Weakness

One possible understanding of the "fighting them over there" concept is that while fighting them over there doesn't prevent them from attacking us over here, declining to fight them over there might invite attack by demonstrating weakness. This is part-and-parcel of the right's tendency to view national security policy as something that takes place entirely at the level of symbolism. In the real world, it makes very little sense.

Ask yourself why signaling weakness might invite attack. Or, better, ask yourself why signaling anything might matter under any circumstances. The answer, of course, is that signaling matters because it signals underlying reality. At the end of the day, though, what matters isn't what you're signaling, but rather the other guy's perception of your objective strength. In the case of Iraq, continuing the occupation is obviously making it less possible for us to deploy military assets (or, indeed, diplomatic or financial assets) anywhere else for any purpose. Unless you assume that whichever enemies were concerned with are really, really, really dumb they're going to be more impressed by our lack of actual capabilities than they are by our steely determination.

Most generally, there's no point in worrying too much about signaling. You can't prevent messages from being misinterpreted. Terrorists and bloodthirsty dictators, in particular, are prone to seeing the world in eccentric ways. The most reasonable course of action always to make the objective situation as favorable as possible. That way, even if your "the objective situation is favorable" signal is misconstrued, the actual situation will, in fact, be as favorable as possible.

Comments

Oh, you talk mighty big, Harvard boy, but Mitt Romney is man enough for a double Gitmo, and Giuliani has a mystical insight into the real roots of 9/11.

PWNED!

Posted by James Gary | May 25, 2007 2:44 PM

Signalling may be more important than you think. I'm not really sure. But I do know that we are sending the wrong message. Our message to the terrorists is this: "I you attack us, we won't go after you. Instead we'll atack someone else who wasn't involved in your attack. So don't worry, you're free to do what you want."

Posted by fostert | May 25, 2007 2:47 PM

I'll repeat this thought from a previous thread on this subject:
Once we tuck tail and depart from Iraq there'll be no doubt as to why. "Paper tiger" has nothing to do with it and everyone including Bin Laden knows it. If a manual was written detailing how to fail at the operation we embarked on cribbing from Bush's notes would be a good start. Looting, Chalabi, disbanding the army, leaving weapons depots unguarded, staffing the reconstruction and embassy team with twentysomething neophytes more concerned with party loyalty than results, contractor fraud, Abu Ghraib, losing Bin Laden in the mountains, soldiers short of proper personal armor and armored vehicles, ignorance of local customs and sensitivities, farming out security to mercenaries and thugs such as Blackwater and a thousand other errors and crimes. All of them foreseen and avoidable. If we fail and leave these are the reasons for it, not any inherent lack of stomach or patience for the struggle. Everyone sees that, including Bin Laden.

Posted by steve duncan | May 25, 2007 2:48 PM

I thought the logic behind the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" was that by fighting in Iraq, we are keeping the terrorists busy. They aren't attacking us in the US because they're so busy attacking us in Iraq. The US soldiers there are, in that regard, like ablative armor, or sacrificial pawns.

I mean, no one ever explained it like that to me, but it was the impression I somehow obtained.

Posted by Patrick | May 25, 2007 2:54 PM

Daniel Davies absolutely eviscerated this whole
"signal" concept over at Crooked Timber a couple
of months ago, with a summary of the relevant
aspects of game theory. The essential point is
that you can only send a "signal" that people will
believe by doing something genuinely expensive
and harmful to yourself. A "signal" that's easy
and cheap can't be trusted. But then what "signal"
do you *really* send by doing something suicidal
and not justified on its merits ? Answer: this
signifies that you're "a belligerent idiot", to use
Davies' phrase. And how much is that worth to
anyone ?

In the context of nuclear "strategy", this made a
little bit of sense - possessing nuclear weapons
makes no sense, using them would make even less
sense, so the whole edifice stands up only if you
can pose as a destructive lunatic. But in Vietnam
and Iraq, it's hogwash.

Posted by Richard Cownie | May 25, 2007 2:57 PM

"Our message to the terrorists is this: "I you attack us, we won't go after you. Instead we'll atack someone else who wasn't involved in your attack. So don't worry, you're free to do what you want.""

Good point, fostert. Deterrence of terrorism
requires two parts:

1) We *will* attack you if you use terrorism against
us.

2) We will *not* attack you if you don't use
terrorism against us.

