Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Logic of Constant Intervention
Our former associate editor Matt Welch drops some depressing foreign policy prognostication from his current gig at the Los Angeles Times. Worth reading and thinking about in full, but here are some choice excerpts. Matt meets a vet who tells him:
Wartime is not the time to debate the conduct of war. Once we're there, we're in it together, and we need to fight united until we win.
Set aside for the moment whether he's right. The important thing, for the future conduct of U.S. foreign policy, is that his sentiment remains widely held, in numbers large enough to help ensure that no matter what you may hear on the campaign trail between now and November 2008, the U.S. troop deployment in Iraq will likely be an issue in the 2012 election and beyond.
[I]n a galaxy far, far away (otherwise known as the 1990s), President Clinton felt that he had to assure an isolationist Republican Congress -- repeat after me, an isolationist Republican Congress -- that the 20,000 U.S. peacekeeping troops he promised Bosnia as part of the Dayton Accords would only stay deployed for a single calendar year. They ended up staying nine times as long, and that ranks among the shortest of unpromised U.S. deployments since the country became a global power.
At the time, Clinton was able to persuade enough Republicans not necessarily on the merits of backing Balkan peace with potential U.S. blood but rather on the argument that, well, the commander in chief had made a promise......
...........
Every presidential nominee of the major party not currently occupying the White House runs on a scaled-back, more "humble" foreign policy; every new president quickly becomes a robust interventionist. People commonly misportrayed as wild-eyed pacifists -- Howard Dean, George Soros -- in fact supported just about every war before Iraq and will almost certainly support future Democratic wars. As the woman said, what's the point of having this superb military if we can't use it?
..................So Gen. Petraeus will get his six more months of surge, even though Democrats claim it's failing and the public has long since given up hope. We'll all reconvene next spring, by which time the goalposts should be moved sufficiently enough that I can plan on writing the exact same column on the seventh anniversary of Sept. 11 as well.
Matt's April 2006 "farewell to warblogging."
|9.13.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Wartime is not the time to debate the conduct of war. Once
we're there, we're in it together, and we need to fight united
until we win.
Spoken like a true former member of the United States Fascist
Psychopaths.... I mean, U.S. Armed Forces.
carrick|9.13.07 @ 3:47PM|#
The US is building massive 'temporary' bases that we will 'only'
occupy for 80 or 90 years. None of the "withdrawal" plans offered
by the democrats intend to leave those bases empty, merely to
withdraw from the urban areas where our soldiers are being
killed.
No one is planning to leave Iraq. The only argument is whether we
will watch the genocide from our secure bases or will be patrolling
streets and getting shot at for another 20 years.
|9.13.07 @ 3:54PM|#
"Wartime is not the time to debate the conduct of war. Once
we're there, we're in it together, and we need to fight united
until we win."
Yet the war on terror is perpetual. So there will never be a time
to debate the conduct of war. We will always be "in there" and we
will never be able to win, because there is no definition of
"win."
|9.13.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Yet the war on terror is perpetual. So there will never be a
time to debate the conduct of war. We will always be "in there" and
we will never be able to win, because there is no definition of
"win."
Ahhhh... but that's the point; find the perpetual war and the
proclaim that no "patriotic" American may question the policy, the
President, the Congress, or the military.
|9.13.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Once we're there, we're in it together, and we need to fight
united until we win.
So if I refuse to be in it together with you and fight to keep us
fractured and ununited, will you concede that we can't win and give
up and go home?
|9.13.07 @ 4:09PM|#
" So Gen. Petraeus will get his six more months of
surge...."
half a year
half a year
half a year on
|9.13.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Agreed that a problem with the soldier's argument is that we're
in a perpetual war that never will end. But that's not the main
problem, which is that such an argument elevates the military to a
sanctified position in society. We can't question the assertions of
a general, we must continue fighting to honor the sacrifices made
by those who died, etc.
