A Surge of Paleoconservatives

Heads up: Brainy paleos Richard Spencer, Daniel McCarthy, and W. James Antle III (the latter two being reason contributors) have launched Exit-Strategies, a blog on "foreign policy after the Bush debacle." Or as the bloggers put it:

How do we get out of this mess?

Here, Spencer analyzes the not-so-secret hawkishness of French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.

Kouchner's mention that "We must negotiate right to the end…" is almost a Freudian slip—clearly, he presumes that there will be an end to the negotiations.

Kouchner's hawkishness should not come as any surprise. The founder of Doctors Without Borders, Kouchner is known as a man of the Left; however, in his short tenure, he's been more than willing to team up with the Bush administration in Iraq and has even gestured toward the possibility of France's rejoining NATO's military command.

reason's writing on foreign policy here.

Comments

[Mike Laursen]

I see a lot of criticism of the Republican regime there, which I'm all in favor of. But where do they bring up any of their ideas for an exit strategy? I guess the name of their blog gave me the wrong expectation.

[george]

earn daily 100 usd it is not joke
for more details: http://www.rreklam.com

[thoreau]

How do we get out of this mess?

We cut military spending by 75%, put Bush and Cheney on trial for their crimes, and vow to never, ever again fuck with the world.

Oh, and Democrats are forced to wear t-shirts saying "I'm a fucking useless coward with no spine", while Republicans wear t-shirts saying "I was an eager collaborator in the worst regime in American history."

Yes, I'm serious.

[Episiarch]

We cut military spending by 75%

Just 75%? More like 95%. I wish I could recall the halcyon days before WWII when this country only had more than the tiniest military unless somebody attacked us...

[sv]

thoreau 4 prez

[semm]

Yes, I'm serious.

See I guess I don't read enough of your comments, because I never realised before this moment that you were insane.

[joe]

Even the majority that has consisently voted against it, thoreau?

Let's not be quite so collectivist in our condemnation. How about a third set of shirts reading "Told Ya So!" for the majority of Democrats, Ron Paul, and that rich guy's son from Rhode Island?

[joe]

I can remember when I thought that realpolitik, purely interest-driven, conservative foreign policy was the most amoral, bloody expression of American imperial arrogance ev-ah.

Oops.

[Just Sayin\']

BAGHDAD - The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday that a seven-month-old security operation has cut violence in Baghdad by half, but he acknowledged that civilians were still dying at too high a rate. On Thursday, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters that car bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their lowest level in a year, and civilian casualties have dropped from a high of about 32 to 12 per day. He also said violence in Baghdad had seen a 50 percent decrease.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

SEMM IS INSANE. IN YO FACE. BOO YAH.

[Fluffy]

I know what you mean, Joe.

It's been quite an eye opener. Ten years ago, I too might have thought that it was possible for a "moral" nation to "liberate" the populations of "immoral" regimes. The siren song of that Trotskyite impulse can be pretty irresistible, if you haven't seen it fail. After you see it fail, you realize that the requirements of aggressive war eventually chew up and spit out every last ideal you think you're advancing. It really shocks me sometimes that there are still people who can't see it.

I think that one problem we have is the somewhat unique historical experience of WWII is set in the minds of a lot of people as a "typical" war, when in fact it was a very atypical war. We have a lot of people who believe in the unconditional surrender of the enemy, and in the power of military victory to liberalize a defeated enemy. Both of these things are actually pretty rare in western history, and seem to require pretty specific circumstances to be achieved. But because of 1945 there are people out there who seem to think that if we just fight long enough the insurgency will "unconditionally surrender" and turn into Republicans.

[JBinMO]

" but he acknowledged that civilians were still dying at too high a rate."

There just Iraqis, what are people getting worked up over?

[thoreau]

joe-

Fine. Those who refuse to vote for funds for Iraq don't have to wear the shirt.

Oh, but Reid and Pelosi have to wear the shirts no matter how they vote, because they have more than just their votes. They have procedural powers and room for political maneuvering, and they have refused to dig in and fight. I can forgive a freshman Congressman who votes the right way but never tries to raise a stink. But when a Senate Majority Leader refuses to invoke his procedure-fu, and instead schedules a vote on the East Germany Restoration Act, that's unforgiveable.

[fyodor]

thoreau,

And the rest of us wear t-shirts saying, "I voted for stupid"?

[Episiarch]

But because of 1945 there are people out there who seem to think that if we just fight long enough the insurgency will "unconditionally surrender" and turn into Republicans.

Don't forget the Cold War. 45 or so years of maintaining ready-for-war status (with no eventual war), which is another relatively unique scenario in the history of war.

I have never even lived in a time when the US wasn't sporting a huge-ass military--most of us haven't.

[joe]

Grover Norquist complaining about Republicans putting partisan loyalty above principled debate between different subsets of Republicans with different views.

That's rich.

[Isaac Bartram]

We cut military spending by 75%...

Echoes of the Ed Clark campaign in 1980. Seventy percent is what his people estimated the savings could be if we withdrew from NATO etc and placed more of the defense burden on our wealthy allies (or not if that's what they chose).

It was the only time that the LP actually outlined a coherent incremental plan for achieving the goals of the party. It was also the year that the LP presidential candidate got its highest vote totals.

Within four years almost all of Clark's advisors had been driven out of the party for being insufficiently radical.

[fyodor]

We have a lot of people who believe in the unconditional surrender of the enemy, and in the power of military victory to liberalize a defeated enemy.