The diversion of resources to Iraq screwed up
1). And then our actions in Iraq screwed up 2).

For a more detailed illustration, try Monty Python's
description of the gangster brothers Doug and Dinsdale and the evolution of their protection
racket: if you pay us, we'll attack you; if you
don't pay us, we won't attack you; ...

Posted by Richard Cownie | May 25, 2007 3:02 PM

I liked this suggestion from the earlier thread.

Posted by Jackmormon | May 25, 2007 3:03 PM

Maybe the best questions is, did the intifada occur because Israel was weak? Is that what was driving Palestinians to blow themselves up? Did 9/11 occur because al-Qaeda thought the U.S. was a weak, minor player?

Posted by Aaron | May 25, 2007 3:24 PM

I met an adminstration supporter the other day. He was beating himself over the head with a brick.

I asked him why he was doing this, and he told me:

I can't stop now--that would demonstrate weakness.

Posted by rea | May 25, 2007 3:36 PM

1. Might another, possibly too-reasonable-for-the-Bush-administration, understanding of the "fighting them over there" concept be that we have a major strategic interest in Iraq, or part of Iraq, not becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda (the thought being, roughly, Afghanistan as safe haven was a necessary condition for 9-11)? I take it this is a concern shared by Democratic foreign policy types, who recognize it as something we want to avoid as we withdraw, though I think it's delusional to think we can redeploy over the horizon and make targeted strikes as necessary (on the basis of what intelligence?). And some argue that our withdrawal is itself the best way to ensure that it doesn't happen, which at least joins the issue.

2. In the case of Iraq, continuing the occupation is obviously making it less possible for us to deploy military assets (or, indeed, diplomatic or financial assets) anywhere else for any purpose. Unless you assume that whichever enemies were concerned with are really, really, really dumb they're going to be more impressed by our lack of actual capabilities than they are by our steely determination.

Unfortunately, this seems to be an argument that Team Cheney turns to account to argue for more war with, say, Iran. Show 'em that contrary to this appearance, we're still really actually capable of kicking ass.

Posted by Jeff | May 25, 2007 3:37 PM

Matt, that was a solid argument, but it was a bit verbose and written well above the guy-in-a-bar intellectual level that would allow your work to be taken seriously by the Washington Post editorial page.

Here's a simpler way of putting it.

If we pull our troops out of Iraq now, it will send a message to various troublemakers that if you fight us long enough, we may eventually decide it's not worth the trouble and leave you alone.

If we don't pull our troops out of Iraq now, it will send a message that we can't defeat you no matter how hard we try. It also sends a message that most of our troops will be bogged down in Iraq for years to come, so it's a good time to mess with the United States.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 25, 2007 3:42 PM

One would think that if the Bush Administration gave a fuck about what our enemies think, they would have considered the impact of invading Iraq and smashing it to bits? Or actively hindering a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon? Or promoting Palestinian democracy then attacking the results? Or a long litany of other events?

But when it comes to withdrawing from Iraq, it's time to bust out the Zawahiri tapes and really give a good listen....

Posted by Skyler | May 25, 2007 3:45 PM

I like this post. Matt is basically re-jiggering the fundamental argument that Democrats need to be making: that leaving Iraq is a requirement on national security grounds.

The American public has more or less decided that Iraq is a total shitshow; not because soldiers are dying, but because we cannot win, and there is no point in fighting wars we cannot win. Of course, nobody likes being called a "loser," so the best strategy for Dems is to continually repeat that coming home will make us stronger. Leaving = strength.

The public realizes that Bush and the neocons live in a fantasy world where symbolism trumps reality. Objective strength really is what matters, and the American public is particularly thirsty for someone to stand up and explain that point right now. That's why McCain deserves to be lambasted for his "stroll through Baghdad." He is lying when he tries to claim the city is peaceful and everyone knows he's lying.

Fantasy versus reality. Symbolism versus objective strength. That's what this next election is going to be all about.

Posted by owenz | May 25, 2007 3:53 PM

There is one tiny little kernel of truth to the "fight them over there" mantra, though it's not the one that Bush and his dupes constantly cite. Right now we're providing one hell of a training school for wannabe guerrillas, but these aren't the folks who are ever cause mayhem in the States. If I had to guess, I'd say that few of these guys have the technical skills that might get them a U.S. visa. More important, even if they did get to the States, hardly any of them are likely to have the social skills that are necessary to avoid detection and investigation.