The military is a tool of the government. It is necessary at times;
at other times it can be useful, and at still other times (like in
Iraq, in my opinion) it can be counterproductive. But we can't let
the argument be framed in a way that puts the military itself above
the national interests that it is supposed to serve.
|9.13.07 @ 4:17PM|#
So Gen. Petraeus will get his six more months of surge, even though Democrats claim it's failing and the public has long since given up hope. We'll all reconvene next spring, by which time the goalposts should be moved sufficiently enough that I can plan on writing the exact same column on the seventh anniversary of Sept. 11 as well.
Well Brian, I think we're in the endgame there and the next six
months will be crucial to determining whether the surge will work
and the country will come together or fall apart, so I really think
we just need to let this play out.
In short, in six months we should know much better whether we'll
need another six months to determine if we'll need six more months,
or even another half year to really begin to see results.
The bottom line is that the next six months are going to be the
most important six months for US foreign policy until the following
six months.
ed|9.13.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Akira MacKenzie | September 13, 2007, 3:33pm |
"Wartime is not the time to debate the conduct of war. Once
we're there, we're in it together, and we need to fight united
until we win." Spoken like a true former member of the United
States Fascist Psychopaths.... I mean, U.S. Armed
Forces.
Akira, the 60s called. They need more protesters to spit on
returning GIs.
|9.13.07 @ 4:23PM|#
"Once we're there, we're in it together, and we need to fight
united until we win."
We've already won. The declared purpose of the war, depending on
which Vulcan you ask, was to remove Saddam (who was a brutal
dictator) & destroy his WMDs. Saddam (who was a brutal
dictator) has been removed and the WMD's have been destroyed (even
though they didn't exist). Mission accomplished. Now can
we get the hell out ?
|9.13.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Akira, I'm going to hunt you down and kill you, for the fascist psychopaths posting. :-{
|9.13.07 @ 4:35PM|#
I disagree with Matt.
his sentiment remains widely held, in numbers large enough to
help ensure that no matter what you may hear on the campaign trail
between now and November 2008, the U.S. troop deployment in Iraq
will likely be an issue in the 2012 election and beyond.
The next president can appeal to that sentiment by talking about
the iraq War as part of the War on Terror, and presenting
withdrawal as part of a global policy to refocus our efforts on
Afghanistn, bin Laden, and al Qaeda as a whole. There are quite a
few candidates working that line already - as in, every Democrat
not named Kucinich or Gravel.
|9.13.07 @ 4:42PM|#
carrick,
Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich have all proposed
a withdrawal with no, zero, zip residual forces.
Timothy|9.13.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Why do I think this Iraq thing is going to keep going on?
Because here in San Antonio they're building a massive "Polytrauma
Center" for Iraq/WoT vets. Construction begins in 2008. It'll be
done by 2012 sometime.
Yea.
carrick|9.13.07 @ 4:51PM|#
Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich have all
proposed a withdrawal with no, zero, zip residual
forces.
These men are no more likely to be elected than Ron Paul.
So I was incorrect in saying no one is planning to leave
Iraq.
I should have said no one with a chance of occupying the white
house in the near future is planning to leave Iraq.
|9.13.07 @ 4:52PM|#
The vet is wrong
It has nothing to do with any supposed differences between this war
and wars of the past.
1) The victors in most wars have rarely been as unified as a
shallow study might cause us to think. Mostly its an illusion cause
by the absence of mention of these internal divisions in casual
histories or school textbooks. Just because you haven't learned of
them doesn't mean they didn't exist.
2) In cases where defeat can be honestly attributed to disunity,
the disunity has taken a form that far surpassed mere debate. I
challenge anyone to find an example of a defeat that can be pinned
on "disunity" but that did not feature an actual physical
act of treason - like opening a gate to the enemy or one
faction actually attacking the other.
3)Unity in pursuit of a flawed strategy can be as or more
disastrous as any hesitation and vacillation brought on by the
existence of a debate. In general, what is gained in the ability to
adapt more than compensates for any loss in raw strength. In war,
like in evolution, "it is not the fittest that survive but
those which are most adaptable to change".