Well if Hit & Run is any indication, you're sure right on there. When the Iraq war drums were a-beatin' back in the day, these threads were chock full of people saying that claims that Iraq could not be democraticized by military invasion were just like things that were said about Germany and Japan but since turned out to be wrong. We don't hear so much from those folks anymore.

[joe]

thoreau,

Pelosi's been good, but I'm with you on Reid.

Anyway, it's good to see this blog. They do a good job of putting out a viewpoint that's been squashed by lockstep adherence to whatever the Head Republican In Charge says. I may not agree with them very much, but it's always good to see a new perspective bring another dimension to the debate.

[joe]

Fluffy,

Aggressive vs. defensive war:

What would you call a protective force in Darfur?

Would that be more or less defensive than the units we stationed in Germany during the Cold War?

[Hugh Akston]

If we're imposing fashions on people, then any Congressperson still serving who voted in favor of the original Iraq invasion has to wear the shirt.

I can't decide whether to make hats mandatory for the ones who changed their minds only after the war turned into an unwinable quagmire, or for those who stick by it despite that fact.

[Grand Chalupa]

Do we still do nothing when third world thugs nationalize American property? I don't know for sure.

Ayn Rand is spinning in her grave.

[ChrisO]

A protective force in Darfur would be an aggressive act against Sudan. It's not the job of the U.S. to play World Cop. A Soviet takeover of western Europe represented a real threat the USA. The Janjaweed, not so much.

[ChrisO]

Do we still do nothing when third world thugs nationalize American property? I don't know for sure.

For companies doing business in the Third World, it's caveat emptor.

[Warren]

put Bush and Cheney on trial for their crimes

So we're letting Rumsfeld walk away?

[ClubMedSux]

earn daily 100 usd it is not joke
for more details: http://www.rreklam.com

It's still better than a Dan T. comment.

[ChrisO]

I can remember when I thought that realpolitik, purely interest-driven, conservative foreign policy was the most amoral, bloody expression of American imperial arrogance ev-ah.

Realpolitik is the only foreign policy that makes any sense. Of course, Kissinger's interpretation of our national interest and mine probably differ somewhat...

[Episiarch]

It's not the job of the U.S. to play World Cop.

Oh, no, we aren't! We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild... are pussies. And Kim Jong Il... is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks - also - fuck - assholes... assholes who just wanna shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole... is a dick... with some balls. The problem with dicks is, sometimes they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate...and it takes a pussy to show 'em that. But sometimes, pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are only an inch and half away from assholes. I don't know much in this crazy, crazy world, but I do know: If you don't let us fuck - this - asshole, we're going to have our dicks and our pussies all covered in shit!

[Isaac Bartram]

Chalupa

Do we still do nothing when third world thugs nationalize American property?

Why should the US government intervene to protect investors who make foolish business decisions in other countries?

And referring to private property owned by people who happen to be Americans as "American property" is something that someone with a tribalist collectivist worldview would do.

[JasonL]

I'm still depressed over the local inability to see any nuance or note any complexity over this issue. Reducing military spending by 75% is not serious, no matter who is proposing it. There is very little serious discussion anywhere about what the specific lessons here really are.

With libertarian dander up, all we get is 'See I told you so. Military projection is always a mistake. Always always always,' which clearly hasn't been proven.

There are a lot of serious questions we could be looking at. Are we really prepared to say that bad acting regimes who hide behind their own people always get away with whatever they want to do (except rolling tanks through Mexico to Texas)? There is really NO bad action that such regimes can take short of a uniformed invasion of another state that warrants a use of force? We are convinced that treating militant islamists like criminals and sending the cops after them would be effective? What is the appropriate course of action in the presence of a threat that may or may not be empty, especially when we have no way to confirm our fears?

I'm no fan of the execution of the occupation, but, damn, people want this to be simpler than it is.

[SIV]

We have a lot of people who believe in the unconditional surrender of the enemy

Not enough

[joe]

ChrisO,

I agree that the Janjaweed are not a threat to us, and that a mission to Darfur would not advance a vital American interest.

However, this: A protective force in Darfur would be an aggressive act against Sudan.

is quite questionable. If you shoot a guy who is attacking your neighbor, are you aggressing against the attacker? Is defense of the self the only instance of the non-aggresive use of force?

It's not the job of the U.S. to play World Cop. Maybe, maybe not. But setting that aside, cops who stop a robbery are not aggressors. The point about "World Cop" doesn't really have anything to do with the point about aggression.

[ChrisO]

Are we really prepared to say that bad acting regimes who hide behind their own people always get away with whatever they want to do (except rolling tanks through Mexico to Texas)? There is really NO bad action that such regimes can take short of a uniformed invasion of another state that warrants a use of force?

Yeah, that's about right. If it represents a real threat to the USA, then take decisive, ruthless action. If not, then leave it be.

[JasonL]

joe is completely correct at 11:14. Non initiation of force isn't applicable. I understand cost/benefit arguments against deploying the military against thugs, and I understand the moral culpability you have for innocent life you take as a result of military action, but there is nothing in libertarian basic morality that prevents you from agressing an aggressor. All tyrants are aggresors, by definition.

[sixstring]

"I can't decide whether to make hats mandatory for the ones who changed their minds only after the war turned into an unwinable quagmire"

Not hats. Flip-flops.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"there is nothing in libertarian basic morality that prevents you from agressing an aggressor."

Only when they aggress against us.

[Just Sayin\']

there is nothing in libertarian basic morality that prevents you from agressing an aggressor. All tyrants are aggresors, by definition.

