Most of us studied Euclidean geometry in high school, the mathematical system of measuring relationships in a flat space. Euclid’s fifth postulate is taken to be axiomatic, even tautological – for any given line in space, there is exactly one parallel line that never intersects. Non-Euclidean geometry differs, postulating – depending upon the variant – infinite numbers of parallel lines that never intersect (hyperbolic), or the intersection of parallel lines (elliptical). Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries are internally consistent, logically provable and valuable, yet they are mutually incomprehensible. Both exist, yet at a fundamental level, each obliterates the existence of the other.
Andrew Bacevich argues for a re-definition of our foreign policy geometry. The Boston University professor has certainly paid his dues to national security. He graduated from West Point, served as an infantry officer in Viet Nam and spent 23 years in uniform before becoming an academic. He lost his son in combat in Iraq.
Bacevich’s most recent book, “Washington Rules,” is reviewed by Gary J. Bass, Princeton professor of international relations, in the New York Times. In it, Bacevich rails against “60 years of militarism” in US foreign policy:
From Harry S. Truman’s presidency to today, Bacevich argues, Americans have trumpeted the credo that they alone must “lead, save, liberate and ultimately transform the world.” That crusading mission is implemented by what Bacevich caustically calls “the sacred trinity”: “U.S. military power, the Pentagon’s global footprint and an American penchant for intervention.” This threatening posture might have made some sense in 1945, he says, but it is catastrophic today. It relegates America to “a condition of permanent national security crisis.”
Bacevich has two main targets in his sights. The first are the commissars of the national security establishment, who perpetuate these “Washington rules” of global dominance. By Washington, he means not just the federal government, but also a host of satraps who gain power, cash or prestige from this perpetual state of emergency: defense contractors, corporations, big banks, interest groups, think tanks, universities, television networks and The New York Times. He complains that an unthinking Washington consensus on global belligerence is just as strong among mainstream Democrats as among mainstream Republicans. Those who step outside this monolithic view, like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, are quickly dismissed as crackpots, Bacevich says. This leaves no serious checks or balances against the overweening national security state.
Bacevich’s second target is the sleepwalking American public. He says that they notice foreign policy only in the depths of a disaster that, like Vietnam or Iraq, is too colossal to ignore. As he puts it, “The citizens of the United States have essentially forfeited any capacity to ask first-order questions about the fundamentals of national security policy.”
It is possible to imagine a world that did not involve the US shouldering the burden of facing aggressive, international communism as Europe rebuilt itself from the ashes of yet another destructive war. Possible to envision a Korea unified under the benevolence of Kim Il Sung. Possible to think of a Pacific Rim where the advance towards representative democracy and free markets was not enabled generally by the sacrifice of nearly 60,000 American lives in Viet Nam specifically. Possible to live with the consequences of Bosnian genocide, or Saddam’s unchecked expansion of power into Kuwait and beyond. It is possible to conjecture that without the kind of military support that prevented the state of Israel and all of its citizens being pushed into the sea, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 might never have happened, rendering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq unnecessary, even implausible.
Each of these points on the geo-political time line forms it’s own precise kind of geometry. The Cold War armament and its policy partner, the Marshall Plan, enabled the rise of a liberal, democratic Europe at peace with itself, but left the United States as virtually the only free world military power with the ability to act at will. Over 60 decades, our national leadership, and the “sleepwalking public” who placed them atop government, were unified that in the consensus that power to act in the face of evil implied the responsibility to do so.
US policy since World War II has indeed aggressively inserted itself not merely where others feared to tread, but where they were unable to. National security calculus directed actions abroad when they seemed likely to extend the freedom, suppress tyranny, enable market-driven prosperity and prevent the more massive losses of life attendant to general, industrial scale warfare – especially when such destruction might in time be visited upon our own shores. The nation’s leadership in the immediate aftermath of World War II, and up to George H. W. Bush, had personally witnessed that destruction, and had no interest seeing it come home.