But if I were a European government, I'd be a lot less sanguine. Geography makes it a lot easier to get to a major European city, and owing to their immigration laws EU Islamic populations don't seem as well-integrated into their societies as they are in the U.S. An infiltrator is more likely to find sympathizers and safe harbor in Hamburg than Dearborn. No Baghdad-trained IED craftsman is going to show up in LA or DC, but I'm not so sure about Paris or Warsaw.

Posted by sglover | May 25, 2007 4:18 PM

It's hardly necessary to abandon all of game theory/deterrence/rat choice to argue against the Iraq war. War is about sending messages. At least initially, the war in Afghanistan sent a very useful message - regimes that supported al Qaeda would find themselves overthrown. The trouble is that Iraq sent a bad message.

Posted by Pithlord | May 25, 2007 4:35 PM

I know that this is a thread about the message sent from withdrawing/retreating from Iraq, but I am not sure that the truth of the following statement has been established:

"fighting them over there doesn't prevent them from attacking us over here"

Are we sure? The flypaper theory is not facially absurd. I will demonstrate this with an overly simplistic scenario that a short break from my work will allow. Consider your average jihadi. He chooses to make holy war. He has two main options: (i) undertake an enormously expensive and risky venture in the US with the ultimate purpose of murdering American civilians, or (ii) fight the crusading infidels in Iraq. The latter seems the more intelligent and more honorable choice, even for a jihadi. Of course you will say that their are enough jihadis and resources to do both, and that there have been minor attacks in allied nations, but might it not be the case that we've created a fly in the urinal in Iraq that each jihadi aims at (of course we are also creating more terrorists by our presence, but hey, what are you gonna do)?

And then we withdraw. We have a country full of guerillas, some with aspirations for control of Iraq for their particular brand of Islam. Perhaps there will be civil war, perhaps they'll reestablish the Caliphate in Baghdad, who knows. But there will be others that will wish to continue war against the West. The problem for the latter group is that there will be no front to fight on, and that is when they might act to create one, just as BL did in 2001.

I don't endorse this, but I think it is plausible. The truth is that the choice of whether to withdraw is the hardest foreign policy decision that the nation has had to make during my lifetime. I really can't trust the judgment of anyone who is certain that we should either stay or withdraw.

Posted by laborlibert | May 25, 2007 5:01 PM

The funny thing is that before the war, it was the right that denied the relevance of rational choice models. Saddam was insane, so therefore deterrence couldn't work. Odd that it would be conservatives to confuse evil with mental illness

Posted by Pithlord | May 25, 2007 5:01 PM

War is about sending messages.

Pithlord, you're either making the trivial claim (whcih the post doesn't deny at all) that one thing wars do is send messages or the crazy claim that this is the most important (or even among the more important) things wars do.

Posted by washerdreyer | May 25, 2007 5:01 PM

I'm making the crazy claim. Except in the case of outright genocide, the point of a war is the message.

Posted by Pithlord | May 25, 2007 5:10 PM

I will demonstrate this with an overly simplistic scenario that a short break from my work will allow.

"Overly simplistic" is an understatement. There is one huge false assumption built into your whole scenario: That a jihadi must fight Americans. False.

But we do make it more likely a jihadi will want to kill Americans by occupying land they view as theirs.

Posted by Brian | May 25, 2007 5:33 PM

Brian:

I agree that occupying Iraq causes more Jihadis to want to kill Americans, and I stated so in my post. But the fact is that there are many thousands of Jihadis that will not play Cincinattus and will continue to wage war, with or without a US occupation.

Posted by laborlibert | May 25, 2007 6:18 PM

"I met an adminstration supporter the other day. He was beating himself over the head with a brick.

I asked him why he was doing this..."

At first I got excited thinking we were going to get all literarly, with a critique of the Bush Administration in the style of a Stephen Crane poem; however, it was not to be. Oh wells.

Brian:

"That a jihadi must fight Americans. False."

True. Jihadis have also blown up Turks, Tunisians, Iraqis, Indonesians, etc. If only the synagogue attendees in Tunis and Turkey, the funeral procession mourners in Iraq, and the club-goers in Bali weren't occupying land the Jihadis viewed as theirs, they would have been less likely to have been targets.