4) If unity behind a flawed strategy was really so much better than
disunity, then the people calling for it would at least consider
the idea of biting the bullet themselves and accepting the program
of their rivals for the sake of such unity. This Almost Never
Happens. The people who demand unity in war almost always mean
"everyone else should unite behind me" - because in truth they are
not serious about the importance of "unity" to begin with.
carrick|9.13.07 @ 4:55PM|#
In addition, the public statements of candidates at this point
have little bearing on the actions of the next president.
The bases are being built. The military is not going to abandon
these strategic resources in this strategic part of the
world.
The next president will be required to find some way to publicly
justify their continued existence and funding the operation of the
bases.
This has nothing to do with political ideaology. Inertia is nearly
impossible to resist. The only issue is whether we turn them over
to some future government in Iraq in 20, 40, 60 or 80 years.
|9.13.07 @ 4:56PM|#
carrick,
Bill Richardson is defintely more likely to be elected than Ron
Paul. The networks have even started including him in their
polling, now that he's pushing double digits.
R4d20,
The Russians in World War 1?
|9.13.07 @ 4:57PM|#
In addition, the public statements of candidates at this
point have little bearing on the actions of the next
president.
You brought them up. None of the "withdrawal" plans offered by
the democrats intend to leave those bases empty, merely to withdraw
from the urban areas where our soldiers are being
killed.
Can we talk about the plans they offered, or not?
Garanimal Jr|9.13.07 @ 5:00PM|#
The only way we're getting out of Iraq is if we suffer a
massive, bigger-than-Tet defeat or if we have a massive economic
collapse and can no longer afford our empire.
We will continue to be told we must expend blood and money for
national honor, prestige, and, for the unthinking masses, the cause
of freedom and security.
I bet the Republican Nat'l Guard war vet was a REMF.
carrick|9.13.07 @ 5:10PM|#
Can we talk about the plans they offered, or not?
Feel free to enlighten me.
|9.13.07 @ 5:11PM|#
OK.
Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich have all proposed
a withdrawal with no, zero, zip residual forces.
|9.13.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich have all proposed a withdrawal with no, zero, zip residual forces.
So why are you going to vote for Hillary?
For real, it would be like if I claimed that the Republicans are
anti-war because of Ron Paul being totally anti-war... and then I
voted for Guliani when he won the Republican nomination.
You can joke about the Libertarian party not winning all you
want... but you vote for a candidate who you despise, and you call
that "winning"?
|9.13.07 @ 5:17PM|#
Garanimal:
Tet was a military defeat for Charlie. They had no earthly idea
that US REMFs could shoot. The Tet drubbing helped them in the
propaganda war as the commie sponsored protesters and their
megaphones in the press declared a Tet victory for the VC.
The surge is working to depopulate and castrate AQ while the
soonies and shitas put aside their hatred for a few nanoseconds.
Once AQ is neutralized, we need to get out of dodge and protect the
Kurds and the oil fields from the inevitable civil war.
Hopefully, the best lesson from Iraq is that the raghead rat
bastards are all equally worthless and that racial profiling, daisy
cutters and isolation from their stinking lot is the only effective
solution in the perpetual WOT.
carrick|9.13.07 @ 5:18PM|#
OK
So, tell me about Hillary and Obama -- since they are actually
leading in the polls at this time.
carrick|9.13.07 @ 5:35PM|#
The bases are being built. The military is not going to
abandon these strategic resources in this strategic part of the
world.
The next president will be required to find some way to publicly
justify their continued existence and funding the operation of the
bases.
This has nothing to do with political ideaology. Inertia is nearly
impossible to resist. The only issue is whether we turn them over
to some future government in Iraq in 20, 40, 60 or 80
years.
Care to respond to the other three points that you ignored.
|9.13.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Rex,
I'm not going to vote for Hillary. Probably for Richardson. Where
did you get the idea I was going to vote for Hillary over a more
plausible anti-war candidate?
If two candidates that are pro-war win the nomination, I will vote
for the one that is less pro-war. If there is no meaningful
distinction on this issue, I'll vote for the one that I like better
on other issues.