What if the tyrant is "aggressing" against a third party? Do moral people have a right (not an obligation) to take him out? Lots of scenarios like that at present, some of which are actively engaged, others...ignored. Or does libertarianism mean isolationism, no exceptions to the rule?

[J sub D]

Do we still do nothing when third world thugs nationalize American property?

Why should the US government intervene to protect investors who make foolish business decisions in other countries?

Isaac, I absolutely agree with you. Caveat Emptor applies. If you invest your PERSONAL resources in a nation that is a stranger to the rule of law and it gets nationalized, too friggin' bad. We don't want our military guys and gals to die because of your poor business decisions, and we don't want to pay for it either.

[joe]

Rattlesnake Jake,

Would it really be a violation of your moral code to tackle a guy who just mugged and old lady?

Really?

[JasonL]

just sayin' and jake:

I'm sayin' that it is not immoral under any libertarian doctrine to physically stop your neighbor from beating his wife. You are not obligated under a libertarian morality to aggress against the aggressive spouse, but it is morally permissible for you to do so.

There may be practical considerations why you would choose to help or not, but there are no moral constraints on the action per se.

[joe]

Right, JasonL.

Now, extrapolating from individual action to government action brings in another host of moral issues - ie, the difference between running into a burning building yourself to save someone vs. ordering other people to run in there - but I've never seen a libertarian call from the prosecution of someone for using force to defend another.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"What if the tyrant is "aggressing" against a third party? Do moral people have a right (not an obligation) to take him out? Lots of scenarios like that at present, some of which are actively engaged, others...ignored. Or does libertarianism mean isolationism, no exceptions to the rule?"

Where in the Constitution does if give the government authority to engage in wars that are not in our self-interest? Libertarianism doesn't mean isoltionism. We believe in free trade.

[J sub D]

I'm no fan of the execution of the occupation, but, damn, people want this to be simpler than it is.

You've got that right. I wholeheartedly supported intervention in Somalia in the early '90s. Good intentions, not oil, hell not any U.S. economic interests, were the reasons for putting troops on the ground there.

We all sadly remember how that worked out, don't we? This is not a screed about how we should never intervene in internal problems of other nations, rather it is an admission that if you do, for all the right reasons, it may not solve or even help the situation. Our current president originally campaigned supporting a humbler foreign policy. It obviously was just rhetoric, but the principle is still valid.

The founding fathers themselves would not be able to bring democratic institution to the present day middle east. That really sucks, but reality often does.

Darfur? I'm willing to contemplate (read perplexed) rational courses of action.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"Would it really be a violation of your moral code to tackle a guy who just mugged and old lady?"

Ofcourse not, but that is an individual matter. It isn't the place of the US Government to engage in wars to defend other countries. As I said, there is nowhere in the Constitution that gives the government that authority. Weak countries in the world should form alliances with each other. They are less likely to take the responsibility for their own defense as long as the US is acting as policeman of the world. Besides, our foreign policy seems to be schizophrenic. We defend some countries while not defending others, but if we did defend all countries, what a loss of treasure and American lives it would bring. How much longer would the US be the most powerful country in the world?

[JasonL]

In the minarchist understanding of things, you can call the cops because they are deemed an appropriate function of the state. There are some who morally object to public provision of fire fighters, but not many. I would note that the essence of the jobs in question requires that anyone signing up for them has to have made a personal decision that placing themselves in harm's way is acceptable. The same applies to the volunteer military.

The interesting question for me regarding Darfur has to do with the presence of absence of a perceived threat. There is a logic to NYPD being called upon to go after the Son of Sam. The local resource acts on behalf the people who pay its bills for their benefit.

The national military should be deployed in the interests of national tax payers. It should have boundaries on action, such as Posse Comitatus (sp?), that tax payers understand.

Without going into all this again, my focus in supporting the invasion of Iraq was a pair of perceived national threats - a WMD program we could not confirm had been destroyed, and the broader concern about the lack of any credible deterrent for people like Saddam. Even after all this, I still see those concerns as salient.

To support Darfur, and I agree with your assessment here, I would be supporting a deployed military acting SOLELY in non taxpayer interest. I don't know that I can go there, though it burns me to the core to see people getting away with that kind of killing.

[thoreau]

Actually, Jason, I'm completely serious.

We don't need most of what we have. And we don't need bases around the world. We don't need to police the world. Lots of countries manage to be secure without spending 60% of the world's military budget.

[joe]

Jake,

You are on much stronger arguing from Constitutionality than from the principle of non-aggression.

Still, you're not on solid ground. The Constitution give Congress the power to declare war, and doesn't contain any language restricting that power.

Your third argument, about the wisdom of intervention, is your high card in this game. The thing is, it doesn't provide the blanket condemnation of all intervention that you seem to be shooting for. What if the cost/benefit analysis doesn't go your way? Heck, we saved 500,000 lives escorting those food convoys in Somalia.

[thoreau]

Jason-

To put it in perspective, do you think it's possible for a country to deter other countries from aiding attacks on its territory without spending 60% of the world's military budget.

Now, admittedly, 100% assurance that nobody will EVER aid an attack is impossible. But surely there must be some threshold of security past which we can go to bed without needing diapers. And I'm betting we can get that without spending 60% of the world's military budget. Just a hunch.

[joe]

thoreau,

If China jumps the straits or North Korea rolls south, you're going to see our military spending get real high, real fast. Ounce of prevention, Old Bean.

By my lights, the military budget is too high because we buy too many expensive gizmos that aren't necessary to further our security policy, not because our security policy involves a global reach. Do we really need F-22s, when no one can do squat against our F/A-18s and F-15s? Do we really need another generation of ICBM carrying subs, when no one can do squat agains the ones we already have?

