War is the Health of the Incumbent

I noticed something interesting when looking at Ed Kilgore's trenchant remarks on Joe Lieberman's recent SAIS speech:

It provides an exceptionally simplistic and mechanical history of partisanship and foreign policy. Democrats were "good" from World War II until Vietnam, and Republicans tended to be "bad." Democrats were "bad" from Vietnam to the First Gulf War, and Republicans were "good." During the Clinton administration, and particularly with respect to the Kosovo intervention, Democrats were "good" and most Republicans (excepting Dole and McCain) were "bad," and that characterization remained true during the 2000 elections (Lieberman's running-mate Al Gore "good," the humility-in-foreign-policy Bush "bad"). Both parties were "good" from 9/11 through the Iraq War authorization, but once the war began, Republicans were "good" and Democrats turned "bad" (presumably including Al Gore, who was prematurely "bad" in opposing the war).

One illustration of how dimwitted this worldview is, is that in Liebermanland the "good" political party is pretty much always and everywhere the party that was in power at the time. That's because in the Joe Lieberman Handbook to Strategy, the test of your foreign policy acumen is just supporting wars. And, of course, presidents tend to only launch wars that they support. Thus at any given time, the incumbent will either be not starting a war (neutral) or else supporting his own policies (good) whereas the loudest opponents of his policies (bad) will be in the other party. The idea that there might be good and bad ways of using force, good or bad circumstances in which to use them, or heaven forbid other kinds of good policymaking (avoiding wars!) is just off the table.

Comments

There's that damn table again. It sure gets around.

Posted by El Cid | November 10, 2007 3:02 PM

Joe L. sounds like a really angry guy.

Posted by Rich | November 10, 2007 3:21 PM

Might this not be good news? If Lieberman is more of a type than an individual might not a strong Democratic victory in 2008 bring them around?

What I mean is suppose 2008 brings a Democratic president, 20 extra House seats and 6 extra Senate seats, wouldn't we be able to count on Lieberman's vote (and that of those like him) for cloture as Republicans try to use the only tool left to them to thwart the Democratic agenda?

Posted by Mike Alexander | November 10, 2007 4:14 PM

I haven't read the speech, (for which I do not apologize because Lieberman is unlikely to say anything worthwhile. )

Still, in the post-Vietnam era, both the Democrats and the Pentagon responded in an irrational "I'll never do this again" attitude. Democrats did respond by chanting "No more Vietnams," in response to every crisis - even when the situation called for a conventional military response that bore no semblance to what Vietnam entailed. Hence they put their heads in the sand regarding the Soviet Union, and Reagan filled the resulting gap.

Interestingly, the Pentagon also responded with a "No more Vietnam's" knee jerk. Not by ducking the military altogether but rather by adopting a "We don't do guerrilla wars" mentality. Hence the development of high tech, shock and awe, smart bombs, etc. The Special Forces, human intelligence, and other effective counter guerrilla techniques were disbanded or de-emphasized.

The sorry state is that we have a society that cannot respond effectively to guerrilla wars. The Democrats sense that - when guerrilla scenarios arise - conventional forces will not work but cannot progress beyond either a vague anti military or a vague "We support the troops and are tough guys too" crouch. The Republicans, in contrast, like the French knights at Agincourt, keep charging into the guerrilla fray with outmoded tactics and strategies, thumping their chests.

It is not a matter of being "good" or "bad." It is a matter of being smart or stupid. And, while it is stupid to oppose the use of conventional force where conventional force is indicated (see the collapse of the Soviet Union or Gulf War I ) it also is stupid to insist upon it where guerrilla tactics are indicated ( see Vietnam or Gulf War II ).

Posted by Duncan Kinder | November 10, 2007 4:18 PM

You are being obtuse, Matt. Of course, there are good and bad ways of using force. But do you offer any reliable method of telling the difference?

There are two basic approaches. One would define certain outcomes as benefits, and other as losses, and then the practitioners pretend to balance them, as if one could quantify them and bring to some common unit. In practice, it is used to justify kvetching. For example, a wee action in Iran led to more than 30 years of mutual cooperation that brought much prosperity and social progress to that nation, while making it one of the bulwarks against Soviet Empire. Till today "blame America" types kvetch that this was a democratic government that we abolished, that the dictatorship lead to resentment of USA etc. And when things turn right there is also kvertching that they were wrong for a little while etc.

The second approach is to define outcomes qualitatively. Is America making bold moral judgment? Now, assuming that it did, is America proudly following logical consequences of that judgment? Note that we avoid details in this approach, and therefore. the devil.

So, let us re-inspect the favorite example of kveth-against-America ilk: Iran AD 1953.

1. We drew a bold line of moral judgement, with liberty and virtue on the western side of the line, and slavery and vice on the East. Numenor and Sauron, if you get my drift. And believe me, Sauron was bad, Nasty Nastovitch, real article.

2. Muhammad Mosaddeq fluttered above the bold line like a leaf, fluttered left, fluttered right and ... landed on the East side! Kvetchers would claim that Mosaddeq s_t_r_a_d_d_l_e_d the line because Iran remained neutral, and nationalization of oil companies should not bother us at all. Wrong and wrong. It a_p_p_e_a_r_e_d that Mosaddeq was neutral, but what kind of moral judgment did we make? Bold or tentative? If bold, then you believe the inteligence dispatches that justify what you do, and they told us what the t_r_u_e intentions of Mosaddeq were.

3. Observe more closely what bold moral judgment means in this example. First, this is American judgement. It makes it moral. Second, we follow what we say, that makes it bold. Third, if you concentrate on details, you almost from the start are getting things wrong.