Seriously, when I vost, I try to aim a little higher than making
myself feel good - even if the improvement is only marginal.
|9.13.07 @ 5:41PM|#
Wartime is not the time to debate the conduct of
war.
I can understand why someone - particularly a soldier - would say
that, but...
...thank God Admiral Donitz didn't see it that way in May of
1945...
|9.13.07 @ 5:45PM|#
So, tell me about Hillary and Obama -- since they are
actually leading in the polls at this time.
OK. Hillary supported the war when it began, while Obama loudly
opposed it. (This current war isn't going to be the only foreign
policy issue that will come up over the next 8 years, though it can
be easy to lose sight of that).
What's more, Hillary continues to justify her vote on the grounds
that "I believe the President should have that power," the power to
decide whether or not to take the nation to war if there is a
threat. Obama has been much more restrained on executive power,
which is important to me right now.
Third, Obama came out and said that it would be a bad idea to use
nuclear weapons on al Qaeda camps in Pakistan - which is a fairly
obvious, noncontroversial observation - and Hillary criticized him
for it. And not because she disagreed, but because she doesn't
think public discussion of such things is appropriate, and because
she, like the rest of the Washington Establishment, thinks that the
implied threat of nuclear war should be a constant, unspoken aspect
of our foreign policy.
So I think there are some pretty significant distinctions between
the two.
|9.13.07 @ 5:46PM|#
carrick,
That's actually only one point, phrased in a longwinded
manner.
And the answer is, the military will do what the C in C tells
them.
|9.13.07 @ 6:06PM|#
Seriously, when I vost, I try to aim a little higher than making myself feel good - even if the improvement is only marginal.
A vote for a losing candidate makes an improvement, because it
gives the other candidates less of a mandate. It also gives the
winning candidate an incentive to change their policies to win me
over the next time around.
|9.13.07 @ 6:10PM|#
OK, Rex. That was a bit harsh.
I can appreciate your stance, but if everyone who saw their choice
as the lesser of two evils dropped out of the real election, the
greater evil would win.
|9.13.07 @ 6:11PM|#
I think we need a carrot and a stick.
People like me are the carrot, and people like you are the
stick.
|9.13.07 @ 6:24PM|#
Akira, I'm going to hunt you down and kill you, for the
fascist psychopaths posting. :-{
You're certainly welcome to try. Oh, and allow me to introduce you
to my good friend Mr. Springfield Armory 1911A1.
|9.13.07 @ 6:47PM|#
But that's not the main problem, which is that such an
argument elevates the military to a sanctified position in society.
We can't question the assertions of a general, we must continue
fighting to honor the sacrifices made by those who died,
etc.
I'm glad you brought this up TF, I am so sick and tired of every
hick and nutcase who was ever talked into enlisting being put upon
a pedestal while we insignificant civilians are expected to bow
down and worship him like some sort of demigod. It's one thing to
have people around who are willing to fight and die for our
country, but it's quite another to proclaim their actions, and the
actions of the their leaders, as beyond reproach.
Of course, my attitude toward the military is largely colored by
inconvenient little historical tid bits like Dresden,
Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Mai Lai, Abu Gharib, Haditha, and other little
incidents that the jingoistic fuckers on LGF and NRO don't want to
talk about. Also, I have NEVER met a soldier--enlisted or officer,
on active duty or discharged, full time or reserves and regardless
of branch--who WASN'T at best an authoritarian control freak who
think that every political problem can be solved with nuclear
weapons or at worst a full fledged psycho who just hasn't gotten
around to murdering anyone... yet.
Isn't the military supposed to screen out the wack-jobs BEFORE
they're allowed to pick up a gun? I guess sanity and intelligence
in our soldiers would reduce their "combat effectiveness,"
right?
Paco|9.13.07 @ 7:12PM|#
Hey Joe - The czar was removed from power in February. The
succeeding government signed a peace treaty with the
Germans/Austrians. Then the Bolsheviks overthrew that government
(and killed the czars family) in November. The citizens of Russia
were doing a lot more than debating.