[thoreau]

joe-

I subscribe to the quaint notion that wealthy countries should pay for their own defense.

[joe]

And I subscribe to the quaint notion that people shouldn't throw trash out their car windows.

Let's not zero out the highway cleanup budget just yet.

[thoreau]

joe-

True, but we also have a penalty for people who are caught throwing trash out their windows. Perhaps there could be a similar penalty for wealthy countries that don't pay for their own defense. We could call that penalty "Not being defended."

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"Still, you're not on solid ground. The Constitution give Congress the power to declare war, and doesn't contain any language restricting that power."

But the 10th Amendment states that the Federal Government only has those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.

[joe]

Jake,

And declaring war is delegated to Congress by the Constitution.

Where does the Constitution specifically authorize declaring war on countries that have attacked us? It doesn't. It doesn't provide and limitation or guidance on when Congress may use that power at all - it just gives that power to Congress.

[rho]

joe:
It's not the job of the U.S. to play World Cop. Maybe, maybe not. But setting that aside, cops who stop a robbery are not aggressors. The point about "World Cop" doesn't really have anything to do with the point about aggression.

Careful with the over-application of analogies.

In the case of the U.S. going over to Sudan to do anything--whether it's protecting people from genocide or enthusiastically joining in on same--it's America picking winners and losers. We're the biggest and baddest. If anything goes wrong, it's our fault. Whoever loses blames us. And we make a convenient scapegoat for uninvolved 3rd parties who experience a drought or a plague of flies or poor TV reception.

Maybe after 3 or 4 generations of tiny, quiet, no-fuss foreign policy we can do such humanitarian things as putting troops in Sudan without the automatic assumption that we're throwing our weight around, but right now we can't. So we trade some good for the threat that some unknown number of radicals will hate America forever.

[JBinMO]

"Do we really need another generation of ICBM carrying subs, when no one can do squat agains the ones we already have?"

As long as we are so advanced that we could crush any aggressors, we will not need to fight another major war.

[ChrisO]

However, this: A protective force in Darfur would be an aggressive act against Sudan.is quite questionable. If you shoot a guy who is attacking your neighbor, are you aggressing against the attacker? Is defense of the self the only instance of the non-aggresive use of force?

The presence of foreign troops inside the sovereign boundaries of Sudan is an inherently aggressive act against that country. I'm not defending the Janjaweed or the central government's actions by saying that either. But it isn't our fight.

It's not the job of the U.S. to play World Cop. Maybe, maybe not. I vote for "maybe not." And playing World Cop has *everything* to do with the U.S. acting as an aggressor, regardless of our motive in doing so.

Joe's comments are an example of why Democrats are no more to be trusted on foreign policy matters than Republicans. Lots of neocon tendencies all around.

[dhex]

yeah, but they're going to hate us anyway.

it would be best of all if the african union could pull something together but........yeah.

[JasonL]

Egad I am in scary agreement with joe on this thread.

The inability to project force means any fight that happens happens on your home turf. No substantial navy means an aggressive opponent can isolate your economy. We have two oceanic borders. Navies are really expensive.

Force projection is expensive and most people have indeed given it up because we can do it. All I'm saying is, someone who likes us a lot had better be able to do it.

I agree with joe again on scrapping certain expensive projects, and I even agree on the projects he is suggesting. There is a lot to be said for the initial investment of moving to quick response units and high firepower / high maneuver units. We cut some fat that way already with the heavy artillery system, Crusader I think, getting scrapped. The F22? I don't see the threat. Everyone elses superjets crapped out, though the Chinese are trying to make things interesting. A new boomer sub? Not needed.

[thoreau]

Jason-

What percentage of the world's military budget should be ours?

The inability to project force means any fight that happens happens on your home turf.

Should all of the world be our home turf? Should we care about whether we can be involved in any fight that happens?

And do we need the ability to rule the world's seas, or just the ability to make a naval blockade of our economy a dangerous proposition?

[joe]

rho,

I hear you. I was just looking at the specific question of aggression.

ChrisO,

You juse repeated yourself, and whiffed on the points you were trying to respond to.

You ASSERT that it would be an "act of aggression" against Sudan. Any response at all to the point I made about whether defending another person is aggression?

It isn't my fight if Charles Manson goes into my neighbor's house, either. That has nothing to do with the question of whether it would be an act of agression for me to stop him.

[JasonL]

Also, as others have suggested, the deterrent effect of our current military is extraordinary. The only reason it is even possible to have a dismissive attitude about our national security is that we have the capability to project substantial force on the ground and in the skies and seas anywhere on the globe.

Do I wish Europe would pony up for their own defense? Yes. Do I think it will happen under any imaginable circumstance short of an invasion? No, no more than I believe they will suddenly see the light on medical innovation when we nationalize our healthcare system. The investment international security and healthcare will simply be absent.

[JasonL]

"Should all of the world be our home turf?"

Should we care about whether we can be involved in any fight that happens?"

I'd say the effective range of advanced bombers and ICBMs means you aren't serious about defense unless you can project globally, yes.

"And do we need the ability to rule the world's seas, or just the ability to make a naval blockade of our economy a dangerous proposition?"

Sufficiently dangerous for everyone who might be interested in trying it, including China, yes. I think there is not as much difference between these ideas as you are suggesting.

[thoreau]

Jason-

So, we should subsidize countries that won't invest in their own defense for the greater good?

Let's talk about public education....

