The Sweet Taste of Straw

Here's a good one. Leon Wieseltier takes on liberals who've been misinterpreting Reinhold Niebuhr and manages to offer quotations from zero lliberals who actually adhere to the misinterpretation that's alleged at hand. Names of said liberals? No.

I mean, seriously, is there anybody out there who thinks that the problem with Bush's foreign policy is that he has a bad domestic policy? Wieseltier's quite right to term that an odd point of view to take up, and not a very sound reading of Neibuhr, but it's such an odd point of view that nobody adheres to it. At any rate, I certainly grow tired of these incessant efforts to wield Brent Scowcroft as a bludgeon against liberal hawks' liberal critics. To be sure, there were problems with Scowcroft's approach to world affairs, to wit a seeming indifference to the suffering of foreigners. That said, when you see liberals say something nice about Scowcroft or Scowcroftish ideas they're clearly talking about his ideas on a different subject, namely the inadvisability of launching unilateral preventative wars and the availability of alternative methods of coping with medium-sized hostile states.

Comments

"the inadvisability of launching unilateral preventative wars and the availability of alternative methods of coping with medium-sized hostile states."

It's your conflation of these two points that has rendered your foreign policy non-serious over the past year.

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 10:44 AM

I don't follow. I have a couple prospective rebuttals, but I'm not sure what your argument is. I haven't seen any conflation going on.

The Republicans have taken the pro-crazy-wars stance quite clearly. I oppose crazy wars, and support alternative methods - that is, the sort of diplomacy everyone does, talking and talking and not making much progress, but preventing horrible things from happening.

Posted by DivGuy | September 13, 2006 10:53 AM

I think you miss Weiseltier's point, which I take to be that he's old, incontinent, and possibly sufferring from dementia. Also, that Lee Siegel still loves him, and that should be enough for any man.

Why does anyone treat him as a serious person on anything outside of the very narrow sphere of high-culture criticism? Even there, he might suck; so few people care about the sphere that I'm not sure we can assume much from the absense of mobs with torches.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 13, 2006 11:10 AM

His cameo in the Sopranos was pretty good though. I'm serious.

Posted by JP | September 13, 2006 11:57 AM

SomeCallMeTim, i was going to say something snide about weiseltier, but who could match your brilliance? so i'll content myself by echoing DivGuy, instead: i don't understand Petey's point in the slightest.

Posted by howard | September 13, 2006 11:59 AM

Petey, without further elaboration, it's your critique that seems non-serious.

The two points in question, i.e. "the inadvisability of launching unilateral preventative wars" and "the availability of alternative methods of coping with medium-sized hostile states" are related, not conflated. If one agrees with the premise that unilateral preventive wars are bad, then persuing alternative methods follows logically from that. Or, if you prefer, the existence of altenative methods can be seen as part of what makes unilateral preventive wars inadvisable. In neither case is Matthew, or Scowcroft for that matter,confusing the two or contending that they are the same thing. Unless conflation doesn't mean what I think it means...

In any case, what's so flawed about these distinctions as to render Matt's views on foreign policy unserious?

Posted by DMonteith | September 13, 2006 12:10 PM

These last couple of years Wieseltier has written top-grade pieces (in my estimation) on Dennett's Breaking the Spell, which might belong in some "high-culture" ghetto, and on the Gaza settlers and Mel Gibson's Passion, which certainly do not. He has his moments, when he isn't trying to wrestle Niebuhr's mantle off that straw man. Perhaps we should join him in reciting the Serenity Prayer.

Posted by Dabodius | September 13, 2006 12:10 PM

"His cameo in the Sopranos was pretty good though."

Reinhold Niebuhr's cameo or Brent Scowcroft's cameo?

(FWIW, I thought they were both unexpectedly good.)

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 12:18 PM

"the existence of altenative methods can be seen as part of what makes unilateral preventive wars inadvisable."

The breakdown of logic here is in the neighborhood of where Matt went off the rails...

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 12:19 PM

"I oppose crazy wars, and support alternative methods - that is, the sort of diplomacy everyone does, talking and talking and not making much progress, but preventing horrible things from happening."

