Lots of discussion of Grand Strategy today, triggered in large part by the killing of Sheikh Yassin, the Clarke book, and the 9/11 Commission testimony.
I think that this discussion is a good thing; I don’t think we discussed these things enough, or were explicit enough, and that it cost us.
And I’ll note that Robert Tagorda, and the Oxblog-derived Nathan Hale society are having a meeting Sunday night here in Los Angeles that I’m going to try and attend.
Two posts, one from Matt Yglesias, and one from Kevin Drum (at his new big-journalism home) touch on related issues.Matthew writes:
I wouldn’t want to deny “that remaking Iraq is a vital part of the war on terror because it will help to remake the Middle East, terrorism’s primary source” and that, in this sense, the second Gulf War is a part of the war on terror. Rather, I would want to deny some of the following:
* It was important to invade in 2003, rather than devoting additional resources to nation-building in Afghanistan and direct anti-Qaeda efforts, leaving the Iraq issue for a later day.
* It is likely today (or was likely based on the evidence available in 2003) that a Bush-led invasion of Iraq will lead to the emergence of a stable, democratic Iraq.
One could go on. The general point I would like to make — Daniel Davies’ “anti this war now left” idea — is this. There are policies that fit under the general heading “invade Iraq” and, especially, “promote Middle East transformation” that I would be happy to support. It does not follow, however, that I should support any policy that parades under the banner “invade Iraq to promote Middle East transformation.” In particular, I don’t believe that the actual policies Bush has been implementing are likely to achieve this goal. My dispute with the administration, therefore, is a somewhat narrow one, not a grand clash of ideas.
It’s interesting to me, because while I’ve read him as antiwar, I’ve felt that – like me – he started out wobbling on the fence on it through 2002. But he fell off on the other side and, I think, has consistently taken a fairly dark view of the decision to invade and the management of the aftermath.
What’s interesting to me is that he’s skating close to what I have wondered about for a while – the position that the war would have been OK if only it hadn’t been prosecuted by Bush.
I’m not sure if this is foreign policy insight, legitimate criticism of real missteps, or a simple unflinching partisanship which can’t acknowledge that the other side could do anything right. And that distinction matters, because if I could unpack it, I think I’d have a greater level of comfort in much of the debate I’m hearing around our current state of affairs.
Then Kevin Drum takes off from a discussion on Israel’s decision to kill the Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin and raises a question:
For anyone who’s serious about this stuff, these questions deserve an answer:
* Is it enough to simply build up homeland defenses and hunt down terrorist leaders? This is essentially what Sharon is doing.
* Or is it necessary to also have a grander strategy of engaging the hearts and minds of the Arab world and spreading democracy? This is (allegedly) the strategy of the Bush administration.
I’m not sure you can have it both ways. If hunting down terrorists is enough, then Sharon is doing the right thing and Bush deserves criticism for wasting time in an unnecessary Iraqi adventure. But if long term success requires a serious effort to spread democracy and change local attitudes, then Bush’s approach is defensible while Sharon is doomed to failure.
The United States is bigger than Israel, so the scope of our operations will naturally be bigger. But within our respective spheres, I have to believe that we’re dealing with roughly the same problem and roughly the same kind of people. So what’s the right strategy? Who’s doing it right and who’s doing it wrong?
I think Kevin is asking the wrong question. There’s not a chance in hell that Israel could ‘remake’ the Middle East, except by leaving, or by nuking the Arab states – neither of which, fortunately, seems like a plausible option right now. The U.S., on the other hand, has a plausible chance to (note the element of risk and probability).
Israel and the U.S. face substantially different manifestations of the same problem. Solving our problem can also solve Israel’s. Solving Israel’s problem could go some ways toward solving ours, but wouldn’t, because the anti-Western ‘rage of the oppressed’ would still be there. The key is to start them down a road that makes them less oppressed.
My support for Bush’s policies to date comes from my belief (not rising to certainty, by any means) that this was and is the only path that gets us from here to there. I’m open to hearing other suggestions, but, to be honest, haven’t yet.
I think that this discussion is a good thing; I don’t think we discussed these things enough, or were explicit enough, and that it cost us.
Excellent point.
What the administration might not have thought about is that the 9/11 commission, by fostering a more hawkish environment, and helping people realize that some steps are necessary. If some kind of bipartisan consenus on what to do now will emerge, then that’s a good thing.
A.L.,
I’m inclined to think that Kevin Drum is mistaking a difference in tactics with a difference in grand strategy. Obviously, both are subject to capabilities, as you point out, but I think Drum also tosses out important data points in order to draw his two contrasting positions.