As Europe tended to its social schemes while often struggling to find 2% of its GDP to dedicate to national defense, America shouldered an increasingly large burden of defending and extending freedom abroad. Not merely because of the fact that relative peace and general prosperity was good for business. But also because it was the right thing to do. Indeed, 800,000 Rwandans and 400,000 Sudanese bear mute testimony to the fact that there is no “other America” to step in and act when America declines to. The Pax Americana – however imperfect it may be – has undeniable coincided with the greatest increase in human prosperity and quality of life in human history over the shortest period of time. In this case, it is at least plausible to suggest that correlation does equal causation. Pax Americana is at least in part the capability to globally project the kind of military power that is enabled by the world’s most economically prosperous nation – to most of the world, no armed conflict can take place anywhere without American power, or at least American consent. Absent that power, and the willingness to use it when necessary, other nations will be forced to redeploy productive assets from their economies to their own self-defense, regional bullies and hegemons will arise, and inevitably, destabilizing conflicts will occur whose consequences might not be foreseeable. See also, Sarajevo (1914).
Professor Bacevich, according to Bass, is “is less interested in foreign policy here (he offers only cursory remarks about the objectives and capabilities of countries like China, Russia, North Korea and Iran) than in the way he thinks militarism has corrupted America.” Recognizing and ameliorating that corruption would require an alternate, entirely plausible geo-political geometry for the last 60 years. It is a geometry in which his only son might very well still be alive. But the world generally, and America particularly, would be a very different place than it is today; the two visions, while internally consistent, are mutually exclusive. Whether that kind of foreign policy, and that kind of world would be better or worse is, I suppose, open to question.
But unlike Professor Bacevich, and by tacit endorsement, Professor Bass, I am not so sure that the citizens of the United States have forfeited the right to ask that question.
Can one imagine a world without a western democratic imperial power? Yep. Pretty much describes Eastern Europe and the USSR. Left unchecked that legacy would have been inflicted on the rest of the non-North American world. It is what COMINTERN meant to do.
To comment on only a small part of this article and the ‘problem’ of the military-industrial complex (“MIC”), it seems to me that unless the MIC has an ongoing existence, when trouble comes we would be unprepared for it and thus unable to deal with it. Was there a MIC before WWII? Before Korea? There must have been before or soon after Korea as Eisenhower decried it in the 50′s. So, from my point of view, the problem is then how to (1) have our defenses up and ready at all times (2) while avoiding the military and industry wastefully feeding off each other and from the public trough. that is a tough problem if we determine that we need to be ready (read: “An Army At Dawn” to see the consequences of not being prepared). And in today’s environment, to not be ready is to be too late to end or stop problems. Once they are then in place, such as the Korean, Pakistani, and Iranian nuke programs, then what do we do? The consequences become too great for our ‘leaders’ to take on.
No we didn’t. It was a simple industrial complex that could turn its hand to make anything a military might need. In the meantime it made commercial planes, cars, refrigerators, radios, stuff like that.
Eisenhower had a point.
It could turn it’s hand…slowly. In both the First and Second World Wars, it took two years to make the switch from civil to military production. We got away with it in World War 2 because we started converting in 1940.
It’s not a luxury to bet your country on.
Don’t forget that our technology was significantly behind the German’s in most areas throughout the war, and we were behind Japan for at least the first half. Really the only way we pulled WWII off was totally swamping the Axis.
If during the interwar years we had allocated resourced to military R&D at the same rate the Germans did there would probably be several hundred thousand Americans alive today.
