Does "Someone" Mean "Us"?

Megan McArdle, based on a talk by Stephen Carter, comes to the view that "that when Americans say 'someone should do something' to stop a conflict somewhere, this is almost tantamount to saying 'we should do something', because at a most generous estimate, there are four military forces in the world capable of deploying into a conflict zone and shutting down the war: America, Britain, Australia, and Israel . . . when we decide not to intervene, we are making a decision that no one should act to halt the conflict."

There's some truth to that, but I think the perspective needs some nuance. It's true that very few countries can, acting alone, intervene in meaningful ways in civil conflicts. But that's not to say that those countries can't contribute constructively to military undertakings. It's to say that they can only contribute helpfully if the United States is also contributing and is thus able to help out with some of the logistical elements and/or perhaps do the pointiest fighting. But as we're seeing right now in Iraq, even the enormous US military establishment faces meaningful manpower constraints relative to the task of stabilizing medium-sized areas so when you're thinking about the feasibility of doing something or other, whether or not other countries are pitching in makes a real difference.

Then beyond that there's the question of politics. The African Union doesn't have a ton of military heft behind it. But there's a huge difference in terms of politics and legitimacy between an operation in Africa led by a western power and supported by AU member states operating joint blessings from the AU and the UN Security Council and an operation in Africa where a western power unilaterally intervenes.

Last, whenever people make these capacities-based arguments you do need to ask as a followup whether this just happens to be an argument they're wielding on behalf of a policy of aggressive unilateralism or whether they're also trying to advocate for steps to ameliorate the capabilities issue. Should there be a UN Standing Force? I think perhaps there should. Was the Center for American Progress correct to recommend that the 2006 QDR involve helping the African Union to build capacity "to solve regional conflicts, thus reducing the need to deploy U.S. forces"? I think they were.

Comments

Does Matt ask rhetorical questions and then answer them himself? I think he does :)

Seriously, though, a UN standing force would be a great idea, and would theoretically take a lot of the burden off the US military, allowing us to devote those resources into other things. I don't know, like universal health care.

The only problem is that if right-wingers were having black helicopter conspiracies a decade ago, what will their paranoias manifest as when the UN has an actual military?

Personally, I think it'd be great to have them, especially as a rapid response to natural disasters.

Posted by Jeremy | July 7, 2008 9:33 AM

"... there are four military forces in the world capable of deploying into a conflict zone and shutting down the war: America, Britain, Australia, and Israel . . ."

Is it really necessary to keep reading after that sentence?

Posted by wsam | July 7, 2008 9:38 AM

I'm pretty sure that the French military is as capable (at least) as the Australian one, and the Canadian military is pretty good, too, so there's more than 4. (Others may be good/large enough, too, but these seem like clear cases off the top of my head.) There may be good reasons to have one force rather than another act in difference circumstances and it's pretty clear that Megan is just wrong in saying that if _we_ don't do it no one will or we think no one will.

Posted by matt (not the famous one) | July 7, 2008 9:39 AM

there are four military forces in the world capable of deploying into a conflict zone and shutting down the war: America, Britain, Australia, and Israel . . .

WTF?! If someone's going to claim that Australia and Israel should be counted on a list of nations "capable of deploying into a conflict zone and shutting down the war," then how the hell is France not on this list? France has taken the lead in far more military interventions than Australia, and Israel has never "shut down a war" any where other than in a region geographically continguous with its home territory (e.g., Lebanon). Furthermore, if Australia is being included based on its participation in U.S.-led missions, than why isn't Canada on the list as well?

Posted by Just Dropping By | July 7, 2008 9:42 AM

others have said it, but "israel", WTF? israel really doesn't have the capability of deploying a large force into a conflict zone in another part of the world. france does (what with its foreign legion and archipelago of military bases scattered around the planet), but it's left off the list.

Posted by upyernoz | July 7, 2008 9:51 AM

France has intervened and shut down conflicts recently.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 7, 2008 9:53 AM

Other commentators are clearly on this as regards France (and certainly many other nations on possible deployments) but lets keep in mind that our record on "shutting down" conflicts is actually pretty mixed even when we have gone in. And a standing combat worthy UN force will not happen until we are invaded by aliens.

Posted by Felipe | July 7, 2008 9:57 AM

Yes, but that would be according some sort of respect, at least as conservatives would see it, to the French. That will never happen.

Posted by Jeremy | July 7, 2008 9:59 AM

at a most generous estimate, there are four military forces in the world capable of deploying into a conflict zone and shutting down the war: America, Britain, Australia, and Israel

What utter drivel. The Australians have a maximum one brigade available for operations at any one time, and logistical assets enough to project a maximum of one battalion group outside their area. Our armed forces are in a state of bloody ruin thanks to the worst British foreign policy ever. And the Israelis don't actually do any out-of-area ops whatsoever.

McArdle: clueless on economics, worse on defence.

Posted by Alex | July 7, 2008 10:01 AM

Yeah, what everyone said about France. And about MeMeMegan.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 7, 2008 10:15 AM

at a most generous estimate, there are four military forces in the world capable of deploying into a conflict zone and shutting down the war: America, Britain, Australia, and Israel

What utter drivel. The Australians have a maximum one brigade available for operations at any one time, and logistical assets enough to project a maximum of one battalion group outside their area. Our armed forces are in a state of bloody ruin thanks to the worst British foreign policy ever. And the Israelis don't actually do any out-of-area ops whatsoever.

McArdle: clueless on economics, worse on defence.

Posted by Alex | July 7, 2008 10:25 AM

Where are the assets of the standing U.N. force going to come from? There are plenty of nations that can contribute a brigade or two of infantry here or there, but almost none other than the U.S. who can provide the assets needed to move and support a large combat force away from its home territory. Even the British are chronically short of helicopters and transports.