[thoreau]

We might ask ourselves this question: If we were less involved in the affairs of other countries, is it at all possible that we might face somewhat fewer threats? (Note that somewhat fewer is not the same as zero.)

[JasonL]

thoreau:

A swing and a miss. There needs to be friendly, global power projection for OUR security.

[VM]

The inability to project force means any fight that happens happens on your home turf

chokes on this unbelievable pile of steaming bullshit. Proceeds to ignore everything else after this.

[JasonL]

thoreau:

"We might ask ourselves this question: If we were less involved in the affairs of other countries, is it at all possible that we might face somewhat fewer threats?"

Certainly it is possible. It is also possible that if we smile a lot and have lots of friends and don't bother anyone, we will never get mugged. The point is, it is generally recognized that being liked is not the same as having an actual deterrent in hand.

Too, let's be careful about suggesting that I'm arguing in favor of aggressing everywhere. What I'm saying is that it isn't morally off the table in many cases, and that practical concerns should govern the decision. I'm also saying that it is important to have the capabilility to do it.

[thoreau]

Jason-

Is Brazil safe?

[thoreau]

Jason-

Regarding the mugging analogy, you have a personal firearm. You don't have carte blanche to enter every house in the US and open fire at will. Do you feel safe?

[JasonL]

VM:

How's that? If I can't push beyond my borders, where does any fight involving me occur?

[JasonL]

"Regarding the mugging analogy, you have a personal firearm. You don't have carte blanche to enter every house in the US and open fire at will. Do you feel safe?"

Er, I only want to have the option to, as joe puts it, get Chuck Manson out of a neighbor's house. If I don't have the gun, I don't have the option. If I think I'm morally constrained to sit on my hands until he comes to my house, I don't have the option.

Carte blanche is a straw man and you know it.

[rho]

JasonL:
A swing and a miss. There needs to be friendly, global power projection for OUR security.

Our subs and carrier groups fulfill that requirement nicely. Cheaply, too, when you come down to it.

The problem with our locating bases around the world means we subsidize security apathy in whatever nation we occupy with our military bases. Britain is about the only nation who pulls their own weight in this regard. It also, incidentally, encourages the nation who's saving a bundle on self-defense to engage in destructive socialist policies.

It sounds to me that you're rationalizing the status quo, which isn't such a terrible thing except now the world has changed just a bit. 4GW isn't fought with power-projection.

[Fluffy]

You see, Jason is the guy that I mean.

Yes, if an evil third world dictator is killing and eating guys who beat him in basketball, his subjects are entitled to terminate him. And yes, any free person anywhere who wants to assist them in that regard is morally free to do so.

It is because this seems theoretically obvious that Trotskyitism is such a temptation.

The problem is that in practice for one state to impose its will on another state involves more than simple physical prevention of the actions of the tyrant. You have to secure the consent of your own people to go to war, you have to muster and pay for an army, you have to defeat the armed forces of the tyrant in battle, you have to crush those citizens of the other state who don't see the moral situation the same way you do, you have to crush those citizens of the other state who see the initial moral situation the same way you do but who don't particularly care for you as a replacement to the tyrant, you have to occupy the other state long enough to prevent anarchy from being the result of your action, you have to prevent war opponents in your own country from undermining your efforts, and so on and so on.

And in the course of doing all these things, we will see everything we have seen in the Iraq war and the war on terror. Every outrageous Bush administration action.

And SIV, I misspoke. Iraq war supporters don't actually want unconditional surrender on the WWII model. At the end of WWII, we allowed Germany and Japan to surrender and allowed their armed forces to return to civilian life. We did not consider it a requirement of their unconditional surrender that each and every last German and Japanese soldier be executed or imprisoned. We will never achieve a peace of that kind in Iraq, for the simple reason that your ilk would not accept a broad-based insurgent amnesty, even for insurgents who have killed Americans. So you don't even want unconditional surrender. You want unconditional surrender "plus". And you will never achieve it, but are too stupid to realize that.

[thoreau]

Exactly, rho. Subs and carrier groups may have their limits, but they show that if we need to we can hit somebody.

Bases, OTOH, mean more entanglement in a country's internal affairs. And then we wonder why we're disliked.

[JasonL]

rho:

I'm not in love with bases myself. Bases aren't the point. The man was talking about a 75% reduction in military budget.

I agree about 4GW in how I think you mean that argument, but I want to clarify that you still need to be able to get forces places without getting transport blown up. I would put it differently, that 4GW requires a rethinking of what sort of projection is needed.

Subs and carriers aren't cheap. There is little on earth more expensive than a modern naval battle group.

[JasonL]

fluffy,

I believe I said very clearly on a number of occasions in this thread that practical matters should decide whether or not to engage in any given act. I acknowledge that costs are high. If we can reduce this to a discussion about costs and benefits, even with me conceding the costs are high, I'm comfortable. What I'm hearing is a demand to remove the option from the table, which strikes me as un smart.

[Fluffy]

The military spending really isn't the issue.

If the next President were to have a "Doctrine" that said that the United States has no position or preference regarding what parties or groups achieve positions of power in government in [insert list of Muslim, African and Latin American states here], will deal in a neutral manner with any and all governments that may come to power in those states as long as they don't attack or abuse us, and will not provide governments in those states with financial, military, technical, or intelligence assistance to be used against dissident, sectarian, or minority groups in those nations, we can go right on spending as much as you want on the military and we'll still be light years ahead of where we are now.

People don't hate us because we have carrier groups. They hate us because we back up existing governments in the name of "stability", even when those governments are oppressing and abusing ethnic, political and religious minority groups and parties in their states.