But in a sense, we did. The dive bombing techniques that were used by Navy SBDs at Midway were developed and perfected in the 30′s; the B-29 was contracted for in 1940 and flew in Sept 42; the Essex-class carriers grew out of 1936 studies and a 1938 act of Congress that permitted CV’s with greater displacements to be built, and the Hellcat was in work before Pearl Harbor. It wasn’t just a matter of R&D – the real shortcoming was in under/ill-trained ground forces, an overstock/over reliance on obsolete weapons, improper lessons drawn from highly scripted, carefully controlled tests (if war had broken out in the Mojave, our strategic bombers would’ve carried the day) — sound familiar? Fold in those who relentlessly opposed arming because after all, we’d never fight the Germans/Japanese, etc…
w/r, SJS
Behind the Germans in most areas? What areas would those be? Liquid fuel rocketry and jet propulsion are the only two areas I can think of. We had a big advantage over them in electronics (microwave radar, proximity fuses, active sonar, etc.).
Don’t forget the contribution of the Soviets. I was no fan of them, but the reality of WWII is that 80% of the casualties were on the Eastern Front and the Germans contributed multiple times more forces fighting the Soviets than us. I personally have nothing wrong with that, it allowed us to win with far fewer losses, but this should be a relatively sobering lesson about military preparedness for the worst case scenario. I mean no lack of Patriotism or discounting of the incredible achievements and massive sacrifices on our end, but it is not a stretch to say that the Soviets were primarily responsible for defeating Germany. They couldn’t have it done it without us, but the inverse of the statement is perhaps more true.
Also, we had war plan Orange because we could see the writing on the wall, something I’m not sure our current situation with it’s increased complexity affords.
And, German aerodynamics, tanks, artillery, and submarine designs were far ahead of ours. Our fire control electronics though were indeed about two orders of magnitude more accurate than anyone else’s in the war and that paid huge dividends in the Pacific.
Imagine what the world would look like now if the Germans hadn’t attacked the Soviet Union and they’d stayed on the same side. That’s why I think the Fins were responsible in great part for the outcome of WWII. If they hadn’t stood up so well to Soviet invasion, even though they lost some in the end, the Germans wouldn’t have perceived that they could take over Russia along with the rest of Europe, and just kept up the alliance (which was bringing them regular shipments of supplies already).
Thanks SJS.
I was gearing up a response and then decided to read on.
Our enemies prey on not being ready.
I can imagine a 21st Century world in feudal chaos, and see it as the course prescribed by the current Administration. Thankfully, I can see the tide in American sentiment actively turning against such an end.
We can imagine to our heart’s content what the tapestry of world history might look like had different choices been made, but here we are today with the world as it is. Better to make choices, IMO, based on a look down the road ahead, than to drive that road while looking in the rear view mirror second guessing decisions made. While the lessons learned from history can certainly be of value, I’m not sure there’s much useful learning to be had from Bacevich’s jaded and caustic view.
It’s a shame Bacevich doesn’t better understand that the “sleepwalking American public” grows weary of having to defend itself for having done good towards mankind, only asking in return that respect be shown for the efforts made and the results enjoyed by so many worldwide. But then, isn’t it a Marxist view that ‘good should be called evil and evil be called good’?
Ah, but what the hell do I know…
I’m gonna cut the man some slack. He lost his only son in war. It must spin the mind a little. He has 3 daughters and no doubt will have grandchildren. Mine is an only and if she joins up, and she will, just to piss off her mom and because of love of country, I’m going to stress out if I lose her. My grammy lived to 102 and she never ever for one moment put her personal losses from WWII behind her. They lived in her memories as yesterday. Warre tends to shape the mind and person.
“The ‘PAX AMERICANA’…..has undeniably coincided with the greatest increase in human prosperity and the quality of life in human history over the shortest period of time.”
*Coincidence*?? I don’t think so…
(Actually, while admittingly without reading Bacevich, it seems his thesis is but a riff on Prof. Seymour Melman’s (“Pentagon Capitalism”/”The Permanent War Economy”) critique of the MIC and American FP done in the 70s–but then Bacevich and I are contemporaries, so he is undoubtedly aware of Melman’s critique, if not seemingly heavily influenced by him–not to say that their views seem totally congruent, however–at least from this distance.)
