Laws of Physics and Foreign Policy
September 26th, 2006 | by Gman |I think I’ve made it clear that I’m not too comfortable with the war in Iraq. I think it’s a diversion from the real goal of routing out the Islamic terrorist network. And, I think I may have mentioned that the war in Iraq may only inflame Islamic extremism.
So, does every action, have an equal and opposite reaction?
I realize the complexity of foreign policy, so I hesitate getting simplistic. But, do we really think cleaning up Iraq is the panacea for Islamic extremism? Consider WWII. The line b/n good and evil was etched in the sand. The modus operandi of the Allies was to bring Germany and the other Axis powers to their knees. Clear enemy, clear target, clear end-game. Mission accomplished. Vietnam didn’t seem to meet any of those criteria.
Is the war in Iraq more akin to Vietnam than WWII?
17 Responses to “Laws of Physics and Foreign Policy”
By Walter Greenspan on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Gman, Bush and Afghan President Karzai explain why Iraq is NOT a diversion from the real goal of routing out the Islamic terrorist network.
We failed in Viet Nam because of a failure of political will that cost untold millions in Southeast Asia their lives after the U.S. pulled out. Neither we, nor many others, would benefit from a repetition in Iraq.
By touchstone on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Bush is hardly a reliable source of information for foreign policy.
The short answer is, of course, yes.
By SallyT on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Gman said:
…do we really think cleaning up Iraq is the panacea for Islamic extremism?
No, but it’s a right fine place to start.
Walter Greenspan said:
We failed in Viet Nam because of a failure of political will…
Exactly. And, apparently, we learned nothing, nada, bupkis from that experience. Any increase in terrorist recruiting is due to the unceasing criticism of our country and military from within, as well as to the media/political complex’s seemingly bottomless hatred for Bush and America.
If we spent less energy on diligent sucking up to islamofascists, both foreign & homegrown, we might just be able to convince the jihadists that we have the will to beat them.
By Craig on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
We don’t have the political stomach to fight a war anymore.
The reason Japan and Germany capitulated in WWII is because their annihilation was complete.
Right now, we’re so sensitive to collateral damage and saving infrastructure that we’re unwilling to do what it takes to achieve total and complete victory.
You only win wars when the only options available to your opponent are to capitulate or die.
Our collective stomachs just aren’t strong enough to do that any more.
But I’m afraid that the Islamists’ are.
Personally, I think that hitting Iraq was the right thing to do, but we should have finished it back in ‘91 when the roads were clean clear to Baghdad.
By Gman on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
I appreciate everyone’s comments. I’m not deadset on my position. On this issue, it would be hubris for me to be deadset. This nags me often enough to post on it, though.
What it is that really nags me is the prospect that my 6 year old may be fighting Islamofascists some day. I dread that, but the words of Patrick Henry ring in my ears:
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
What is liberty without life? Unfortunately some must sacrifice their lives so that most of us may live in comfort.
I guess what I have is a bad feeling in my gut about the war with Iraq. (Not too wonkish of me, huh?) I feel like it’s going to erupt into worldwide chaos. Of course, it seems that humankind is always on the verge of global chaos. But humanity didn’t always think that war was perpetual.
I remember studying 20th Century History at UM in a couple classes (one with Prof. Michael Mayer and another with the greatest prof. I’ve ever had, Richard Drake). WWI was the “war to end all wars.” Humanity looked at itself and could only conclude that such a bloodbath could never happen again. Lessen learned. I recall Prof. Drake mentioning historian Paul Fussell’s “The Great War and Modern Memory.” If I remember correctly, Fussell coined a odd phrase to describe WWI that I will never forget — “vast industrial ghastlies”. WWI was the first major war after the industrial revolution. The mechanization of war led to casualties on a scale never witnessed in human history (see the WWII.
Are we on the verge of another WW?
By TMM on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Craig is spot on. As for your final question, this need not be another WW if we finish this, and quickly. If we choose half measures or retreat (whether or not it was wise to begin with)…well, I’m concerned about my 5 year old as well.
By touchstone on Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
So all of you are terrified for your children over Iraq? Can anyone here say it was a necessary war?
I think you’ll find that the American public has demonstrated the national will to wage war, wars much more severe and costly than Iraq. I think you’ll find that the public generally supports causes they find worthwhile. WWII? No problem.
But when you fight a war based on partisan rhetoric, on trumped-up causes, set false expectations, then botch the effort politically, then don’t expect people to get excited about the effort.