Most folks oppose crazy wars.

But the existence of alternate methods doesn't necessarily imply that alternate methods are the correct methods in every case.

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 12:24 PM

But the existence of alternate methods doesn't necessarily imply that alternate methods are the correct methods in every case.

No, of course not. But crazy wars are a bad idea just about all the time. They are such a bad idea that the mere existence of alternatives almost always shows that a certain crazy war is inadvisable.

Are you arguing for the space in between "always" and "almost always"? And in that case, which historical situations do you feel show the necessity of expanding that space?

Posted by DivGuy | September 13, 2006 12:30 PM

"But crazy wars are a bad idea just about all the time. They are such a bad idea that the mere existence of alternatives almost always shows that a certain crazy war is inadvisable."

I'm arguing that "crazy wars" and "wars" shouldn't be conflated.

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 12:43 PM

I'm using "crazy" as a fun synonym for pre-emptive, effectively unilateral wars.

I haven't seen a particular tendency of opposition to multilateral, defensive wars - though I think Matthew among others has developed a deeper suspicion of what even that sort of war can accomplish.

Again, which historical situations are you seeing where Matthew would take an "unserious" approach?

Posted by DivGuy | September 13, 2006 12:48 PM

"I'm using "crazy" as a fun synonym for pre-emptive, effectively unilateral wars."

Yup. That's where I get off the train.

The current WH's misadventure in Iraq is crazy. The Clinton WH's willingness to militarily intervene in Haiti in the mid-90's, both pre-emptively and unilaterally, wasn't crazy.

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 12:57 PM

"I think Matthew among others has developed a deeper suspicion of what even that sort of war can accomplish."

You may well be correct. But why has this suspicion developed?

We are in the midst of an idiotic war, but the tendency to generalize out from there that all war is idiotic strikes me as pernicious.

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 1:05 PM

But the existence of alternate methods doesn't necessarily imply that alternate methods are the correct methods in every case.

As I contemplate an infinite universe of hypotheticals, I can envision a world in which this is a powerful argument in favor of unilateral preventive wars. I think, however, that what's missing from this is any connection to the concept of effectiveness. If the best alternative to unilateral preventive war is to have everyone join hands and sing kumbaya in the hope that our enemies will become so overwhelmed by emotion that they forget to attack us, then yeah, unilateral preventive war is preferable.

But, back in the real world, one thing that Iraq and the nonexistence of WMD's (not to mention the multilateral response to the Balkans) has proven is that alternative methods can be very effective. Contrast this with the effectiveness (on almost any metric) of the Iraq war and Isreal's invasion of Lebanon and I'm finding that your argument rests on a very slim reed indeed.

So, given the existence of viable, effective alternatives, I fail to see how using their existence to support the contention that unilateral preventive war is inadvisable can be considered a failure of logic.

Posted by Dmonteith | September 13, 2006 1:15 PM

"the tendency to generalize out from there that all war is idiotic strikes me as pernicious"

Speaking of straw men...

Posted by Dmonteith | September 13, 2006 1:19 PM

"So, given the existence of viable, effective alternatives, I fail to see how using their existence to support the contention that unilateral preventive war is inadvisable can be considered a failure of logic."

Given the existence of truly viable, effective alternatives, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you.

But the more interesting questions come when you remove that given.

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 1:29 PM

But the more interesting questions come when you remove that given.

I, on the other hand, find the absence of alternatives less interesting than the converse. If your only alternative is unilateral preventive war, then all questions would seem to have been answered. This, in fact, is the deeply unserious universe inhabited by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, and Mattehw's and Scowcroft's pushback against it is a worthy project and your nit, however unconvincingly picked, is a distraction from this larger point.

Posted by DMonteith | September 13, 2006 1:47 PM

"This, in fact, is the deeply unserious universe inhabited by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, and Mattehw's and Scowcroft's pushback against it is a worthy project"

I wholehearted agree with you again that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld foreign policy universe is deeply unserious. And I also agree that pushback is a worthy cause.