Respectfully, there are alternate geometries because, like all mathematics, they are logical constructs of the mind and while they do help to explain reality are not derived from reality as a first or even an empirical principle. 1+1=2 because we *define* 2 to be the sum of 1 and 1. Actual reality does not offer itself in different versions, despite what ideological utopians have disastrously offered mankind time and time again to escape our inherently tragic human condition, from the Jacobins turning the streets of Paris red in the name of a new Eden to the Soviet Union’s infamous workers paradise. Andrew Bacevich can (while we all should recognize his practical level contributions to our nation are immense and far beyond those of 99.99% of his fellow countrymen and thus we should all be grateful for what he has done) espouse an alternate world as much as he wants until he’s blue in the face, but while we have some capability to shape our immediate surroundings to our will, always subject to the law of unforeseen consequences, the rest of the world will continue to get an overwhelming vote (largely through the action of their own unforeseen consequences) and press its reality on us whether we like it or not. To mention nothing of the vagaries of Fate. But, hey, he’s not the first person to declare “I’m tired of the world, I want off” and then vent his frustration on those seemingly in control of everything.
Actually there are only three geometries available. That’s because Euclid’s fifth postulate is the only one that can be changed and still result in an internally consistent system. Change any of the others and you eventually wind up with 1=2. Similar work has been done with Algebra and Arithmetic.
But you do point out a major difference between mathematics and science. The Greeks never invented physics and engineering because they were content to make up a story that sounded nice, regardless of its application to reality. It’s a good thing we don’t have people like that today.
Good snark there at the end! I like it.
A well-written and provocative piece indeed, lex. But of course there will be no surprise that I am more of an admirer of Col. Bacevich (who, as you kindlly mention lost his 1Lt. Son in Iraq), and much more in agreement with his parallel universe perspective than you may be.
I have yet to read Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War, but given its early excellent reviews, we all should read it, regardless of politics. His earlier book, The Limits of Power – The End of American Exceptionalism was a powerful and eye-opening book, even if its conclusions were not as sanguine as one would like. While I believe true, his words do sting and the truth does hurt:
Wishful thinking about our future is not realistic thinking. The world has changed dramatically. What we want, and what will be are not always possible; not even likely. Unfortunately the US is still mired in its obsolete, 20th century foriegn policy thinking. There are limits to our power; limits to our growth; limits in all things… Have we reached, or exceeded our limits? Or to we keep pressing ahead, uninhibited? Are we invincible and indestructable?
The August 28th The Economist touched on our being overextended in two excellent articles: After Iraq; The Limits of American Power…. and….. Defense Spending In a Time of Austerity (The chronic problem of exorbitantly expensive weapons is becoming acute)” Link
Flit,
42% of Americans pay no income tax and think Obama has a private cash stash that he can use to pay down their bills. Congress votes on the budget but you’re right, the last 2 presidents have sent presidential budgets to the Congress that were grossly out of balance but those Congress’ never hesitated a split second to vote to approve and much of the dire spending is ‘off budget’ anyway.
One of the reasons for the current depression is that poor out of work folks are curbing spending and cutting down debt unless forced into debt which is not without end if one is merely a citizen rather than a legislator or public employee union member.
The World has not actually changed at all. There is zed difference between 2010 and 1910. You only imagine it so. Did the people change? Has the ideology changed? Has the religious appeal changed? What do you imagine is different today then yesterday? There’s the whole world of WMD but the communists managed to kill 200 million people by famine alone. WMD are more focused but tell that to a Kulak who watches his whole family starve to death based on a policy decision.
The US founded the UN after the War. Hardly the act of a nation hellbent on establishing its own hegemony over the world. NATO, SEATO, etc, pulling out of the PI when they decided enough was enough. Not a really imperial power.