Take, for example, the following comment from Sally T:
Any increase in terrorist recruiting is due to the unceasing criticism of our country and military from within, as well as to the media/political complex’s seemingly bottomless hatred for Bush and America.
If we spent less energy on diligent sucking up to islamofascists, both foreign & homegrown, we might just be able to convince the jihadists that we have the will to beat them.
Way to go. You’ve just alienated about 60% of the population. Accusing citizens of treason for reasonable opposition to a failed policy will only turn people away from your cause.
If you want to blame “national will” for Iraq, take a hard look in the mirror.
By Craig on Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
I don’t see where anyone said that, or are you arguing against “caricature conservatives,” Jay?
You could probably paint with a broader brush, but I don’t honestly think they make them that broad.
1.) Gman stated that he’s against.
2.) I said we should have finished the job in ‘91, and I’ll add that we’re making a mess of it again.
There are other opinions sprinkled in there, but I can’t find one that says “we” are in fear for our children because of Iraq.
But it’s way easier to argue against caricatures and stereotypes, while still touting the tired old “conservatives are stupid and mentally ill” line, isn’t it?
That line of thinking will alienate you from 100% of the people interested in participating in any kind of dialogue.
By XB234C on Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
I concur with Craig. I complained at the time in 91 or 92 that if we didn’t topple Saddam we’d be dealing with him again in 10 years, I was off by 3…we don’t have the stomach to win wars anymore. We’re beating ourselves up over whether an interrogator grabbing a terror suspect by the shirt collar is torture.
By TMM on Sep 27, 2006 | Reply
Touchstone,
We can re-fight the run-up to the war, though I think it is a bit irrelevant at this point. I would only say that if most world intelligence agencies saw a threat, then yes, I would consider the war necessary. Whether you agree with that assessment is relevant only to the point of learning from past mistakes or successes, which is certainly quite important. I agree with your point that our President did not, and is not, setting reasonable expectations. This combined with mistakes on the ground certainly do leave a questioning public. The more pertinent question for me touches on what Gman posted: Where do we go from here? Does our presence in Iraq create more Islamic fascists than our rapid departure? If we stay, what does victory entail? If we leave, what will fill the vacuum? What is our moral responsibility after invasion? Whatever the answers to these questions, Iraq was not a war to root out Islamic fascists. It was a war to prevent the nexus of those individuals with WMD. These same individuals saw the opportunity presented, and now our efforts are indeed to meet that challenge. A solution in Iraq will not be the end of this confrontation. Similarly, those who desire our demise would not change these ideals if we hadn’t have gone in.
By touchstone on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
Gman:
What it is that really nags me is the prospect that my 6 year old may be fighting Islamofascists some day.
TMM:
well, I’m concerned about my 5 year old as well.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “all.” And just now I realized Gman opposes the war. Generally my comment was directed against those blaming Iraq on a “lack of will,” specifically WG and Sally’s comments.
Sorry for the troll-like comment, tho’ I stand by my words about Sally’s comment.
TMM is dead-on. What do we do from here? I think we all agree that “staying the course” or “adapting to win” is a failed policy. If this war is so important, why aren’t there calls for more troops from its supporters?
It seems pretty clear that we have two choices:
–Get out and let the Iraqis sort out for themselves what will happen. Which may mean another dictatorship or Iran-friendly radical Islam state.
–Escalate with a drastic increase in troops, economic aid and massive reform in the way we do business there and increased participation from the international community. The danger with this policy, of course, is a lot more US and Iraqi deaths and the associated massive expenditures required to carry it off.
I prefer #1, but could be talked into #2 if I trusted the leadership. But honestly no one in the present administration seems capable of winning this war.
But it’s way easier to argue against caricatures and stereotypes, while still touting the tired old “conservatives are stupid and mentally ill†line, isn’t it?
Of course if you had read the post, I said that I didn’t believe in psychoanalyzing based on political persuasion and that the analysis didn’t apply to the majority of conservatives I knew. I was talking specifically about the nut job who wanted to torture me and like-minded folk.
And 35% was probably a tad high. : )
By Craig on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
Fair ’nuff. I’ll take the mea culpa for that.
Penalties offset. Replay 2nd down.
By Dani on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
TMM, I think you have summarized the problem quite nicely.
