some stability amongst nuclear armed states.
In the “more rubble – less trouble” slogan, I sense a search for angry but easy no sacrifice answers. We have been a nation lead by aggressive arrogant leaders, who were nevertheless not willing to endure the death and risk needed to catch Osama in the Tora Bora caves, or to commit the much much larger number of troops needed to secure their misguided adventure in Iraq. Instead we have tax cuts for all and keep shopping at the mall.
You’re right that Black was talking about obliterating Iran in response to a nuclear attack. (note: that’s a bad policy, because of the problem of provenance)
But the more rubble:less trouble people are making the point that insurgencies can be defeated, if you’re willing to follow “Hama Rules”.
Real counterinsurgency is better, but takes a long time, concerted effort, and political capital to sustain the effort.
If we don’t do b), the options become a) or walk away. Walking away – in a highly connected world – really isn’t an option.
So we have a dilemma…
A.L.
AL,
_”But the more rubble:less trouble people are making the point that insurgencies can be defeated, if you’re willing to follow “Hama Rules”.”_
Dream on. That sounds like more free lunch breast beating to me. If the insurgents take a city, then we can pull another Fallujah. That didn’t defeat the insurgency then, and a new Hama won’t defeat this widespread insurgency now either in Iraq or Afghanistan. More importantly, we would become the Persian monsters your readers revile. You can’t keep that level of killing secret anymore, like Assad did. The moral revulsion against the United States would destroy politically whatever military advantage we might gain.
And of course we are the FOREIGN invader here. Assad was set on staying in power in his own country. We have no such strong motivation to stay. If anybody is going to pull a Hama it will be the Shia’s after we leave.
We’re not going to do it the hard way, with more troops, and we are not going to do it the “easy” way with more Hama’s. So we’ll just limp along with this “surge” for now..
and integrated sensible response like this: “a hybrid covert-war-and-criminal-roundup confined to al-Qaeda and its spawn, conducted with deep intelligence and special forces cooperation among states within the international system”?
chew, I’m not proposing that as a strategy for Iraq; I’ve been pretty clear that relatively standard COIN (which we’re actually starting to do) was most likely to work, based on the opinions of folks smarter than me.
I’m talking about the wider, strategic response – the one I want to avoid – to what I see as the likely future path: disengagement from Iraq (and much of the ME), strong action by the NJ’s in the form of massive attacks in Israel, Europe, or here (based on my presumption that perceived weakness, not overweening strength is what helped incubate AQ) will lead to a “f**k ’em” response. You’re already seeing US and European public opinion turn more isolationist and more anti Muslim. The reality is that there is also a Western ‘street’ and leadership here is and will be constrained by it.
A.L.
#19 from Armed Liberal: But the more rubble:less trouble people are making the point that insurgencies can be defeated, if you’re willing to follow “Hama Rules”.
Yes, and you don’t have to be that dramatic. Any insurgency by us against them would be and is defeated with sublime ease and cruel pleasure by jihad forces, using simple and divinely sanctioned means.
It works like this. (link)
That’s the whole problem in a nutshell.
This method, which those following Islam carry out like a chess computer following its program, is what we are up against in this global war.
Not nukes, though that threat is very real. Not more planes of death, though that threat too is very real, as the transatlantic plot showed. Not (primarily) forty other big, flashy, dramatic stunts, all real and all with real consequences if we let them happen. Not “genocide” with gas chambers – nothing so fancy. Muslim forces are going to do this to us, as to all their other victims, now mostly passed from history, unless we defeat them.
I’ve been putting off doing a post on this, even though I think it’s important that we grasp the real threat and name it correctly, rather than getting hung up on more emotive labels and what might be called terror as show biz, because the real threat, and what it might take to defeat the real threat, is so very unpleasant – yet dull – to talk about.
AL
_”I’m talking about the wider, strategic response – the one I want to avoid – to what I see as the likely future path: disengagement from Iraq (and much of the ME), strong action by the NJ’s in the form of massive attacks “_
Without more specificity about who precisely you think our enemies are, I’m not sure what you mean here. But let me make some general remarks, with the assumption that the US will not take the tough road and increase it’s army.
A Hama style massacre will not deter or prevent another attack by dispersed terrorist, nor will a Hama type response likely be a fruitful response to any such terrorist attack. Nor will a Hama response defuse any Euro-muslim nativist conflict.
You seem to think that Al Qaeda types will be deterred if we massacre some co-religionists somewhere. I at least give them the credit of courage and dedication. We would be angered and seek revenge. They will too. Indeed the massacre of innocents will cause many more to join their cause, which is why it will not be a fruitful response to any terrorist attacks against us.
I sense that these proposals of a muscular response on our part is more to make ourselves feel strong and less fearful. My response is to stop being scared. We can absorb many many more terrorist attacks. We do not need to lash out in some wildly disproportionate orgy of violence, but can and should respond proportionately. These scattered terrorists are no real threat to our national survival, and we should not have elevated them to that status.
The world understands proper vengeance and retribution. That is why invading Afghanistan was just and proper. Yet we did not flood Afghanistan with our troops to hunt Osama down even pursuing him into Pakistan. I think we could have and should have.
