Joe kindly offered me a seat here based on my reply to Cicero's "Limits" post. That reply follows, in case any of you wish to read it and did not do so at BlackFive.
The author of the post is broadly correct. I honestly don't think we've begun to fight -- not, at least, to fight a war. The gamble in Iraq and Afghanistan has always been about trying to prevent the escalation of the problems we face into a world war.
If it fails -- well, a world war is what America's military was designed to fight....
In many ways, the task will be rather easier if North Korea and Iran and Syria and whoever else wants in escalates the situation. We will abandon those restrictions once we pass the point at which we can credibly "police" the situation, once the threat reaches the point at which we obviously must fight rather than manage the problems.
A real war will be bloodier, by far -- but it will also be easier, because we will be liberated from the self-imposed restrictions designed to prevent escalation. We have many purpose-designed tools for such an eventuality, and there are many kinds of leverage we can apply that are only appropriate to real war.
That said, I think we ought to continue trying to win the original gamble. It is harder to do, but better for literally millions of people worldwide. People who genuinely love peace, and who are of good heart -- I think most of the anti-war crowd, particularly that faction led by the Quakers, falls into this group -- ought to support the venture.
They need to grasp that what lies behind the loss of the gamble is not peace, but real war. This is the last chance for peace.
I realize that sounds Orwellian -- 'the Iraq "war" is the last chance for peace' does indeed sound much like 'War is Peace.' Yet real peace is not possible in this world: there is always violence at some level. What matters is choosing the level. Iraq gives us a chance to have a better level of violence in our lives.
Insofar as we are acting like police, we aren't acting like soldiers; insofar as we are acting like soldiers, we aren't acting like murderers. In Iraq, we are acting like police most of the time -- indeed, we are behaving rather gentler than the police of many nations. Even on those occasions when we have escalated into properly military violence (as for example in Fallujah), it has always been with the intent of returning to a policing-level as soon as possible. Our warfighting has been about cracking pockets of enemies, so that we could set up a police force instead.
I keep thinking that the anti-war movement will come to recognize this fact. So far, they seem devoted to the fantasy that the US can be beaten into submission -- that, if only we can be made to lose in Iraq, that's it, that's all, the US will be a whipped puppy and will follow tamely the guidelines of our moral betters at the UN and in Europe, and on the US left.
Such a complete failure to understand America is not reasonable. No culture on earth has such a complete hatred of the idea of failure. Indeed, if there is any common culture that can be called American at all, it would have to be the culture of success -- the notion that a man should take care of himself, and that his failure to do so was a moral as well as a practical failure.
This is not a nation that will respond to a loss of its gamble in Iraq by becoming submissive. It will respond by becoming aggressive. If it cannot rebuild certain nations into successful, peaceful democracies, it will instead destroy those nations. It will not submit to a future of being blackmailed by the most murderous and least free nations of the earth. Nor ought it to do so.
That model of destructive warfighting was advocated by the Kerry campaign in 2004 (among other things it chose to advocate), and by John Derbyshire in the present context. It is a workable strategy. As just demonstrated, it has powerful advocates on both sides of the political spectrum.
If North Korea will not be reformed, it must not be allowed to dictate through terror and nuclear power the future of northern Asia. If Iran cannot be reformed, it must not be allowed to dominate the lives of millions of people in Iraq and elsewhere. If Syria will insist on backing terrorist groups as a matter of national policy, and if indeed it is beyond us to change them, then their state power must be laid waste. The future of humanity, a future in which every corner of the globe is increasingly important to the entirety of humanity, will be brighter if we strike down such tyrants.
I continue to believe in the gamble in Iraq. I continue to believe that we ought, morally, to avoid real war and pursue a type of fighting that will spread freedom and prosperity now. I hate the idea of laying waste even to a tyranny, for there are innocents there who are victims of these evil states. Far better if we can free them, help them shake off the sickness of the mind and heart that tyranny embeds in men, and teach them to rejoin peace-loving people abroad.
My feeling is that the Special Forces have the right motto, which ought to guide America: De Oppresso Liber. That is the right way for us.
But if that way proves impossible, I know America well enough to know that she will not submit. All decent people should look true war in the face, and consider again if they will not back America in Iraq and elsewhere. We have now only three paths before us, and we shall take one of them whether we like any of them: We shall succeed in Iraq and elsewhere; we shall fight a true war; or we shall see the tyrants of the world, some of whom cannot even feed their people, assume a new place of power in the world.