Taking the battle to the terrorists is part of Sharon’s battle plan–just ask the late Sheikh Yassin–but it is ALSO part of Bush’s battle plan. Last I checked, Mullah Omar and bin Laden were no longer controlling Afghanistan. Yes, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Pakistan each present continuing problems on this front, but somehow, I don’t think Bush is done yet, and I predict that each of those four countries will be dealt with in different ways.
Yes, Bush is working on promoting a functional civil society in Iraq, and this is very important, but it is not inconsistent with an aggressive military approach to Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Iraq is hardly a distraction–if anyone disagrees, tell me where you believe our troops should be instead?
I don’t think we discussed these things enough, or were explicit enough, and that it cost us.
The whole approach here seems to forget that we were already in a ten-year old conflict with Iraq, had an interest in enforcing ceasefire terms, international norms, required transparency re: WMD by the losing side in that conflict, and had overwhelming adopted regime change as an official policy long before 9/11 or any thought of remaking the middle east or fighting terrorists in Afghanistan for that matter. This was the sole basis for our policies in the 1990s and the basis being pushed before the UNSC. Secondarily, human rights violations were an important consideration: It is often overlooked in the argument over the human rights rationale for the war that the sole basis for establishing no-fly zones and a Kurdish protectorate were human rights grounds: not WMD, terrorism or any of the rest.
The remake-the-middle-east rationale I think arose a bit as an afterthought and a bit out of the opportunity presented that seemed to make sense in the grand scheme of things.
These were the “bureaucratic reasons” justifying the intervention/liberation/enforcement action. There is no way in hell that our allies or the democrats or the public at large would have agreed with a strategy for political change in the Mideast that had zero precedent in “international law” as a whole and is opposed by many now. The war may have been “optional” but I don’t see how you make it less optional by stressing what would have been easily characterized as a grand imperialist or merely idealistically naive American adventure for remaking the world.
AL,
I think there are several interesting points in all this. I think you are right in your belief that invading Iraq WAS timely. My problem with it was what appeared to be a remarkable lack of planning for the war, including – I gather – ignoring pre-existing plans for an invasion.
You are right that the US and Israel have different manifestations on their plates, and that is why I think that they have both started going the right direction for their problems. If Palestine descends into violent civil was, as appears to be Sharon’s goal, then this will also help the US, as it will prove that the “goals” the Palestinians have claimed were lies.
I feel the same about this war as I did about Vietnam: I opposed it on tacticcal, not moral grounds; and wished that the anti-war movement had not been taken over by the looney-tunes. As Yogi Berra says “deja vu all over again”…..
Oscar,
“My problem with it was what appeared to be a remarkable lack of planning for the war….”
So did we get lucky against all the odds, or were we unsuccessful? If the Battle of Iraq is what “a remarkable lack of planning” gets you, then I for one think we should just level our planning offices and fire our planners. After all, their contributions were apparantly unnecessary to one of the most wildly successful operations in military history.
I will point out here as I did in another thread: the lies get much thicker in war time.
What you have to look for is effects.
Is Iraq better off? Are some Iranian citizens calling for American intervention?
Are the dictators livid over the democracy movement?
Did the Palestinians ask the Israelis to stay in Gaza last week? (This week their opinions might have changed).
I agree with GG. Bush could have never got what he wanted from the local despots to overthrow Iraq if they had seen themselves as the next targets. As it was their help was grudging.
So a policy that might have won more American popular approval could not be announced at the run up to the war. In fact the announcement only came recently now that the situation is more stable.
So yes Bush lied. It saved American lives and allowed his true policy time to work. That is why the search for WMDs has been so limited. It is not the focus of the work. It is important but a distraction.
The last thing you want from a war time President is total honesty. Loose lips sink ships.
Dear A. L.:
Let’s take another step back. What were the available alternatives:
1. Do nothing. Pull out of the Middle East.
And isolationism has helped us how in the past?
1a. Close our borders.
See above.
2. Send more foreign aid to the Middle East and hope that it will magically go to help people rather than line despots’ pockets.
Are you kidding?
3. Continue the Clinton administration approach.
A pragmatic failure and politically impossible.
4. Turn the Middle East into a slag heap.
Morally reprehensible. You think we have problems with the rest of the world now?
5. Take OBL at his word: stop containing Saddam, get troops out of Saudi Arabia.
That’s what Bush did.
5a. Create a working liberal democracy in Iraq.
That’s what they’re trying to do.
5b. Become the next Saddam
That’s what they’re hoping not to do.