The history of our Middle East policy would look a lot different if we had said, "Shah or no Shah, keep selling oil and we don't give a damn WHO rules Iran!" in 1979, and if we had allowed the Iranians to extradite that mass murdering fuck back to face the trial he deserved. When you pick sides and your side loses, you should expect the side that wins to hate your fucking guts.

[thoreau]

Fluffy-

If we had the foreign policy that you describer I suspect that our military budget would eventually drop by non-trivial percentage.

[Fluffy]

Jason,

I think it's more than just the "blood and treasure" costs.

I think that as you wage aggressive war, the changes you undergo make you lose the moral superiority you thought justified your aggressive war in the first place.

You can't keep your aggressive war going without cracking down on your own dissenters. So suddenly Max Cleland is a traitor, the MoveOn.org people are traitors, Ron Paul is a traitor. You can't successfully occupy people unless you can make them subordinate to your will. So you get Abu Ghraib. Your aggressive war will make you seem dangerous to other states. So you have to expand your war to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon to deter you from invading it, too. So you start out from a position of [in your belief] moral superiority, and you end up with prison camps and extralegal detention and eviscerated civil liberties and a pile of dead and precious little moral superiority left, if any.

It's not because we're evil people. It's because the exigencies of aggressive war logically lead to these steps.

They tried to export the ideals of the French Revolution, too. That ended up with Bonapartism. It's a little humiliating to be the world's superpower and end up with a pathetic specimen like Bush as your Bonaparte, but there we are.

[ChrisO]

You ASSERT that it would be an "act of aggression" against Sudan. Any response at all to the point I made about whether defending another person is aggression?

Yes. The analogy is inapplicable. My neighbor's house is not a sovereign nation. Even if the analogy was appropriate, the better way to state it would be to ask whether I as a neighbor should intervene in a domestic dispute next door. I might stop a violent act. Of course, I'm just as likely to get drawn into a nasty, no-win situation in which I have no personal interest.

[VM]

So you start out from a position of [in your belief] moral superiority, and you end up with prison camps and extralegal detention and eviscerated civil liberties and a pile of dead and precious little moral superiority left, if any.

QFT!

but, on the other hand, at least you're not fighting "them" over hier...

[JBinMO]

I have two questions.

1, What do we actually get from having millitary bases in over 100 countries?

2, Who knew there were over 100 countries?

[JasonL]

"but, on the other hand, at least you're not fighting "them" over hier..."

Let me just say that everyone in this discussion save Fluffy should damn well know me better than to assume this was my argument. Assuming that you will never have a fight is not smart. Ensuring that any fight you get in happens in your livingroom is not smart. This has nothing to do with a scare-quoted "them".

[JasonL]

Clearly we are at an impasse. The Fluffy doctrine is simplistic and doesn't reflect real world concerns. We tell everyone we will treat them the same no matter how many non Americans they butcher? Maybe they just kill people who do business with Americans. That would be fine, after all they aren't rolling tanks into our driveways, so there isn't any real concern.

Concerning the domestic security costs and such, I'm not convinced substantial 'crackdowns' are required. Did we have them in the Kosovo campaign? I would suggest that these things can happen, but they don't have to.

Regarding non combatant prisoners, they are a real problem that can't be avoided. We just need adjustments to the military legal system to tell us how to treat them. Somewhere between, 'throw them in a black hole' and 'you have to read them miranda,' it seems like we could find something reasonable.

[thoreau]

Switzerland is a safe country. They fight now wars.

And they're all armed.

[JasonL]

They are also not close to being 300 million of the wealthiest people who have ever lived. Their stock market doesn't move the globe. They aren't remotely as successful at trading goods and services.

[JasonL]

And, even if we grant the, to me, odd assertion that size and economic and cultural clout really doesn't matter, it is one data point.

[Fluffy]

"We tell everyone we will treat them the same no matter how many non Americans they butcher?"

Actually, I said the opposite.

As soon as a foreign power attacks Americans, they should be held accountable with an overwhelming response.

But, up until the point where a foreign power attacks Americans, I do not care [for example] if the current government of Algeria is overrun by its opposition. I don't care if Islamists come to power in Egypt. I don't care if Hamas or the PLO represents the Palestinian Authority. I don't care which corrupt bastard rules Nigeria. I don't care if the Saudis have a theocratic monarchy, or a direct theocracy.

And if we DIDN'T care - if we weren't there right next to the Egyptian secret police as they beat information out of dissidents or radical Muslims, for example - the anti-Americanism we face in the world would radically decline.

[Fluffy]

Oops, I read your post incorrectly and didn't pick up on the unhyphenated "non".

On the subject of non-American butchery, I would like to point out that for the last 60 years or so, outside of the Communist bloc most of the butchery that went on was undertaken by our friends.

Who have the Iranians butchered? If it counts as butchery when you give money or weapons or assistance to someone who ends up killing Israelis, then we are all butchers thousands of times over.

More importantly, we have a chicken and egg problem. The Iranian mullahs hadn't butchered anyone before we helped the Shah try to butcher them.

[robc]

The founding fathers themselves would not be able to bring democratic institution to the present day middle east.

The founding fathers themselves were not even able to bring democratic institutions to France.

Jefferson (and others) meddling in France led to Napoleon. Adams got to give TJ a big "I told you so" for that one. We've been trying to build democracies in foreign lands since before we even had our current constitution and we still havent learned the lesson.

It worked in Germany and Japan and maybe the Phillipines but that is about it.