That last one must not be. America will not let it be -- and she does indeed have the strength to stop it. Her military was made for a war of that type. We can fight and win, if we must.
Far better, though -- far better! -- the first. All people who wish the best for all mankind should join with us in bringing peace and order to Iraq, to Afghanistan, and elsewhere as we must. Let us pursue that road as long as there is any light at all to guide us on it. It is the right road, if only we can find the strength to walk it.
From a historic standpoint there is another alternative, Grim: isolationism. As I first pointed out in my post, Plan B, GWB's Wilsonian project to reform the Middle East is not America's first grand strategy for dealing with the Middle East, it is the second.
Should the plan fail (and that looks very much as though it may be happening), the plan that succeeds it will be consistent with the forces that have shaped American foreign policy throughout its history and that leaves either a Jacksonian response (which you have articulated) or a Jeffersonian one i.e. isolationism.
Both of these traditions are rooted in a pessimistic view of the rest of the world and, as you note, the world at large will be much, much worse off if either is adopted.
Dave, I don't think that isolationism is a fourth alternative. It's not even possible. If we disengage and pull back from the world militarily, we lay ourselves open to exactly that blackmail that is not acceptable.
The reason is globalization. We cannot disengage economically from the world. Literally, it can't be done. If we disengage militarily, we leave our economic flank exposed to blackmail of every sort.
Our founding fathers could contemplate an America without foreign entanglements, but that world is gone forever.
"From a historic standpoint there is another alternative, Grim: isolationism."
From a practical standpoint, isolationism would result in America becoming more aggressive. The thing about isolationists is that they get as mad a August hornets when there wish to be left alone isn't respected. Isolationism is really, "Leave me alone... or ELSE!" The more Isolationist the US becomes, the more dramatic will be its responce whenever its peace and security are disrupted.
And I don't think it takes much of a pessimist to conclude that it is impossible for the US to secure itself from any harm. Its strategic vision must be driven by realism, and realisticly the US cannot shut itself off from the global marketplace, cannot hermeticly secure its borders, and cannot make of itself an impregnible fortress. Not only can it not bear the economic cost of doing so, no longer can it not bear the cost of personal freedoms entailed, but current technology puts to much power to harm in the hands of too few to be really stoppable. Isolationism would just gaurantee that the attacks are concieved and planned with greater boldness.
Isolationism is an important trend in American foreign policy, I agree. However, it tends to arise at the beginning of conflicts, not the end of them.
We've seen powerful isolationist movements at the beginning of both World Wars, for example. The isolationist argument does not conflict with the culture of success, because it does not engage it: it posits that a given problem is 'not our problem.' As a result, the problem can resolve itself without being either a success or a failure for America.
That, plainly, cannot now be the case in Iraq.
We started our engagement in this war with 9/11. From the start of our awarness of the war, it has always been our problem. The isolationist stream in American consciousness is not likely to be engaged, I would say: the necessary conditions for it are absent. We have no choice but to recognize events as a success or a failure for our country as a whole. There is a part of our country that is ready to accept failure -- indeed, there is a part of our country that is advocating it as strongly as they can.
Even so, it is not in the nation as a whole to accept it. Nor should it be.
If it cannot rebuild certain nations into successful, peaceful democracies, it will instead destroy those nations.
Only if it can convince the American populace that it is in mortal danger. I still pose my question: Does anyone here seriously think even in the worst case situation (America suffers 'defeat' (i.e. gives up) in Iraq, and then flees) that America will not exist in 20 or 50 years?
Realistically, there is almost no-one who truly believes that America is really in a fight for its life. America has the means to utterly destroy anyone it chooses, and no-one (outside of the Soviet Union) has the ability to destroy the United States. Even 100 9/11's wouldn't destroy the United States, and the odds that the terrorists will ever manage one is close to zero.
America is taking the high road (thank goodness) in trying to bring Democracy to the ME, but if it fails, it only means that things go back to the bad old days.
9/11 was a disaster, but placed in perspective, it was only a pin prick to the might of the United States.
So, given that, do I believe that the political will is there to be the "bad guys" and cause a few millions deaths obliterating enemy governments that few people feel are real threats to the USA? No. Americans value their role as "good guys", and are loathe to dispense with it. Provide a truly convincing case the America is truly at risk (i.e. massive invasion, destruction of most of its cities, etc.), and the case would change radically. Until that point, the present course, or simply backing out is the only politically viable course.