I, personally, favored (and still favor) a more muscular version of 3 (something just slightly to the left of Lileks’s Wednesday Bleat). But I can certainly understand 5 and I’m amazed that the administration isn’t getting more credit for trying to make lemonade with all of these lemons.
On Matthew Yglesias’ points:
Re: Afghanistan – I’m relieved that the US is not attempting a thorough transformation of Afghan society. Try that and you are almost certain to end up antagonising the ‘warlords’, headmen, tribes and clans that are the basis of Afghan society and loyalties.
Then you’re in for the collapse of support for the Kabul government, and almost certainly guerilla war in a country that has chewed up and spat out armies for millenia. It would make the occupation of Iraq look like a tea party.
The best option is to create a government that essentially controls Kabul, and shares contol of the other cities, and is primus inter pares elsewhere. Concentrate modernisation efforts in Kabul, continue some assistance (medicine, schools, farming?) elsewhere, let change happen at the Afghans own pace.
Certainly you also have to root out al Qaeda remnants, and head off any Taliban comeback, but generally you don’t need or want heavy divisions for that. Perhaps there have been failures in respect of military and civil tasks that need to be adressed, but the strategy looks sound.
Re: Iraq – maybe a stable democratic Iraq won’t emerge. But it certainly wouldn’t have otherwise, and there’s nowhere else that looked suitable for the first phase of a policy of civilisational redirection, IMHO.
Others may emerge, from internal pressure or US action (Iran, Syria? Egypt?). But Iraq was the only place to begin draining the swamp.
My doubts about this strategy at present are that perhaps the US and partners have not increased military manpower and developed the civil propaganda/assistance programs on the scale that may be necessary. (Compare the ramp-up of effort in the early Cold War.)
But none of the opponents of present leaders appear to be adressing that question at all.
To be sure, Israel can’t do what we can (perhaps) do. However, within their smaller sphere, they have a choice: simply kill lots of terrorists, or kill lots of terrorists and engage with the Palestinians to try to build a longer term solution with a real chance for peace.
Sharon seems to be doing the former. He’s killing lots of terrorists, but seems unwilling to try and address the bigger picture even within his own small sphere (i.e., just Israel and the Palestinians).
However, I agree in theory with Bush that just killing terrorists isn’t enough, that we also need to try and remake the Middle East in some fashion or another. My beef is mainly with the hamhanded way he’s gone about it, not with the basic idea.
Sharon, on the other hand, doesn’t even seem to like the basic idea. But if that’s the wrong strategy for us, I think it’s also the wrong strategy for Sharon.
(And no, I don’t have any bright ideas about how to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Both sides seem unwilling to make genuine compromises, in my opinion.)
BTW, in case this wasn’t clear, I’m not suggesting that anyone should stop killing terrorists. I’m only suggesting that you’re doomed to failure if that’s the only thing you do.
A.L.
“What’s interesting to me is that he’s skating close to what I have wondered about for a while – the position that the war would have been OK if only it hadn’t been prosecuted by Bush.
I’m not sure if this is foreign policy insight, legitimate criticism of real missteps, or a simple unflinching partisanship which can’t acknowledge that the other side could do anything right. And that distinction matters, because if I could unpack it, I think I’d have a greater level of comfort in much of the debate I’m hearing around our current state of affairs.”
I don’t think this is too hard to understand, AL. Why not give Matt the benefit of the doubt? The charge of “unflinching partisanship” can be leveled at most folks on both sides of the partisan aisle, but is nearly impossible to prove. Yglesias’ argument is pretty close to the position I have been espousing (at much greater length) with Dan recently.
“My support for Bush’s policies to date comes from my belief (not rising to certainty, by any means) that this was and is the only path that gets us from here to there. I’m open to hearing other suggestions, but, to be honest, haven’t yet.”
The problem is not the policy but the implementation. And the two cannot be separated, despite what I think are your (in some ways admirable) efforts to disentangle them in the hopes of obtaining a more “pure” view. As I’ve argued, invading Iraq does not seem to conform with the “Bush Doctrine”, which raises the question of Bush’s own commitment to this policy in the view of many who share my opinion.
I hope you realize that opposition to Bush’s implementation of this policy does not imply opposition to the policy itself. And that one can both support the policy but oppose Bush.
Keep the rubber side down.
VT- Actually the original Bush foreign policy was significantly more isolationist than the WJC policies, and didn’t foresee the events of this term at all. Rice’s essay makes the Clarke testimony rather perceptive, as evidently Rice didn’t think the Mideast was going to boil over. Which is understandable as she is a Russian expert.
