Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Monday Afternoon Wisdom
Richard Betts on the difference between policing and war:
Some attempts to use force in this multilateral and limited manner – such as in the second phase of the Somalia intervention in 1993, “pinprick” punishments in Bosnia before 1995, or the initial assault on Serbia in 1999 – proved ineffectual and surprisingly costly. This was because the U.S. and NATO forces found themselves acting not as police suppressing individuals or small groups, but in acts of war, confronting organized mass resistance by force of arms. This was discomfiting to those who unleash force for humanitarian reasons because they do not like the idea of killing people and breaking things even for good purposes. They hope for clean application of force without casualties, or at least combat in which only the guilty are destroyed and large numbers of civilian deaths are an aberration.
War, in contrast, inevitably hurts the innocent as well – and as anyone who has studied or experienced war will insist to those who hope otherwise, the stress is on inevitably. Deliberate targeting of civilians may be prevented, but the nature of real war is that accidental collateral damage is a regular cost of doing business. …
Law enforcement aims to protect the rights and interests of individuals by apprehending transgressors and holding them to account for their crimes, and letting the guilty go free rather than unfairly harm an individual innocent. In war, the ultimate communitarian enterprise, the priorities are reversed; many individual interests are sacrificed for the nation’s collective interests. Soldiers die for their countrymen, not themselves, and civilians caught in cross fires are simply out of luck. This fundamental empirical difference between policing and war is not easily grasped by people of good will. Before unleashing force they need to recognize that war by its nature entails terrible injustice to many individuals, and that acceptance of that injustice as the lesser evil is implicit in any decision to send the military into combat.
Buy his excellent new book American Force: Dangers, Delusions, and Dilemmas in National Security here
While it is inarguably true
While it is inarguably true that "Before unleashing force [we] need to recognize that war by its nature entails terrible injustice to many individuals, and that acceptance of that injustice as the lesser evil is implicit in any decision to send the military into combat," the assertions that everyone who argues in favor of intervention is in denial of that fact, and that there is such a simple dichotomy between the use of force in policing vs war are risible. Civilian casualties and suffering are an unavoidable reality of war, but there's a world of difference between Unified Protector and the fire bombing of Dresden.
(Not to mention that it was the third phase of ops in Somalia (UNISOM II and Task Force Ranger) that got into trouble, not the second phase - UNITAF).
Hey Ex, There's a good guy
Hey Ex,
There's a good guy named Jack Murphy who goes to Columbia as an undergrad studying Middle East Lit., he's a former SF/Ranger soldier. I want you to take him under your wing. He's been writing some really great stuff at SOFREP dot com, check him out. Just be careful of his SEAL buddy, he's not the sharpest tool in the shed if you know what I mean.
When this was pointed out at
When this was pointed out at the time...never mind. Better late than never.
Not that the USG and Liberal Internationalists/NeoCon/R2P types won't make exactly the same mistake again .
Too idealistic, very
Too idealistic, very simplistic, and makes the assumption that “my cause” is on the golden horse of righteousness. It has not been that easy since WW2.
The worst war of all is the humanitarian war because it can do no evil. That has gotten worse because technology gives the illusion of precision killing.
The most interesting war is the war that isn’t a war at all that is because we let the other person die for our cause, the outsourced war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-trains-african-...
You are generating the illusion that your chosen one is doing this for all mankind.
What would have happened to the US economy if all spending in Afghanistan and Iraq ended in 2008? No US politician gets elected without supporting defense; it is too large a part of the American economy. No politician is immune, the question is if they believe their own bullsh*t.
America was not formed to be an Empire. We need to learn to let the world solve its own problems; we have structural issues to deal with in the US. We are burning capital like we can print it.
I have never met a politician that died for his country in a humanitarian war. They just retire gracefully or die of natural causes. Many people have died in battle for a political agenda, not their country.
This post is only dealing with the first order cause of war, the one that used to sell the program.
The left in America is using war to sell a humanitarian agenda to the US taxpayer. What a better way to distribute AID than to use the full force of DOD and tap into half of the US economy ?
"America was not formed to be
"America was not formed to be an Empire"
Nor are it's Warrior Feeder types - what has been called Jacksonian America support it.
Time to pullback and find our Anatolia - I suggest Guam/Hawaii to Greenland, with the CommonWealth as outlier/client states.
Elf, been a long time. Where
Elf, been a long time. Where you been hiding. In Exum's office?
You mean Jacksonian America from 1824 to 1845?
The logic of boundaries is a little more fuzzy than latitude and longitudes, more like attitudes. There is no doubt that the US is globalized, that is the fuzzy part. There is no going backwards unless transportation comes to a unoiled halt, that will not happen for at least 60 years if my Schlumberger buddy from Mexico told me true. The USG is suppose to protect shipping and citizens anywhere in the world, that is where we get in trouble. Private companies want to be left alone, but squeal like a pig if their people get into a bind in a foreign land while enjoying deferred taxes on income. Energy is the defense department laxative. Wanting people are brought into our living rooms with technology and the do-gooders what to save them with other people's money.
It comes down to policy the boundaries to be draw is how far the USG will go to rescue and save the day. That goes for humanitarian causes too. Hard to do with everyone lobbying for a cause in Congress. In a globalized world the responsibility is spread globally which is a difference from post WW2. Think the US middle class has bled enough they fight the wars, give up jobs to folks in China, and pay the majority of US taxes. I am not saying the rich has to pick up the balance. I am saying you get the protection you pay for in the US.
There is common sense and limits, the individual or private company has to take responsibility for their global freedoms. Tax money stops at the edge of the 50 states and policy and priorities extend beyond that.
Add your comment