"Provide a truly convincing case the America is truly at risk (i.e. massive invasion, destruction of most of its cities, etc.), and the case would change radically. Until that point, the present course, or simply backing out is the only politically viable course."
TW, that is one of the most illogical, a-historical, and fundamentally immoral statements I've seen by an American citizen in a long time. It is also a counsel of strategic suicide.
It is illogical because it requires the US to sit idly by while its enemies gather massive forces and then inflict mortal damage on our nation.
It is a-historical because the US has never waited until after a huge army had landed on our shores or over half our cities had been destroyed to wage full-scale war.
It is fundamentally immoral because it requires our political leadership to value enemy lives more highly than American lives. Indeed, your counsel would require American political and military leaders to violate their oaths to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" by deliberately risking total defeat before waging total war.
Your counsel is strategic suicide for three reasons:
1) It requires the US to absorb very heavy damage to its industrial infrastructure and its population base. If half or more of our cities are smoking ruins, then half or more of our industrial base is also smoking ruins. It also means that at least one-third of our population is dead, maimed, or homeless refugees. This would cripple the output of the Arsenal of Democracy. It would also put a huge dent in our military-age manpower.
2) It deliberately concedes the strategic initiative to our enemies and would give them tremendous offensive momentum. We would start the war flat on our back. First, we would have to stop the enemy offensive(s). Second, we would have to reorganize and rebuild our forces with a shattered industrial base and a shrunken population. Third, we would have to counter-attack an enemy that had time to prepare defenses in depth and mobilize massive reserves.
3) It ignores the reality of multiple threats from multiple strategic competitors. These threats will continue to grow as the century progresses. Militant Islam is simply the enemy that has chosen to violently compete with us first. These threats will reinforce each other as and when it is to their advantage. The true peer competitor will be China, but other threats already include N. Korea and Venezuela. High oil and gas prices are reinvigorating Russia and they are maneuvering against us in some areas. India and Japan will probably be our allies but they have both been overt/covert enemies in the past. Who knows if France will be an ally or an enemy? We do not operate in a strategic vacuum where we have the luxury of only contending with one threat at a time. Willingly accepting massive losses at the beginning of a war would simply guarantee that other enemies would pile on to finish us.
At the core of your post is the idea that there must be an equivalency of death and destruction before the American people will support the ruthless use of our power to crush an enemy. Somehow it just wouldn't be fair if we flattened them after they only killed a few thousand of us or even a few hundred thousand of us. The fact that they deliberately attacked our civilian population and have violated every other rule of war since doesn't matter to you. They have to be excused because, well, they're really not adults like us Westerners that have to fight by the rules. No, they're just vicious children who need a geopolitical time-out or at most a few gentle smacks from Uncle Sam's paddle.
Here's the reality, TW. Throughout our history we have had two sets of rules of engagement for our enemies. Honorable enemies that generally follow the rules of the Western war-fighting code are entitled to its protections. Dishonorable enemies that do not follow the rules of the code are not entitled to its protections either as combatants or non-combatants. The response to dishonorable enemies has always been to throw the rule book away and give them a bellyful of war without limits. And it defeats them every time.
Now militant Islam has decided to violently compete with us. They have decided to do so by the deliberate violation of all the rules of war. They are not wayward children who have been duped into bad behavior. They are ruthless adults who have freely chosen to fight us using the most savage means at their command. We have no obligation to be gentle or merciful or understanding toward these enemies. We have no obligation to minimize enemy casualties or limit our firepower or our targets. Our only obligation is to end the threat of militant Islam to our nation and our civilization as rapidly as possible while minimizing our casualties.
Your counsel is strategic suicide
Ahem, first let me point out the "politically viable" part of my quoted text. This is not a counselled course of action. This is a statement (okay, claim), that the American populace as a whole does not have the stomach to kill the millions necessary to destroy militant Islam without an obvious, imminent danger.
By the way, I am not claiming that it would take 100 9/11's to cause America to go to all out war. In fact, I'm claiming that all it would take is an obvious capacity to destroy the USA. However, the terrorists are so amazingly far from that that Americans (in general) are not willing to forsake their self-image as good guys.
Blow up (not just damage) a city, see the invasion force, etc., and that would provide the the necessary fear. At that point, you might well see a Jacksonian response.
They are ruthless adults who have freely chosen to fight us using the most savage means at their command.
Who can probably only be militarily defeated by acts that end up killing millions of women and children.
(I'm assuming a the most humane strategy of a decapitating strike on the state actors followed by subsequent disease, famine, and civil war.)