[ChrisO]

Jefferson (and others) meddling in France led to Napoleon.

That's a rather bold assertion. So, in other words, Danton and Robespierre were mere puppets of those sinister Founding Fathers of ours??

[robc]

ChrisO,

There is a big difference (a chasm even) between meddling and puppet master.

[robc]

from a quick google search:

As United States minister to France when revolutionary fervor was rising toward the storming of the Bastille in 1789, Jefferson became an ardent supporter of the French Revolution, even allowing his residence to be used as a meeting place for the rebels led by Lafayette. Jefferson maintained his support for the French Revolution, although he wavered during the most violent and bloody stages.

[rho]

JasonL:
I agree about 4GW in how I think you mean that argument, but I want to clarify that you still need to be able to get forces places without getting transport blown up. I would put it differently, that 4GW requires a rethinking of what sort of projection is needed.

Subs and carriers aren't cheap. There is little on earth more expensive than a modern naval battle group.

Lots of assumptions there. Such as, do we even need to get forces anywhere? Are we better served with smaller special-ops types of assault? Or even a $3 million missile?

Force projection can be assured in a number of ways, but our current system is both expensive and intrusive.

While carrier groups are expensive to build, you have to amortize them over the 20+ years of duty they give.

Cutting defense spending by 75% assumes certain things, such as reducing our need for force projection to keep invaders at bay. The ability to protect our borders and territories doesn't require our current level of spending. Maybe not a 75%, but 60% is unlikely to be out of line. A non-interventionist foreign policy means we don't need to project force for non-national-security related excursions: no Somolia, as an example. So force projection is, largely, a matter of getting planes with bombs to Assholistan or wherever.

Finally, the nature of combat has changed. I'd say it's highly unlikely for another 3GW conflict to take place, and therefore 3GW force projection is wasted money if true. The work the AF is doing with unmanned drones and general intel gathering is a much better area for such expenditures. Force projection WRT manpower only has value if we plan to capture and hold territory--unlikely in modern warfare, as financial supply-lines are more vulnerable and cheaper to disrupt.

[Accuracy in Internet Comments,]

If we had the foreign policy that you describer I suspect that our military budget would eventually drop by non-trivial percentage.

Full disclosure here, I'm retired Navy.
25 - 30% seems about right to me. A 75% reduction, IM(not so)HO, would be disastrous.

[Accuracy in Internet Comments,]

I do not care [for example] if the current government of Algeria is overrun by its opposition. I don't care if Islamists come to power in Egypt. I don't care if Hamas or the PLO represents the Palestinian Authority. I don't care which corrupt bastard rules Nigeria. I don't care if the Saudis have a theocratic monarchy, or a direct theocracy.

Fluffy, I'll bet that you do care. Perhaps, like me, you just think dealings with ignoble/distasteful regimes are best done diplomatically. We don't want to invade these despots and butchers, but we shouldn't stand silent while the atrocities are going on. That is basically my position. We aren't going to get paradise or justice for the downtrodden at the point of a gun, but there should be repercussions for barbaric, uncivilized behavior.

[J sub D]

The two previous posts were me. Oops.

[thoreau]

Jason-

On a per capita basis, Switzerland seems to be doing more or less as well as us in selling goods and services. That is, if one takes GDP per capita to be a measure of a country's success at selling its goods and services.

[JasonL]

thoreau,

The argument was about economic clout. Lichtenstein is probably doing okay on GDP/capita, but I don't think we should take them as an example for much, either.

[joe]

Wow, good thread.

ChrisO makes an interesting point:

My neighbor's house is not a sovereign nation. Even if the analogy was appropriate, the better way to state it would be to ask whether I as a neighbor should intervene in a domestic dispute next door.

Wouldn't an invasion of one country by another be more similar to a home invasion? You raised the issue of sovereignty, and seem to have drawn a parallel to private property. I know how you feel about the responsibility to defend private property. Should we intervene to stop invasions of others' sovereignty, a al Kuwait 1991?

I might stop a violent act. Of course, I'm just as likely to get drawn into a nasty, no-win situation in which I have no personal interest.

Yeah, making the moral case only gets you so far.

[Eric the .5b]

Reducing military spending by 75% is not serious, no matter who is proposing it.

The inability to project force means any fight that happens happens on your home turf. No substantial navy means an aggressive opponent can isolate your economy.

Jason - if we quartered the spending of the armed services and applied those changes proportionally, would we not still have largest military on the planet? Would we not still have the largest, most capable navy on the planet by far?

1) We don't need my cousin on a carrier sitting in the Persian Gulf in order to defend this country.
2) We don't need naval or other bases all over the planet in order to defend this country.
3) We don't need to weigh in on every dispute on the planet in order to defend this country.
4) We don't have to play arbiter of who gets to develop what weapons in order to defend this country.
5) We don't need to provide the defenses of countries like Taiwan or South Korea in order to defend this country.
6) We don't need to carry out every military adventure that gives Reds or Blues warm, fuzzy feelings to defend this country.

[highnumber]

How much would it cost to give every home in America one weapon of their choice? Exclude nuclear weapons, of course, but let blocks or apartment buildings pool to get bombers or warships. Cheaper or more expensive than status quo?

Full disclosure: What a dumb idea! I'm not seriously proposing it.

[thoreau]

Eric-

I think America's streets would be safer if some of MY cousins were in the Persian Gulf and your cousin was back here at home.

Then again, I don't know your cousin.

[Eric the .5b]

Fair point. 🙂

[JasonL]

I just lost a massive final summary, and I don't have the heart to retype the whole thing.