That being the case, it is evident today that the Bush preemptive doctrine is a complete change from the past, and it signifies a complete break from both prior GOP positions and Clinton’s policies. What I think makes preemption correct in this case is the essentially preemptive nature of irregular warfare. Guerillas seek to strike before they can be struck, due to their lack of resources to stand up to attritional warfare. (don’t confuse the tactics of the Viet Cong and NVA regulars in Vietnam, for instance)
But what this means in terms of implementation is that neither Bush nor Clinton appreciated the post 9/11 situation prior to that date and that mistakes both prior and post are bound to be made. The question really is, “What should be the limits on US power projection given its hyperpower status?” If we are to circumscribe US power through external portals (like the UN) then we will receive one set of results. If on the other hand we place US interests paramount, then we will get another. This does not mean that the one subset of all possible policies (eg invasion of Afghanistan) might not occur under both viewpoints. But it certainly means that it would occur differently (for instance, regard Gore’s post 2000 speaches on US foreign policy and think about how Gore would have addressed the Taliban-AQ coalition, probably intervention, but not the same way and certainly slower and via the UN).
Kevin,
“…I’m not suggesting that anyone should stop killing terrorists. I’m only suggesting that you’re doomed to failure if that’s the only thing you do.”
I disagree, and I think this is an important point. If done to a sufficiently emphatic degree (up to and including scenarios described by Tom Holsinger and Trent Telenko), killing terrorists can end the threat of terrorism. Now, I’d only support this approach as the last available option, because there are HUGE downsides, like collateral damage in the millions of people range. I don’t like that, but if it’s them or us, I choose us. My point is that this approach IS effective.
What this means for our purposes, though, is that killing terrorists is not merely a tactical concept. It has strategic implications, and here’s where I think we may part ways. Killing an individual terrorist has two effects, in my opinion: it removes that terrorist from the picture (tactical), but it also provides a marginal disincentive for those who would succeed him (strategic). Iterate this process, and the marginal disincentives accumulate, as you form a growing body of evidence that terrorism is a futile pursuit.
Encouraging the spread of democracy and free-market economies is the carrot end of the process. Give the kids growing up now hope for a better world, and they have even less reason to pick terror as a (brief) career choice. This is also crucial, because it lessens the amount of stick needed to convey the point–but don’t eliminate the stick, because without it, the carrot will be insufficient.
Kevin Said:
However, I agree in theory with Bush that just killing terrorists isn’t enough, that we also need to try and remake the Middle East in some fashion or another. My beef is mainly with the hamhanded way he’s gone about it, not with the basic idea.
Kevin, what would have been a better way? I can’t clame the way we have been doing things is the best but I could not think of a better way of doing things. Grand plans seldom work as well as simple plans and working out the deatils on the fly.
Derek
Bringing democracy to the ME in my opinion was the Bush plan from at least early 2002. The “Road Map” was a plan to end the value of the Pali/Israeli War. Both plans are being executed as well as possible in the real wold. And they are beginning to have real world effect.
Let me start with recent events. Because of Yassin’s recent victory the Hamas was very angy with the US who they proagandized were behind every Israeli action. A stretch of the truth (it is more a two way street), but that stretch has been continually preached for over a decade. Whatever the facts it is now the “truth”. So immediately the Hamas said they were going after the US. Today they are back peddling on that furiously. Their problem is that their bike doesn’t seem to have a reverse. Worse they don’t seem to be able to turn around. In any case they are scared shitless of going mano-a-mano with the US of A. So Hamas would rathter appear double weak – they just didn’t do the best and leave the USA out of the equation. They called the US out and then said they didn’t mean it. What do you suppose it has done to their standing in the community?
The Palis are on the road to self destruction because the skeleton of Pali society was the order kept by the Israelis. Sharon is destroying the Palis by giving them what they have been fighting for. A state of their own. That Sharon is a genius. A very worthy American ally.
So in six months or a year Bush/Sharon will have destroyed the Palis as a political problem. Genius. The Palis have been played like fiddles.
And now the rest of the Moslem world. It is unraveling at the edges. Democracy demos by Kurds in Syria. Positively inflamed by what their brothers in Iraq have been getting for 12 years. And the fact that whatever the defects they have a say in governming the new Iraq.
And then Iran which looks like it will not throw off the mullahs in the next four or five weeks. I still give them six months or a year.
Kdaffy is preaching a transition to democracy. And the Saudis have a Liberty contingent it has put in jail so they are getting a lot of bad press.
Our enemies are now running scared. Not based on this year or the next but five or ten years down the road. Osama is getting his wish of remaking the world. It is just not the vision he started with.