First, to militarily defeat terrorism requires more than the elimination of the state actors. The elimination of the "Axis of Evil" would reduce funding all right, but could well fuel a lot of domestic terrorism. Remember 9/11 didn't cost a lot of money or require fancy weapons. Only fanatics.
I'm not certain how you militarily eliminate fanatics without liquidating populations wholescale, and I'm definitely certain that Americans are ready to be death camp guards :-).
To go back to my point of perceived threats, Say I've looked in a crystal ball and seen that in 50 years the USA is no more. I then ask people to guess what caused the destruction of the USA?What order do you think the populace as a whole would rate the threats. I suspect that most Americans would place the order as something like 2,4,3,5,1,6 or some such.
Lastly, I should come clean, I'm not an American citizen. I'm simply observing how American citizens wish to see themselves. Evidence of this is that America has expended enormous resources to try to fight as cleanly as possible. I honestly don't see a willingness to fight as dirty necessary unless there's a very obvious threat.
There's a cost to being the "good guys", and Americans are willing to pay it unless they see themselves as having no other choice. They still believe they have choices.
I think what I'm arguing, TW, is that failure in Iraq necessarily emboldens Iran and North Korea (among others). Thus, you're correct that success or failure in Iraq is not an existential threat to the United States. However, the necessary consequences of failure certainly could pose -- if not an existential threat to America -- a sufficient threat to justify a tremendous use of force.
North Korea, for example, has under its artillery tens of thousands of people including thousands of US servicemen. We are not going to accept the slaughter of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. The only way to prevent it, if the DPRK pushes us to the point of violence, is a nuclear attack on their emplacements.
As a consequence, I think a nuclear attack on their emplacements is a logical certainty if we get to the point that the DPRK is feeling bold enough to attack. It may come about -- depending on the leadership of the moment -- as a pre-emptive strike if we feel they are likely to attack.
Similarly, Iran already seems intent on brinksmanship on its nuclear issue. A US failure in Iraq would reduce the perceived consequences of brinksmanship to the point that their possession of nuclear arms became a near-certainty (stoppable, if at all, only by destructive acts of the kind we're discussing either by the US or Israel). Success in Iraq, however, appreciably improves the US position for negotiating with Iran. A success in Iraq makes another regime change operation in Iran possible. Even if we were unlikely to undertake it, the fact that we obviously had the confidence and a success under our belt would require Iran to take it seriously as a consideration.
It seems to me that all current geostrategic problems improve in the quality of their likely outcomes if the US succeeds in Iraq. All those problems worsen if Iraq fails. Thus, while Iraq itself is not likely to threaten the future of America, a failure in Iraq darkens the sky. It makes the probability of a true war far greater, and it closes the best of the three roads.
"Does anyone here seriously think even in the worst case situation (America suffers 'defeat' (i.e. gives up) in Iraq, and then flees) that America will not exist in 20 or 50 years?"
I'm already on record here as believing that America will not exist in 20 years even if everything were to go swimmingly in Iraq from here on out, but that is not exactly what you are asking and I'm not in the mood to explain myself.
But if you think America could survive 100 9/11's, then you are nuts. I'm increaingly unconvinced it could survive even two more.
if the DPRK pushes us to the point of violence
That's rather the crux of my claim. A nuclear strike is going to have massive historical repercussions that will last decades, if not centuries. Americans in general are going to want near incontrovertible proof that an attack is imminent before paying such a huge moral price. (To be honest, GWB's claim about Iraq haven't helped things much. The bar of proof will be much higher for an operation that promises to kill milions of civilians rather than liberate them.)
I do quite agree, Grim, that geopolitically it would be much better if Iraq was won cleanly. Maybe I should make it clear that I fully support a continued American presence in Iraq. The consequences of an American pull-out for both the Iraqis and for American willingness to challenge other tyrants would be unfortunate in the extreme.
But if you think America could survive 100 9/11's, then you are nuts.
100 might be a bit of hyperbole, but my, you have little faith in America. Estimates are that 9/11 cost $100 billion dollars when you factor in everything. 100x$100bln = 10 trillion.
USA GDP $11,750,000,000,000.
It would require a rebuilding effort in line with what happened after the Civil War, but America is certainly capable of it. And absent any other external troubles, I think it would be back to what it once (economically) was before in 20 years.
Politically would be a different matter, but I don't think the USA would even come close to dissolving, and let's face it, 100 9/11's isn't possible.