Instead we seemingly make low level war on muslims everywhere, whether they have anything to do with Osama’s brand of Jihadism aimed against the U.S. (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Palestine) By doing so we force them to take up arms against us and increase the pool of extremists who will adapt the terrorist road, and futher risk exhausting our will and resources.
We need to extricate ourselves from the quicksand of Iraq. It is true we owe the Iraqi people some measure of protection, and I’m not sure how we can provide that. But we cannot dictate their political future as we still are attempting to do. Reagan was able to abandon Lebanon to it’s civil strife, and later acquiesced in the Syrian stabilization. We may have to acquiesce to a Shia domination of Iraq.
Leaving Iraq will actually free us to properly engage in the middle east and other theatres. But without overwhelming ground forces in the theatre we cannot unilaterally dictate a result, nor should we try. Patient diplomacy and coalitions will probably be our weapons.
Without more specificity about who precisely you think our enemies are, I’m not sure what you mean here.
Who are our enemies chew?
A Hama style massacre will not deter or prevent another attack by dispersed terrorist, nor will a Hama type response likely be a fruitful response to any such terrorist attack. Nor will a Hama response defuse any Euro-muslim nativist conflict.
Who said A Hama. Many of them. Cities rubbeliesed.
Support Islamic fascists? You will live in tents. If you can find them.
Every army needs support. Even guerilla armies.
Jihadis need support. Once support dries up you merely have men screaming at their TVs in their mother’s basements.
I’d rather not go the Hama route. I’d rather our kinder, gentler war worked. If not we will have to do something different.
In 1936 the Peacemongers won. By June 1940 it was all war all the time. Do we have to do that again?
Two more CBGs, 7 more Army Divisions. Another division or two of Marines. More Air Force. That would be my plan. Today. If it gets all 1941 on us much more will be needed.
Leaving Iraq…
Leave Iraq to whom? Iran. Al Queda? A general Mid East War (as the Saudis have promised)?
What exactly do you see in the future for Iraq if we leave?
chew2,
Don’t take it so hard. I’m not against your view prevailing. We can always sling nukes to make up for a bad strastegic position.
BTW in your view what motivates the Islamic fascists? Why do they fight.
I think we are conflating two distinct (if related issues)
1. Should we engage in more actions like Iraq?
2. Should we redefine the WOT to exclude Hamas and Hezbollah?
We are clearly not going to launch a war heavily motivated by the desire to change the political culture of the muslim world any time soon. Even if Iraq works out for the best, and does end up more or less a democracy, its most unlikely to lead to any domino effect outside its own borders. And the other possible targets in the Islamic world are generally WORSE candidates for democratic change by invasion than Iraq was. And then there is the quite real possiblity that we will need to use conventional force related to the more narrowly defined was on AQ, for example if thing go (further) south in Pakistan.
But plenty of people in the US who have no interest in another Iraq will have some trouble with changing US policy on Hamas and Hezbollah. Its different in Europe, I understand. But here in the US, while theres some resentment about the use of the term WOT as an automatic justification for some of the admins policies domestically and on detainees, those arent really connected to the “only AQ” or “Hamas and Hezb as well question” All the controversial patriot act stuff is aimed at AQ, not really at Hamas (though its occassionally aimed at Hamas supporters). All the Gitmo guys were picked up in Afghanistan or Pakistan – not too many Hamasniks there. And I dont see a huge constituency in the US that sees our opposition to Hamas and Hezb as problematic. They might if it were used as Casus Belli for war on Iran, but I dont see that happening. And I DO see some large constituencies, including ones important to the Dem party, as having considerable trouble with making the distinction between suicide bombers who murder in Tel Aviv, and those who do in New York.
So Id be very surprised if a Dem president were to make that distinction.
“But the more rubble:less trouble people are making the point that insurgencies can be defeated, if you’re willing to follow “Hama Rules”.
Real counterinsurgency is better, but takes a long time, concerted effort, and political capital to sustain the effort.
If we don’t do b), the options become a) or walk away. Walking away – in a highly connected world – really isn’t an option.
So we have a dilemma…
A.L. ”
Syria got away with Hama cause it was on their own uncontested sovereign territory. You and I may not like it, but Westphalian territorial sovereignty still goes a long way in this world. Probably cause it tends to serve the interests of rulers.
If we use Hama rules in a case where the logic of the situation doesnt overwhelmingly call for it, we will hurt ourselves dramatically. If we use it even were the situation DOES call for it, it will still incur major costs that will offset a large part of the gains. We are nation of 300 million people. At best we are going to increase the size of our army marginally. We are NOT going to be able to what we need to alone – or with just Israel and Taiwan, and maybe Australia.
So we may, for several years at least, have to limit ourselves to those instances where we DO have the political capital for real counterinsurgency (AFAICT the appetite for that has NOT gone away wrt Afghanistan) and to other options (like economic sanctions) in other cases. Until the Iraq syndrome has worn off.
_real counterinsurgency (AFAICT the appetite for that has NOT gone away wrt Afghanistan)_
There are polls now showing that a majority of Americans no longer support the war in Afghanistan. European opinion seems similarly disposed. AFAIK none of the major Democratic presidential candidates are calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan, but some of us are wondering if they are sowing the whirlwind and taking positions on the state of the world that might make any other position politically untenable.