At the end of the day, I agree that a better demeanor and less meddling would help us out. Where I disagree is in the sufficiency of a humble foreign policy to adequately manage security. There must be a credible threat of harm to bad actors anywhere on the globe, and that means both power projection capability and a willingness to use it.

[thoreau]

There must be a credible threat of harm to bad actors anywhere on the globe, and that means both power projection capability and a willingness to use it.

1) That doesn't mean we need as large of a military budget as we have.

2) That doesn't mean we should get into clusterfucks that weaken us.

[ChrisO]

Wouldn't an invasion of one country by another be more similar to a home invasion? You raised the issue of sovereignty, and seem to have drawn a parallel to private property. I know how you feel about the responsibility to defend private property. Should we intervene to stop invasions of others' sovereignty, a al Kuwait 1991?

Joe, I agree that this is a closer question than getting drawn into civil/ethnic wars inside a single country. I don't ascribe magical powers to national boundaries (especially the artificially created ones in Africa), but they are the best marker we have. Was using American force to reverse the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait a good idea? I admit to being conflicted on that, certainly on a theoretical level. On a practical level, ensuring that our committed enemy didn't obtain control of even more oil capacity was a defensible war aim.

[Gary]

[ Do we really need another generation of ICBM carrying subs, when no one can do squat against the ones we already have? ]

That's partly because our defense contractors and military sells other countries last years model, so then we need to 'catch up'. At least that was the case in the 1936 Senate Nye report. Now? Didn't we just transfer a bunch of nuke tech to Pakistan? Weapons to Saudi Arabia?

There's a reason why America IS the policeman. Politicians don't pay for it. They get rewarded by corp donations. Other countries which are completely disarmed -- for practical purposes -- must RELY on US benevolence. Carrot. Stick. We might be at war with Germany or France in the future, and if John Bolton has his way, Britain.

[Gary]

[ "Would it really be a violation of your moral code to tackle a guy who just mugged and old lady?" ]

How about this: Can it be ok to mug an old lady? How about in Straussian or Neolib Trilat world? Yes. If the old bag has money, go for it.
------
Everyone here will probably think I'm a commie for saying this, but I'll share what I read about NK.

In the 90's, Bill Clinton aimed missiles at them, and threatened to nuke NK. If done, this would be the 2nd time razing the entire country, per various Korean War generals.

SK president had to talk to (beg?) Clinton for 32 minutes to not blast NK -- and with it, parts of SK, China, and Japan's civilians. Clinton intended to anyhow, but -- since he's an ex-president I guess that's when they get brains -- Jimmy Carter negotiated an agreement with NK to which Clinton was *forced* to agree, since Carter took it to CNN first.

The agreement was to help NK replace all their aging, decrepit old school nuke plants with new school efficient nuke plants with no plutonium. Other countries involved with all kinds of loans, financing, assistance. Also, an agreement to provide or lend some fuel oil, to keep them warm in -40 weather.

Then, the US made a start and then stopped and quietly backed out of every agreement. Work at standstill. NK still not allowed to start up it's nuke plants.

SATELLITE PHOTOS showed NK in the dark at night, compared to neighbors. Children and adults starving as infrastructure crumbled and machines ground to halt, large numbers probably affected by mental retardation and stunted growth.

For this, Bush got on his high horse and blamed Kim Jung-Il for mistreating his people. This was after Bush cut off fuel oil in December.

I'm not going to rewrite the whole 5th chapter in Strange Liberators, but this is the gist of it. Left or right? No, more like right vs. wrong.

Whose problem is it if NK wants to set certain domestic laws which violate total free trade? Companies either WILL or WILL NOT do business with NK. Is that a good reason to incinerate them?

By the way, for most of SK, NK is not a threat, but family, except for Neocons in SK. China doesnt really see NK as a threat, nor Japan, but it depends who you talk to and the circumstances and politics. Japan has both enforced a food embargo and partly lifted it. When a (actual) liberal got elected in SK, and he took an antiwar stance, the US (i think Bush) tried to interfere in SK politics to oust the guy.

[Gary]

bad actors = ex-allies, ex-customers of the military complex, etc.

Should the U.S. State Dept be hijacked to do sales pitches for mil contractors, and do their bidding? This was the question in the 1936 Nye Report, before reckless selling of arms helped create WW2. Various corporations had undue 'influence' over "the services" and over foreign politics.

By the way, reckless unethical sales included Japan and Germany, in defiance of the US govt criticizing Japan's and Germany's actions, and contrary to State Dept's "pernicious" successful efforts at diplomacy and peace.

NOW: In theoretical "realist" terms, COULD there really be a 'bad actor' who could actually threaten the United States? Sure.

NOW: In practical "realist" terms? No way in hell. We got 10,000 nukes and high tech weapons beyond imagination. If there was a *serious* threat or disagreement, no one could beat the US, not Iraq, not anyone. Only in 'limited' conflicts of neo-imperialism where we are trying to take over some country on the cheap, that's when it gets tough.

The Architect of the Cold War
The Legacy of George F. Kennan, 1904-2005
"We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity... The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts." Kennan to Truman

In other words, quit the euphemisms, start kicking ass, BECOME an Empire, forget about rhetoric about democracy.

The architect of America's cold war doctrine of containment came long ago to repudiate the poisoned fruits of his inspiration: a divided world, a militarized and cheapened culture, and $12 trillion flushed down the drain.

... Kennan's melancholy admission that his political warfare idea was "the greatest mistake I ever made."
~ story by "Werther" - a Northern Virginia-based defense analyst.