How do we pull 100,000 troops out of Iraq and end up ‘overextended’ according to the Economist? Albright was an absolute idiot and asking about the utility of a superb military that entered Iraq to execute regime change, kill Saddam and root out the WMD caused Pakistan to reign in their nuclear scientists and Libya to end it’s nuclear/wmd program. We arrogated to EU dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and to China and Russia to deal with NORKS. Hardly fair to tar us and feather us for having a superb military. One that could take down Iran in 4 days and NORK in a week much to the regret of the GSMA.
When you know the results of actions taken, you know if it is wise to take them.
Bacevich is showing his Army-centric roots.
The United States is a trade power. Our economy relies on commerce. And commerce relies on stability. Unstable governments, wars, piracy…all are bad for business.
Which means that someone must take on that policing role. And as Mahan and Corbett pointed out, he who polices the oceans gets first pick of the commercial opportunities.
It’s a fact they don’t teach at West Point…but it’s crucial if you want to deal with international strategy.
Spot on!
Bacevich is showing his Army-centric roots.
Hey now, some of us Army guys understand the role of commerce in stability.
Further, Bacevich, as quoted by Flit, is lumping some supposed problems in with real problems.
They will remain passive as politicians fritter away U.S. military might on unnecessary wars.
Say what you will about the strategies used in the wars, but I think we can all agree that some form of action was needed in Afghanistan. And the issue of frittering away our strength is more a matter of deciding that social programs have a higher priority. This is evidenced by the historically low percentage of GDP devoted to the defense budget.
Because the US GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise – and indeed has risen – while simultaneously shrinking as a percentage of GDP.
The FY 2010 amount to 4.7% of GDP. Which is not small beer… especially when our defense spending is more than the entire world’s countries defense spending combined. In fact, we spend 9 times more on defense than does China! Why is that?
NATO’s long standing call was for our allies to spend at least 2% of their smaller GDPs, but that has been lost in a push for wider spending cuts. Yet we spend 4.7%. Why?
Long unending wars and massively expensive weaponry that is mostly rendered irrelevant in today’s world, do indeed slowly bleed a nation’s strength on many levels, regardless of a nation’s domestic “social programs.”
War will always be with us, but the methods and tactics have changed. Just as gunpowder made castles obsolete, and carriers made battleships obsolete, WMD and nuclear arms make warfare as we have known it on the large scale, obsolete.
World hegemony is far more a function of a nation’s economic welfare than its military power… and our economy will someday soon be surpassed by other rising, economic powers, unfortunately. Thus our thinking must adapt and adjust to a changing world.
Fliterman, I agree with your premise on economic strength. But I have a stubborn fact stuck in my craw. The US Government in 2009-10 spent as much money on stimulus programs that demonstrably did not work as we did on the entire extra costs of the entire Iraq War (including Afghanistan). The current US budget priorities are not working.
I agree that our thinking must adapt and adjust. We as a nation are not being serious about the economic strength that is still within our grasp to achieve.
We can discuss European contributions later.
Not to worry about the military-industrial complex. The industrial part is going to China and the military part is going to social programs.
And speaking of math comparisons: The quadratic equation has two solutions, both different and both correct.
Fliterman: “NATO’s long standing call was for our allies to spend at least 2% of their smaller GDPs, but that has been lost in a push for wider spending cuts. Yet we spend 4.7%. Why?”
Because we have security agreements with countries all around the globe. Far far more security commitments than only NATO countries.
Decided to add: If we abandoned some of those security obligations we could save money. Which commitments should we abandon?
How about we start with the U.N.? A septic wound if there ever was one.
Darned good suggestion. No downside either. What a waste of our $$$.
The U.N. is a case of “keeping your enemy close” to an absurd extreme. More like “an asp to the breast” IMO.
What’s the problem with the UN? They did a bang-up job in Srebrenica, disarming everyone so they could be slaughtered en mass in the “safe haven” under UN protection.