Posted by Fred | May 25, 2007 6:23 PM

declining to fight them over there might invite attack by demonstrating weakness.

Whereas proving that the world's biggest military force can't be run ragged deal by an insurgency doesn't. That sends a message.

At least initially, the war in Afghanistan sent a very useful message - regimes that supported al Qaeda would find themselves overthrown.

Unless one bit of the regime supports al Qaeda while another bit doesn't, and that other bit can't confront the bit that does.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 25, 2007 6:48 PM

You Yanks surprise me sometimes in your ignorance sometimes. That fighting in Iraq keeps Al Queda occupied, and that you are doing a bad job of it are not incompatible statements; on the contrary they are both true.

If I were you, I would retreat to the north of Iraq, where the Kurds like you. Let Al Queda take over Ramadi, if they want. Then bomb it to smithereens with your airplanes based in the Kurdish area. Simple enough.

Your technological superiority from 15,000 feet is insurmountable to Al Queda - so why do you fight them on the ground?

Posted by Liam | May 25, 2007 7:09 PM

Brian,

I agree that the occupation causes more Jihadis to want to kill Americans, and I said so in my post. But the fact is that there are many thousands of Jihadis that will continue to wage war against the west, with or without the occupation. Its not a question of whether a Jihadi must fight Americans, its simply a fact that many will continue that fight.

Posted by laborlibert | May 25, 2007 7:16 PM

Brian,

Sorry for the double response. I haven't yet mastered the blackberry and I thought that I had accidentally deleted the first post. You'll notice I removed the silly Cincinattus reference.

Posted by laborlibert | May 25, 2007 7:33 PM

It seems to me that we've already done a pretty good job of signaling to, for example, Iran that we're dangerous to mess with. There's no point in continuing to signal that we're belligerent madmen.

We've overthrown the Iraqi government and killed Saddam, his sons, and a few hundred thousand Iraqis. If we leave now and the Iraqi civil war escalates, the message that fighting the US leads to "regime change" and devastation is even clearer.

Posted by Ragout | May 26, 2007 11:57 AM

Fred 6:23--"Because it is impervious to ideas, and because it is my head...."

Posted by nick | May 26, 2007 7:46 PM

The narrow focus on the Moron Cowboy's soundbyte justification for staying in Iraq, while nominally interesting, dignifies it by taking it seriously, & also distracts us from the larger issues, which go to to honor, integrity & the moral authority America once was supposed to stand for on the world stage (how's them for he-man virtues) & the bogus reasons for invading in the first place, which had not a thing to do with reality.

He's waving the fear card, which his acolytes are all too eager to buy into & promote, because they think the American public is as stupid as they wish we were. In fact, on that level, it's a PR war. Nothing more, nothing less. Too bad it's killing people, but oh well. Everyone who still has a brain is invited to reach his own conclusion as to why we're really there ~ & whether it's a "good" reason, worth all those lives.

Back here in the "reality-based" community, I move we all listen to Liam's solution. There's a way out. But the Neocons won't take it; they've long been itching to bring the MidEast under their control & dominion, & they're not there yet. I submit that the reasons we were sold this war & the reasons Bush is determined to expand it into Iran are NOT the patently vapid reasons we're being fed. Note that Bushco is actively doing everything it can to provoke war with Iran--sending the CIA in on covert operations to manipulate the currency & run a disinformation campaign, the sudden amassing of aircraft carriers off the Iranian coast, etc. etc.

Everyone who believes in controlling the world's oil spplies for the industrialized nations' benefit, say "yeah!" It could be under cover of "fighting a just war against militant Islamic extremist-madmen." Whatever excuse you prefer will work just as well, as long as it "sells." Just don't be fool enough to take it seriously.

On the very real problem of what to do about the militant Islamic jihadists, I don't pretend to know, but I suspect the root causes go back a ways. Too bad Americans have such short attention spans they can't pay attention to history, not even their own. I do know that neither Iraq nor Iran is about putting an end to it, & in fact is just going to make it worse in the long run. It's only a question of HOW worse. The Bush-Cheney WH would do well to make an attempt to learn more about the problem & reassess its stubborn refusal to address it.

They're right about only one thing, as far as I can tell: it's a dangerous & complex world out there, & everything they've done so far has only made it more so.

Posted by Demon Princess | May 27, 2007 8:16 PM