Generally from here on our enemies will be getting the bad press. Pressure on them is building. People are given a vision of what the world could be like: America, where culture is about food, language, science, and the arts not your particular form of despotism.
By November Bush is going to be looking very good. Iraq will produce dividends all out of proportion to its (high) cost.
Pakistan’s efforts to defang and depower the tribal areas will give the more civilized (British legacy) part of the country to predominate. They have to change other wise they will not be able to keep pace with India, and China who are in a race to impliment capitalism before either falls too far behind.
This week I can’t figure out where Putin is but I can tell you that Europe is a lost continent. As some one has pointed out no matter what they do now they is fooked.
So I must say to Bush/Sharon: Grand strategy – excellent, strategy – good, tactics – well executed against enemy responses. Casualties – very light so far on both sides. Which is good. Let us hope it stays that way until the transformation is done. And to ally you folks on the pointy end of the spear: good job lads – your core Anglo-American values have carried the day.
Enough for now.
Simon
Did I mention American popularity in the world is going to sky-rocket.
Why? Because we are giving away what Tom Paine called one of the highest valued commodities in the world. Liberty.
This legacy should cement American world power for another 50 to 75 years. Just as WW2 and its aftermath gave America a boost and kept it the hope of Eastern Europe. We are now reaping those dividends.
Now you know why France is pissed. On two counts. Socialism destroys not just economies but liberty. They know it. And French culture will go into permanent decline. As a side note: even the Spanish socialists are planning to reduce taxes on business.
The Anglo culture is about to become world culture.
With the war going so badly for them (despite the Spanish victory) the bad guys are going to have to try very very hard to pull something off in America before Nov ’04 elections. Let us hope our guys are ready to head off the threat. By offence or defence.
I really hope the hard lefties are far more circumspect re: the next major attack in America. I fear the general population will not be as tolerant of their crap as they have been post 9/11.
M Simon,
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for America’s popularity to skyrocket. While I certainly agree with you about liberty (and about France), in some traditional cultures what we see as liberty, they see as anarchy. What we see as religious freedom, they see as blasphemy. What we see as equality of the sexes they see as both anarchy _and_ blasphemy. What we see as material progress, they see as a barren, soulless materialism (a view, I confess, with which I have some sympathy). You could argue that these are primitive cultures that will suffer a Darwinian extinction, but even if that’s true, it won’t entirely solve the problem. IMHO Francis Fukayama got it wrong about the end of history. Why? Because from the beginning, Enlightenment liberalism has provoked reactions in a kind of return of the repressed: 19th century Romanticism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Islamism. So far, they’ve all been defeated (except for Romanticism, which was coopted) and may continue to be. But the hydra will continue to produce heads. There will always be a certain percentage of people who will see Anglo culture as anarchic and blaphemous or, more importantly, soulless, isolating of the individual, and decadent. We’ll win this war, but I don’t think we should pat ourselves on the back too hard. There’ll be others, and you and Fukayama to the contrary notwithstanding I don’t ever see a final triumph of Enlightenment liberalism.
The question really is, “What should be the limits on US power projection given its hyperpower status?” .
You seem to be arguing a point that comes up often from the “Pro-War” side, that for the “War on Terra” to proceed effectively in the defense of America, we must act unilaterally and without regard for the interests of our allies. While I agree that in matters of grave national security we should not wait for an international consensus to develop prior to action, but on the other hand if it is sought (as it was for Iraq) and not given, then retreating to an argument against the need to seek such support is highly dubious.
Regarding “The Bush Doctrine”: A major concern that has come to the attention of many us in the US and around the world regarding the policy of “pre-emption” is that while on theoretical grounds it seems to be a reasonable strategy for combating terrorism, it places an enormous responsibility on the judgment of our leaders. And this raises another major problem. Unless we have overwhelming confidence in the judgment of our President and his administration, pre-emptive actions are likely to always inspire opposition. You asked me to consider what a President Gore’s approach to 9/11 might have been. It certainly would have been different in some regard to Bush’s. But either way I guarantee that Republicans would be raising strong opposition to it no matter what, as they often opposed Clinton’s approaches to fighting terrorism.
But here’s the thing: Freedom to oppose your government’s actions is one of the cornerstones of our Democracy, regardless of which side you’re on. While I am clearly on the Left, I am elated that we can disagree on these issues and that hopefully a common ground can be reached. I wish the same could be said of our elected “leaders”.
Perhaps this strategy will not work in a Democracy such as ours that has become so polarized. You only have to look at M.Simon’s comments at 6:43 to see what I mean.