But I don't think Scowcroft would agree with where Matthew is going in the specifics of his pushback.

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 1:58 PM

You previously accused me of creating a strawman when I noted the tendency to over-generalize out from the experience of the Iraqi misadventure. I think you're wrong about that.

Yes, but why? Is there a war you want us to fight (Iran?) that you take the overgeneralizers to be against? Or is this just a broad point to the effect that we don't know everything, and our experience in Iraq may not be the sole touchstone for all possible future decisions. I think you'd find broad agreement on the latter point.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 13, 2006 2:05 PM

Reasonable people all think there should be a presumption against the use of war. Unless you are a pacifist, there would be some set of compelling reasons sufficient to overturn that presumption, but presumption there should be. What the Iraq war has taught people like Matt is that this presumption should be weighed a little higher than it used to be.

If your best example of the beneficial application of force is Haiti, then you might want to come up with another example.

Posted by Pithlord | September 13, 2006 2:28 PM

"Is there a war you want us to fight (Iran?)"

Nope.

"Or is this just a broad point ... that ... our experience in Iraq may not be the sole touchstone for all possible future decisions."

Yup.

"I think you'd find broad agreement on the latter point."

I'm not really sure that's true at the moment.

As far as I can tell, Matthew has been lately getting himself to a place where the Iraqi misadventure experience really is being universalized into broader laws that claim to apply for all situations. I think that's a dead end.

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 2:28 PM

"If your best example of the beneficial application of force is Haiti, then you might want to come up with another example."

Sure. I'm a big fan of the Kosovo operation.

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 2:32 PM

Pithlord,

Your use of boldface caused me to respond to your second paragraph without fully appreciating the previous paragraph. Most humble apologies.

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 2:43 PM

The Clinton WH's willingness to militarily intervene in Haiti in the mid-90's, both pre-emptively and unilaterally, wasn't crazy.

As best as I can tell, the Haitian intervention was not unilateral. UN Security Council Resolution 940 states UN authorization for a forceful removal of the junta. According to an article from the "UN Chronicle":

Prompted by the destabilizing effect on the Caribbean region of a massive refugee exodus and reassured when Aristide's representatives agreed to carry out neo-liberal economic reforms, the United Nations finally took decisive action in September 1994. With UN authorization, a 28-nation multinational force (MN$ led by United States troops, were dispatched to restore the constitutional order in Haiti.

It seems to me that hte primary historical dispute here is Kosovo, as in the need for UN authorization. and even then the US went through NATO. I don't see a difference in "seriousness" at all between these positions.

Posted by DivGuy | September 13, 2006 3:16 PM

"As best as I can tell, the Haitian intervention was not unilateral."

I learn something new every day...

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 3:21 PM

It's nice to argue on a theoretical level, but I'm never much impressed with the theory unless people tell me how the theory applies to real life. For example, given your theory about when it is appropriate to use force, which of the following operations do you (did you) support, and why:

Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992
Haiti 1994
Bosnia 1995
Kosovo 1998
Afghanistan 2001
Iraq 2003

Which of the above are "crazy wars"? I'm leary of people with theories about the proper use of force who refuse to apply their theories to examples.

BTW, re Haiti, a UN resolution approved it, but it was far from multilateral, given that it consisted almost entirely of US troops (contrast with the troops of far more countries in Iraq). One must distinguish between "multilateral" meaning having UN approval and "multilateral" meaning lots of countries involved.

Posted by Al | September 13, 2006 3:34 PM

. One must distinguish between "multilateral" meaning having UN approval and "multilateral" meaning lots of countries involved.

The former is a proxy for the more important criteria: lots of countries (particularly traditionally allied countries) sign off on the mission.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 13, 2006 3:37 PM

Oh: Iraq was crazy, and Somalia was probably crazy.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 13, 2006 3:39 PM

The US has the hugest army in the world. When the world decides to go to war, the US will bear the brunt of it.

What made Iraq '03 crazy was that it was opposed by large segments of the international community and not in reaction to any new threat to international order and interests. There's also a difference between intervening in an internal conflict, and overthrowing the government of a stable nation.