Funny thing about blue helmet troops….you’ll see quite a few Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, et al on UN ops because those governments are able to obtain an influx of currency for doing so (governments that contribute to UN operations receive a certain amount of money per soldier per day). Nice to be placed in harm’s way against their wishes so that their governments can rake in money, possibly over their dead and/or maimed bodies.
Countries that contribute the most troops to the UN are (wait for it)….Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Egypt, Nepal, Ghana, Rwanda, Uruguay, Ethiopia. In that order. And of course such troops account for massive amounts of crime that barely touch the media, if at all. But the UN will loudly disparage lesser human rights violations out of the other side of its collective mouth. And of course, disparage us for not volunteering to send ours over under its authoritaaaa.
UN
Korea
Japan
Germany
Africa
Southcom
NATO
SWA
who died and made us world constable?
oh crap! There were quadratic equations!!!!! I was told that there would be no math!
I hate math! And just what ARE quadratic equations, anyway? Are they something good to eat? I never got beyond mastering my multiplication tables…
Alright VX. I didn’t want to say it, but now I have to,
Calculus! So there!
Toward the end of the 3rd semester of calculus, my Prof. said, “for you math majors, this will be the last class you will have where the answer will be a number”!
I took 4 quarters (20 quarter hours of Calculus) and we ceased getting numbers as answers for the most part in the 1st quarter. Differential equations rarely resulted in numbers, and Partial DiffEqns, and Complex Variables numbers were even rarer.
I just wanted to scare VX off before he got too far into this as he was already gibbering about Quadratic Equations and I didn’t want to see him hauled away where “life is gay all day long.”
You can hear the whole song on You Tube if you are silly enough to look it up. I liked it back in the 4th grade when it first came out.
I was thinking along the lines of the diathesis stress model in terms of tweaking out our environment to trigger our susceptibility and natural programmed stupidity to do the things that have been done in the past couple years.
Only because I don’t know euclidian or whatever geometry – gotta go with what I know.
That and most of this stuff is a lot simpler than we like to think.
Obama = liar = bad.
Liar in charge of your checkbook = worse.
Most of it comes down to principles that we were all taught as children – to the point that even arguing on the topic often is futile and simply an exercise in academics – and an opportunity for corrupt sophists to suck you in and suck you dry and leave you hanging.
I think it is time, and past time, to be as concerned with our domestic enemies as our foreign ones.
Paul
Unfortunately, Fliterman has a very valid point:
“Meanwhile, the American people will ignore the imperative of settling accounts – balancing budgets, curbing consumption, and paying down debt.”
Our national debt, $13.5 trillion and growing, is already past the point of any ready solution. We can either renege (unthinkable?) or dramatically inflate our currency so that it becomes worthless. There are no other options at this point. By 2020 we will be paying enough interest to China to pay for a military larger than ours and more modern.
Take a look at the ten year record of the USAA Precious Metals Fund (symbol USAGX) to see a vote against the staying power of the dollar – 26%/year average returns for last 10 years).
Because we are worse than broke as a nation, how long will it be before we hear strident calls for a dramatically smaller military? Can you say “four carrier task forces, maybe 100,000 Marines”?
No intelligent and sane person would run their household budget with such a lack of foresight, yet we let our government spend without restrictions.
Ah, but 1/5th of the people who voted for Obama now regret it and feel duped. He was the most liberal senator in the Senate, was godfathered by a card carrying Communist in Hawaii, both his parents were Communists, spent twenty years in Rev. Wright’s church and his career was as a “community organizer” which is a “nuanced” way of saying hard left political activist/hack. And we’re surprised? I don’t think Obama’s full on communist, technically, but he’s raised and steeped in the hard left his entire life and *nothing* else, so when he gets overwhelmed as he does easily (considering he’s never run a lemonade stand let alone led the free world) he does what anyone else in that situation does, falls back on his “comfort” assumptions, which are invariably ideologically far left and completely wrong.