R4d20,
The Russians in World War 1?
|9.13.07 @ 7:39PM|#
Also, I have NEVER met a soldier--enlisted or officer, on active duty or discharged, full time or reserves and regardless of branch--who WASN'T at best an authoritarian control freak who think that every political problem can be solved with nuclear weapons or at worst a full fledged psycho who just hasn't gotten around to murdering anyone... yet.
Actually, akira, there are several people who are ex-military who
post here who fall nowhere on that ridiculous spectrum of yours.
Myself included.
Take a fricking chill pill. You sound like some fundamentalist
preacher shrieking about homosexuals being spawn of the devil.
|9.13.07 @ 7:53PM|#
But Paco,
The question I was answering wasn't about whether locals did
anything other than debate, but whether they performed an actual
act of treason.
Here: I challenge anyone to find an example of a defeat that
can be pinned on "disunity" but that did not feature an actual
physical act of treason - like opening a gate to the enemy or one
faction actually attacking the other.
The Russians did nothing to aid the Germans.
|9.13.07 @ 7:53PM|#
Among the many inherent fallacies of the soldier's quote, I just
want to mention one:
We already won that war. GWB said so. "Mission Accomplished" I
think he said. So what are we trying to "win" now?
thoreau|9.13.07 @ 7:58PM|#
Akira, calm down. Most soldiers are nothing like the strawman that you're burning.
paco|9.13.07 @ 8:37PM|#
Akira - the 1911A1 is a great rifle, I have the much cheaper A3
Model. The only flaw is the bolt throw, which gets in the way of
adding a scope. A few "nutcases" can do a lot of damage. I predict
that crime and 'terrorism' will soar when our troops are withdrawn
from Iraq (e.g. Timothy McVeigh or Edward Teach). Which adds an
evil wrinkle to the "Fight them there, so we don't have to fight
them here" idea.
Joe - "one faction actually attacking the other." Russia was in bad
shape prior to turning on each other, they capitulated
afterwards.
carrick|9.13.07 @ 9:08PM|#
And the answer is, the military will do what the C in C
tells them.
Fascinating analysis.
I can see now why you come here to have conversations with other
smart people.
|9.13.07 @ 10:01PM|#
"""" I have NEVER met a soldier--enlisted or officer, on active
duty or discharged, full time or reserves and regardless of
branch--who WASN'T at best an authoritarian control freak who think
that every political problem can be solved with nuclear weapons or
at worst a full fledged psycho who just hasn't gotten around to
murdering anyone... yet""""
Either your bullshitting, or you don't know shit about the
ex-military.
"""Actually, akira, there are several people who are ex-military
who post here who fall nowhere on that ridiculous spectrum of
yours. Myself included.""
Myself included too.
|9.13.07 @ 10:02PM|#
"""We already won that war. GWB said so. "Mission Accomplished"
I think he said. So what are we trying to "win" now?"""
It's called a policing action.
|9.13.07 @ 10:07PM|#
Paco,
The Kerensky govt that held power between the Czar's abdication and
the Bolshevik Revolution planned to continue the war. That was a
major factor in that govt's downfall (as the war was extremely
unpopular, to say the least). It was Lenin who made peace with the
Germans.
|9.13.07 @ 10:14PM|#
The question I was answering wasn't about whether locals did
anything other than debate, but whether they performed an actual
act of treason.
joe, Were you arguing that the Russians didn't perform an act of
treason? While there were no major revolts in early 1917, desertion
was rife among the Russian troops. If the Austrians hadn't needed
most of their reserves to exploit the collapse of the Italian
front, and the Germans hadn't started to be seriously pressed on
the Western front, the Russian front may well have collapsed.
|9.13.07 @ 11:24PM|#
What?!?! A libertarian view on the war in Iraq...
Fuck, I need to stop reading Reason and start reading the LA
Times.
James Quentin Clark|9.13.07 @ 11:30PM|#
"Wartime is not the time to debate the conduct of war. Once
we're there, we're in it together, and we need to fight united
until we win."