I think that a reassessment of the Clinton wars shows 1) how deeply different they are from the invasion of Iraq and 2) how the partial similarities between Kosovo and Iraq suggest that Kosovo should be reassessed and viewed more negatively than it had been. That sort of extra-UN intervention sets a dangerous precedent.

Posted by DivGuy | September 13, 2006 3:44 PM

> I don't follow. I have a couple prospective
> rebuttals, but I'm not sure what your argument
> is. I haven't seen any conflation going on.

As far as I can tell, "petey" is Marshall Wittman or someone working for Wittman. His job is to wander around liberal blogs, claiming to be a Democrat (or some form of liberal) while making oh-so-serious comments about foreign policy that boil down to "Democrats need to adopt Dick Cheney's foreign policy".

Here's a hint petey: whenever you criticize anyone to the left of John McCain for not being "serious", the experienced reader of your posts immediately thinks 'projection'.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 13, 2006 3:46 PM

"One must distinguish between "multilateral" meaning having UN approval and "multilateral" meaning lots of countries involved."

Quite true.

But UN approval confers an immense amount of legitimacy on an operation.

In a small war, I'd rather go in alone with UN approval than go in with lots of allies without UN approval.

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 3:52 PM

"His job is to wander around liberal blogs, claiming to be a Democrat (or some form of liberal)"

It's even worse than that. He claims to be a lefty Democrat.

And he's really crafty too - note how he's been claiming to be opposed to the Iraqi misadventure for 3 years now just to throw folks off the Wittman trail.

He was sent in under very deep cover...

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 3:59 PM

but getting back to Wieseltier . . . what the hell does the rant against Woody Allen in the last third of his column have to do with anything?!

Posted by Karl Weber | September 13, 2006 4:00 PM

And he's really crafty too - note how he's been claiming to be opposed to the Iraqi misadventure for 3 years now just to throw folks off the Wittman trail.

FWIW, there are two possible readings of that sentence:

(1) Recently, he has started claiming to have been against the Iraq war for three years; or,
(2) Throughout the last three years, he has been publically against the Iraq war.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 13, 2006 4:04 PM

Petey's also been an internet activist for the best progressive who stands any chance of becoming president - John Edwards.

Posted by DivGuy | September 13, 2006 4:10 PM

As far as I can tell, "petey" is Marshall Wittman or someone working for Wittman. His job is to wander around liberal blogs, claiming to be a Democrat (or some form of liberal) while making oh-so-serious comments about foreign policy that boil down to "Democrats need to adopt Dick Cheney's foreign policy".

Cranky is cranky enough, but he isn't much of an observer.

Posted by Pithlord | September 13, 2006 4:18 PM

"FWIW, there are two possible readings of that sentence"

Choose #2. If you've got the time and interest, Google's got the caches. dKos, Atrios, and Yglesias were the primary haunts back in the day.

But like I said, it's probably all just deep cover. My true secret agenda is to get the US to invade Khazakstan to install Borat as President.

Posted by Petey | September 13, 2006 4:23 PM

Matthew has been lately getting himself to a place where the Iraqi misadventure experience really is being universalized into broader laws that claim to apply for all situations

Um...one thing that Matt's writing seems to convey to me is that he "does nuance". The fact that you see him universalizing the lessons of Iraq doesn't mean that that's what he's doing. His primary points along these lines seem centered around the concept of capabilities. Iraq has demonstrated that our capacities are less than we thought they were. If you can't fly, then jumping off of cliffs is a bad idea. Even if this were universalized into a law, I can't think what harm would come of it. Seems like common sense to me.

Regarding the straw man, no one here is saying that "all war is idiotic". Though you could probably find someone who says that it would be hard to do so without violating Kevin's Law.

Posted by DMonteith | September 13, 2006 4:37 PM

Wieseltier has his moments, but his critque of Dennett was not one of them. It was terrible, not just in content but in its sneering tone. He obviously doesn't have much background in either science or philosophy.

Posted by mtraven | September 14, 2006 1:23 AM