I love America and the opportunities and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. But it seems a very harsh reality of life that a people will get the worst governance they deserve. America allowed itself to get tricked in a shell game, the consequences you point out are critical, and sadly, we only have ourselves to blame. Montesquieu said Republics were only fit for small polities. I hope America does not become a couple hundred year aberration to this observation, because I do see this much debt and the potential economic results as a threat to our very way of life.
Ain’t it grand though that a leftist communist will stick it to the Chinese and repudiate the debts we sold to them?
Take that! I just cashed in $400.00 of E series US bonds. $1300 bay bee. Chinese bankers militant must be in terror of us pulling the rug out from under the good faith and credit of the US. Obama’s been making stags look like snails in this department. Not only no interest on the loan but no repayment either.
“No intelligent and sane person…”
Well, you see, that’s your problem right there, Marine RIO. All of those people departed Planet Government a long, long, time ago.. And they didn’t file a flight plan…
small typo: 6 decades.
Err, Lex, I know this is narrow-minded, but you puzzled me, and then I just cannot help. Shouldn’t the fifth axiom read:
At most one line can be drawn through any point not on a given line parallel to the given line in a plane.*
I mean, even in Euclidean geometry, there are an inifinite number of parallels to a given line, just not through the same point.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate
I vote Hajo for the PPA this round.
the unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare (11 trillion and 55 trillion) have been known for decades (at least 2) and yet 535 members of congress did/do nothing…i’m for keel hauling every last one of them and i suggest we use the biggest keel in the Navy (maybe the Ronald Reagan)…
Technically I think the ENTERPRISE is the longest carrier in the Navy. It would be a fitting final service for a storied lady who’s given much to her country . . . and frankly, is not really in the material condition to be affordably at sea anymore, IMHO.
I would suggest keel raking. Keel hauling is port to starboard, keel raking is fore and aft.
Good catch Scott, I concur.
Either would most likely kill the victim.
So, who’s first!?!
Sometimes, QM, it’s worth it to just be sure and not take any chances . . .
Wrapped wire and rope around the props a couple of times over the past. Let’s go with keel hauling and save the prop guards and props. We can always drag it back and forth, to and fro until it stops moving.
From the article, “Bacevich, in his own populist way, sees himself as updating a tradition… that calls on America to exemplify freedom but not actively to spread it.”
The cynic in me agrees with him, “Why should I care about someone in another country whom I’ve never seen, and who is more likely than not to resent foreign intervention?”
But on the other hand, although there is a huge difference between American patriotism and Christian fellowship, it has been said about churches, that “a church which does not engage in missionary activity is a dead church”. In the same vein, I wonder if we were to retreat to Fortress America and forgo helping others achieve freedom, we would slowly but inevitably lose our way as we conveniently rationalize national apathy.
Most days, the cynic in me wins. My bad…
“Why should I care about someone in another country whom I’ve never seen, and who is more likely than not to resent foreign intervention?”
Two reasons:
1) War is bad for business. It’s hard to sell people iPods and consultancy contracts when they’re busy fighting for their lives.
2) Democracies don’t fight wars with each other. The more democracies there are in the world the fewer potential enemies we have to worry about and the less we can afford to spend on defense. Which means more money for flatscreens and Mustangs.
Good points, Jeff.
But don’t neutral nations seem to carry on business just fine with both sides – a la the Swiss during WWII, or the Chinese now with Iran & many African countries?
And doesn’t the sacrifice of soldier’s lives for the sake of good business seem crass?
Help the cynic out here…
Sure, you can do business with people fighting wars. But wars are the ultimate manifestation of the Broken Window Fallacy, if there wasn’t a war there would be more resources devoted to trade. Thus a short, unfair war is better than a protracted struggle between evenly matched opponents.
Look at it this way: Business is all about creating wealth, wealth is nothing more than a measure of quality of life, and wasn’t making the world a better place the reason we signed up?