What the war in Iraq has done is catalyzed an inevitable conflict between fundamentalist Islam and the modern world, a conflict that has been brewing for a very long time. So many people act as if Islamic terrorism began on 9/11, when some foreign policy experts had been predicting, for decades, that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism would be the greatest threat of the 21st century. Think back to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, to Ayatollah Khomeini, to Libya’s involvement in the Pan Am crash (let’s also not forget how quickly Quadaffi changed his tune when Saddam crawled out of the spider hole- score 1 for Bush et al.). The Beirut barracks bombings, the USS Cole, Black Hawk Down… Look at the failure of Muslims in Europe to integrate, even in the UK which is now wondering about its possibly misplaced pride in its multiculturalism. What about the (repetitive) bombings in India and Indochina? Are all of these things due to our actions in Iraq? Looking at the big picture is very telling. Since the 1980’s. maybe even before, ultraconservative Islam has been increasing all across the Muslim world.
I am not worried that the US has lost its will to win the Iraq war- really, it’s up to the Iraqis at this point. What the Iraq war has done is yanked off the very thin cloak of reason & acceptance that is worn by fundamental Islamists the world over. Perhaps the West will wake up in time to see that our belief in tolerance is being used against us- because it sure isn’t a two-way street, friends.
This is what the Pope was getting at the other day when he made his infamous remarks about faith, reason, and violence. This is what is truly frightening about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Violence, even killing of innocents, is perfectly “rational” to a fundamentalist. The prospect of mutually assured destructon doesn’t faze them like it did the USSR. I really don’t know how we negotiate with people we simply cannot understand. I really don’t see an end to Islamic extremism. But I do think the war has made us sit up and smell the coffee, hopefully before it burns.
By Gman on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
You’re exactly right Dani about predating 9/11. But, it’s now an indelible part of the American psyche because it finally came to our shores. So, one can’t blame our lawmakers for their efforts.
Nonetheless, I’m still not convinced that Iraq is the locus of the problem. In fact, what is the locus of terrorism? It isn’t constituted in some nation-state. Speaking of WWII, we were fighting nations with singular boundaries. Islamic extremism is a worldwide phenomenon with no clear boundaries. Really, Islamic terrorism is more of a national security juggernaut than communism. With communism we could point to clear boundaries.
I don’t envy our lawmakers and military. They have a very difficult job to do. Still, I’m not convinced that the end result of whatever we’re after in Iraq is going to amount to much. We’re talking about a pretty small part of the Islamic terrorist front. As the news article I initially posted said, the situation is Iraq is only inflaming Islamic extremism and providing this worldwide movement a cause du jour to rally around. That seems to make the overarching war on terror even more difficult. No?
By Dani on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Generally, I agree that Iraq is a small part of the puzzle, but we had to start somewhere, so we started with the weak link in the chain. One good thing about the war in Iraq is that it has seriously weakened al Queda- a poll taken two days ago among Iraqis suggests that it is THE most hated group in Iraq (even more than us). Recent tapes from intercepted conversations indicate that Al Queda is falling apart. The same poll indicated growing confidence in Iraqi forces, and consequently, growing irritation with the American presence, which ultimately is a good thing because everyone wants the US out of there ASAP. If Iraq becomes a stable nation, it will have huge positive implications for the Middle East. That is why Iran is so intent on destablizing the situation there, and in Lebanon. They don’t want a democratic Arab state. Few of the middle eastern countries do- they’re mostly monarchies and dictatorships. Except Israel of course.
My point is, fundamentalist Islamics don’t need a cause du jour. They already have it- actually it’s a cause du millenia. They had it when they flew those planes into the towers, and when they did all the other assorted events I listed. It’s the hatred of classical liberal values vs. their strict interpretation of Islam. They don’t want peace with us, or even to negotiate with us. They just want us to be gone or converted. Period. Islamic extremism would have just kept growing until something else set it off. Has the Iraq war accelerated this? Yes. But I think that is good, because right now the extremists do not have nuclear weapons. The more incidents they cause, the more the world is going to realize the threat, and the more certain the world will be that nuclear weapons cannot fall into the hands of the Mullahs in Iran, or any other county. You are right that that there is no locus of terrorism. That’s why I said I didn’t know how we would fight it. All I know, is it will be a very long and drawn out battle. But the one thing that we absolutely must do is face down the WMD threat, and soon.
By Jake the Fat Man on Oct 1, 2006 | Reply
We should’ve nuked Afghanistan in 2001 just like we did Hiroshima.