4. This point is intentionally deleted. As I said, details.

Posted by piotr | November 10, 2007 4:43 PM

I find it difficult to believe that Lieberman is arguing in good faith, considering that he ran in two elections against the ticket with George W. Bush on it. Lieberman has never been one for principle--he's the apotheosis of the DLC/New Dem nightmare from which we are only beginning to awake.

As for those who would defend the CIA's actions against Mossadeq, consider that it is not difficult to draw a beeline from that action straight to Ahmadinejad and the current state of that country. Decades of ceaseless meddling by the United States have made most of the world hostile to us, and further meddling and brinksmanship isn't going to reverse this pattern.

Posted by Lev | November 10, 2007 5:39 PM

Lev, I agree that the way those people argue, it is hard to tell the snark from the real thing.

Iran was not such a bad case, shah was a relatively enlightened ruler. In Guatemala we unleashed decades of murderous military dictatorships. In Zaire we supported one of the least competent kleptocracts ever. Etc. etc. Denying the Devil in details does not wish Him away.

More seriously, Lieberman offers seriously deranged blather about America's right to make moral judgement. It is of some importance if this is a correct judgement, isn't it? So it is of some importance to be correct. Lieberman starts on a good note by calling attacks on troops "terrorist". In the context of Iraqi war, Lieberman is saying that "we, America" are so marvelous that we can say any bulshit we want and call it "moral judgment" because, well, we have the right.

And then quoting Kennedy that we should be ready to make any sacrifice. Good idea! So we can sacrifice health and sanity of "the worst terrorists", plus our good name and dignity? Like in using female soldiers to humiliate religious sensibilities and sexual taboos of prisoners? Do we want such patriotic sacrifice?

I believe that Lieberman is sincere, if you can call it that way. This drivel is very seductive. We are the angels, we are the sword of righteusness, we stomp over our cowardly oppenents, we... They do not call it wankery for nothing.

Posted by piotr | November 10, 2007 7:30 PM

Lieberman is neither Republican nor Democrat-- he's in the "King's party". It's a position that's not uncommon among politicians. A career in politics, after all, means that you're drawn to power.

Posted by MattF | November 10, 2007 7:35 PM

Lieberman's gone completely nuts. Is he even a real person? I mean, doesn't his wife ever just pull him aside and say, Okay Joe, enough's enough?

It's strange to think that if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, and then for some reason died in office, the end result would have been the same as if he'd never been elected in the first place.

I can't understand why some of you are trying to find some way to defend him. I mean, what is this:

"it is stupid to oppose the use of conventional force where conventional force is indicated (see the collapse of the Soviet Union or Gulf War I )"

Um, I must have missed that awesome war we fought with the USSR to cause its collapse.

Posted by Jason C. | November 10, 2007 7:35 PM

Van Creveld can say this better than me, Duncan, but here goes:

The only reason we have large conventional forces is because in the 1950s and 60s the guys who ran these large forces came up with really fallacious arguments about how we could end up fighting a conventional war against the Soviets. The Soviets, btw, did the same thing.

In fact, any war between great powers since 1949 is going to have only one end game.

Which is why, for example, the Israelis haven't been in any real danger since 67/68 (when Dimona finally yielded a weapon)

Posted by Greg | November 10, 2007 10:15 PM

If the Shah was really such an enlightened ruler, why did he get overthrown? If he was really such an enlightened ruler that the people would love him, wouldn't his supporters (who would have access to the government apparatus, have SIVAK on its side, etc.) have been able to overwhelm the students and the mullahs who were against him? Seeing only a small number of people in an oil-rich nation become rich is not enlightened rule: it is plutocracy. Maybe if he spent less money on military parades on such and more on social welfare, his son would be in power now instead of being a borderline punchline among the wealthy Iranian diaspora, you know, the people who actually did pretty well under the Shah.

Posted by Reality Man | November 11, 2007 2:17 AM

"The idea that there might be good and bad ways of using force, good or bad circumstances in which to use them, or heaven forbid other kinds of good policymaking (avoiding wars!) is just off the table.".

Also off the table is the idea that there will be a reaction to or blow-back from your warmaking. He does not care since this reaction will fall on someone else.

Posted by bob h | November 11, 2007 7:23 AM

Ater 1945 the U.S.A used coventional sucessfully only in two incidents: Korea and the Gulf War of 1990/1991. Generally if you look at conventional wars that had a purpose - winning or at least fighting your opponent to a draw - there are few examples after 1945: Falkland, some of Israel wars. How exactly conventional warfare would have helped against the S.U. is beyond me.

And Mordor vs. Numenor, well indeed. How did the Numenor of Tar-Minastir become the Numenor of Ar-Pharazon? In one of his fragments of the 30ties Tolkien actually told of a Numenor very much looking like a modern totalitarian dictatorship.

Posted by IM | November 11, 2007 7:55 AM

"If the shah was really such an enlightened ruler..."

This is covered by point 4. of my post: details which are intentionally deleted.

About enlightened dictators: they suffer from a certain contradiction. To give you a comparison, in late 18-th century there was a progressive movement among Polish nobility with such points like treating serfs humanely. A generation later these people were reactionaries, because they defended the institution of serfdom. So the pattern is that you give people some modicum of rights and the ingrates want more.

The English rule in American colonies was quite enlightened, and so was the French monarchy. In the long run, "enlightened" is usually neither good enough nor bad enough. It can be good for a period of transition.

Posted by piotr | November 11, 2007 12:51 PM

bubbly fothergilla pharyngomaxillary affricated yachty gluttonously raniform ammonate
http://www.michaelswilder.com/ >Michaels/Wilder Group
http://www.alvr.com/czars.html

Posted by Randolph Levy | November 21, 2007 4:03 AM