You attribute something to me I don’t deserve. I’m a surgeon and a college professor, but never was in the military, (“we” signed up?), though several of my relatives including both my father (Navy, WWII) and one of my sons (Army, Iraq) have. For your service I salute you.
Regarding Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy, I’m not sure how it helps your argument in favor of spreading freedom by engaging in war on behalf of foreign peoples. If we stay home, ‘things’ will not be broken, resulting in increased trade, right? Unless you are postulating that by comparison our strong ‘short, unfair’ attack preempts ‘evenly matched opponents’?
Well thank you, though I hardly deserve it. All I did was 8 years of sweating, swearing, scrubbing, and scheming. You’re a surgeon, you’ve saved lives.
My point was that whenever there’s destruction of resources, like in a war, those resources aren’t available to trade. If countries Green and Red are at war then they can’t use the money they’ve spent on bombs and bullets to buy stuff from us. We, therefore, are poorer. It would be to our benefit to, in order of preference: Broker a truly peaceful solution, use a threat of overwhelming force to encourage peace (e.g. NATO), or use overwhelming force to settle the conflict.
For this discussion I’m deliberately ignoring ethics and rights and appealing to base greed. It’s been shown time and again that greed, properly channeled, is the best way to improve everybody’s lot.
Wow. Just wow. “Carry on with the extermination of the Jews and subjugation of the 3rd Reich, we’re just here to sell refrigerators and cars. War being bad for business and all that. Here’s my card. Call me if you need more gas chambers in a hurry and we’re quick with ovens too.”
“We can also sell you some excellent 1918 versions of the SPAD in very fine shape plus some 20 pound bombs at extra special just for you rate.”
Curtis I think you’re misinterpreting my last statement. I wasn’t saying there are no ethical considerations when it comes to war. The problem is that ethics is an intensely personal thing. Furthermore there are more places in the world where ethically (at least my code of ethics) we’re obligated to act than we have the resources to act. We simply can’t be everywhere, and we need some other filter to decide where to apply our limited resources.
Anyway the whole point of the exercise was to provide a cynic a reason to expend our blood and treasure in somebody else’s fight.
And I’m sure you know that our involvement in WWII had nothing to do with the Holocaust.
Well Bill, let me take a stab at your question from another angle.
Why should you (or any of us) care about a foreigner in another country? Frankly, so long as he harbors me no ill will I don’t care. If he wants to be just left alone, fine by me. If he wants to trade with me, best yet. I don’t think leaving the world alone, if we could, would produce national apathy and, to me at least, that’s not really part of the equation. (I could be fatally wrong on this point though admittedly, the urge of manifest destiny seems to accompany nearly every successful, or at least minimally truly believes in itself -unlike Europe as evidenced by their native birth rates-, society and may just be an ineluctable facet of human nature.)
But if he, and I’m painting with a broad brush here, is part of a country that harbors terrorists who fly 767′s into our skyscrapers than, willingly or not, life just put him and myself in a situation where he’s part of the problem and I’m part of the “solution,” in so far as the solution is keeping my fellow countrymen and way of life secure. (And by this I don’t mean wanton destruction of every Afghani or Iraqi for example, as if every single one of them is a “problem.”)
As an old saying goes, you may not be interested in strategy but strategy is interested in you.
Isolation is a mirage, pure and simple. It’d be great if we could sit around and no one would do harm to us. (Believe me, I wish nothing more myself, I’m a bit of a homebody myself in my personal life let alone someone who wants to go to piece-o-crapistan and get potentially killed. And I have no beef with people who wish the same.) But the harsh reality of the matter is that isn’t the case. It doesn’t help anyone or anything to argue with those trying to protect the country and un-f^(k the parts of the world that spread globalized Islamic extremist terrorists (South America and most of Africa don’t seem to be saddled with any such problems or inticements of us into their affairs) with an at root fantasy counter-position. Again, no disrespect is meant by this line of argument, but, as usual, we must deal with men and the world as we find, not as we wish it were.