"Intercourse is not the time to debate whether there is consent or
not. Once we're in there, we're in, we're in it together and we
need to be united until we win."
If ever we should be concerned about our conduct, it is DURING a
war when people are actually dying. This does not mean we must be
indecissive or weak; it just means that oversight, clear goals, and
solid rules of conduct are in place and enforced. None of those
things have been well established in the current war and, compiled
with divinely poor planning and intelligence, it has led to the
current debacle.
Paco|9.14.07 @ 12:52AM|#
I just realized I confused the Springfield Model 1903 Rifle with the Colt 1911 pistol. That's just because I'm drunk. I like rubbing guns with oil, by candle light, with soft music and a glass of wine. BUT I AM NOT GAY FOR GUNS!! I just like to play with them.
|9.14.07 @ 8:02AM|#
"[I]n a galaxy far, far away (otherwise known as the 1990s),
President Clinton felt that he had to assure an isolationist
Republican Congress -- repeat after me, an isolationist Republican
Congress -- that the 20,000 U.S. peacekeeping troops he promised
Bosnia as part of the Dayton Accords would only stay deployed for a
single calendar year."
Of course, part of the reason why the GOP Congress was
"isolationist" at the time was that it was difficult to see what US
interest was being served by Clinton's intervening in the Balkans.
You can honestly disagree whether reopening the war against
Ba'athist Iraq and trying to give a more liberal government was a
workable idea, but it was certainly more obvious why it was in the
United States' interest to try. Despite Matt Welch's attempts make
these two cases of intervention equivalent, he is comparing an
apple to an orange.
rho|9.14.07 @ 8:31AM|#
You can honestly disagree whether reopening the war against
Ba'athist Iraq and trying to give a more liberal government was a
workable idea, but it was certainly more obvious why it was in the
United States' interest to try.
That's not why we went in. We went in because Saddam was a danger
to us and we couldn't take any chances. After going in and
discovering that Saddam barely had a pot to piss in, the objective
silently moved towards democritization.
His comparison is apt in that one was sold as a humanitarian
mission from the outset, and the other was a complete lie from
beginning to end, and Republicans passed on the humanitarian one
(because it was a Democrat president) and bought the lie (because
it was a Republican president). I know that wasn't Matt's
intention, but that sure is what I took away from it.
|9.14.07 @ 8:37AM|#
Anyone remember that South Park episode from a few years ago? America needs anti-war activists so that it doesn't look like a complete rapacious imperialist power.
|9.14.07 @ 10:42AM|#
"You can honestly disagree whether reopening the war against
Ba'athist Iraq and trying to give a more liberal government was a
workable idea, but it was certainly more obvious why it was in the
United States' interest to try."
How was it in our interest?
|9.14.07 @ 11:21AM|#
The Russians in World War 1?
What?
1) A case of far more than just "debate" - there were bread riots,
assassinations of high government officials by bomb throwing
anarchists, etc. Russian society had started to violently
break down well before they left the war.
2) The WWI Russian army was defeated on the battlefield not at
home. It was pathetically ill-trained, ill-equipped, and ill-lead.
Even if Russia had been united it could never have held its own
against the Germans.
There is something really dishonest about comparing a situation
where opposition to the war and regime consists entirely of talk
and politics to situations where violent revolutionary activity was
a fact of life.
abu hamza|9.14.07 @ 3:00PM|#
disclaimers: I voted for W twice and I used to be in favor of
this war.
Now it is so apparent to me that Bush just wants to kick the can
down the road 6 mos to spare his legacy from a saigon moment. who
wants to be the last guy killed in Iraq? and if it means another
500 or so US soldiers killed, well, he's got a legacy to
protect.
I pray Mr. Bush does not expand his war to include Iran.
We can get out after Bush leaves and say it was just "Mr. Bush's
folly" or "Mr. Bush's war" and maybe that will help us save face,
but I think W has done irreparable to our country and our security
by invading a country that posed no threat to us.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245