Posted by Helter | July 7, 2008 10:35 AM

she's wrong but not far off.

as others have noted, France is the obvious omission...and including Israel and Israel is incorrect because they don't have long range deployment capability.

the other omission? Russia.

after that...no one has the ability (logistics is much more of an issue than combat power)...and the inclusion of the UK is semi-doubtful too (both they and Canada rely upon the U.S. for transport to a large extent).

for example, the UK almost certainly couldn't pull off the Falklands now.

Posted by Nathan | July 7, 2008 11:30 AM

Pure daydreaming. No one, that's NO one, is going to deploy sufficient forces into a combat zone to "shut down the war". Even less to dedicate them to the UN for such tomfoolery.

States usually go to war as a self-interested matter--either to conquer someplace, or to defend their vital interests where they're being attacked.

Given the way Iraq's turned out, when we deployed forces to "shut down" a power that had not only started multiple wars but also developed and used wmd's to kill tens of thousands, committed genocide, disrupted trade in vital commodities, supported terrorism, and did more to undermine the international security architecture than any state in over fifty years, and did it in a region of vital interest to the entire industrialized world, who's going to try it again?

Posted by robert powell | July 7, 2008 12:41 PM

I was paraphrasing Stephen Carter on the question of which forces could successfully shut down a conflict; your beef is with him, not me. That said, part of the question of conflict intervention is less paper military force than training and a national will to see your troops die in combat. In Afghanistan, 11 French troops have died, three of them in vehicle accidents; the US and British casualties number in the hundreds, even though Britain's population is slightly smaller than that of France.

On a broader note, the discussion was about places like Sudan, not Iraq. Most people in America seem to think that someone should do something about it, but most people agree that that someone should not be us. According to Carter, these are not commensurable.

Posted by Megan McArdle | July 7, 2008 1:55 PM

There are so many countries with militaries that can be deployed including South Africa, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, India, in addition to the ones pointed out by previous commenters. The real question is; "for what"?

Nigeria for example intervened to restore democratic rule in Sierra Leone in the 1990s.

Posted by Ohmy | July 7, 2008 2:03 PM

There are so many countries with militaries that can be deployed including South Africa, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, India, in addition to the ones pointed out by previous commenters. The real question is; "for what"?

Nigeria for example intervened to restore democratic rule in Sierra Leone in the 1990s.

Posted by Ohmy | July 7, 2008 2:05 PM

Should there be a UN Standing Force? I think perhaps there should.

The US army is having a helluva time finding adequate recruits. (I have no idea how it is in the rest of the world) Where do you think they're going to get the people?

Or is this some sort of arrangement where various countries shift OPCOM/OPCON to a UN force on a semi-permanent basis? Who gives the orders? I'm not a black helo person, but unelected people being CINCS of a military force doesn't seem like a that good of an idea. Besides, I'm not sure it would be any better than we have now. There are many of bilateral and multinational arrangements already in place, some with permanent forces (e.g. NATO).

On a final note, it's not that entirely new of an idea; there exists a 'permanent' UN force structure in one place in the world - South Korea.

Posted by Kolohe | July 7, 2008 2:26 PM

Ummm... China?

And more so every single day. Make sure your children learn Mandarin.

Posted by Toady | July 7, 2008 2:27 PM

Toady:

actually, China has no real deployable capability.

maybe in 10-20 years.

Posted by Nathan | July 7, 2008 3:08 PM

Megan, the problem with the quote was the mentality it displayed.

I think you meant to write there are only a few countries willing to participate in wars dreamt up in Republican Party think tanks. A list that with Michael Howard gone has now shrunk to zero.

That you tried to disguise your point under seemingly objective criteria, such as military capability or, somewhat more foggily, national will, only makes the effort more obnoxious, and more ridiculous.

European countries are casualty adverse in Afghanistan because European publics for the most part are sceptical about the effort there. For example, the German government is actively working to keep its soldiers from dying there because an increase in German casualties would heat up that country's debate over Afghanistan, a debate the government is afraid it would lose. People rightly question what the end point in Afghanistan is and whether that end point represents something achievable.

European publics are also doubly sceptical about anything associated with the Bush Administration. This is because the Bush Administration has repeatedly lied about its motives, something obvious to European publics with their superior education systems from the start. You personally could learn something from that attitude.

Proportionally, by-the-way, Canada has taken more than its share of causalities in Afghanistan. Much more than Israel, for example.

Posted by wsam | July 7, 2008 4:10 PM

Megan, the problem with the quote was the mentality it displayed.

I think you meant to write there are only a few countries willing to participate in wars dreamt up in Republican Party think tanks. A list that with Michael Howard gone has now shrunk to zero.

That you tried to disguise your point under seemingly objective criteria, such as military capability or, somewhat more foggily, national will, only makes the effort more obnoxious, and more ridiculous.

European countries are casualty adverse in Afghanistan because European publics for the most part are sceptical about the effort there. For example, the German government is actively working to keep its soldiers from dying there because an increase in German casualties would heat up that country's debate over Afghanistan, a debate the government is afraid it would lose. People rightly question what the end point in Afghanistan is and whether that end point represents something achievable.

European publics are also doubly sceptical about anything associated with the Bush Administration. This is because the Bush Administration has repeatedly lied about its motives, something obvious to European publics with their superior education systems from the start. You personally could learn something from that attitude.

Proportionally, by-the-way, Canada has taken more than its share of causalities in Afghanistan. Much more than Israel, for example.

Posted by wsam | July 7, 2008 4:12 PM

Bobbitt's got non sequiturs stretched out like tatty old July 4th bunting. I'm sure they looked much prettier in 2003.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 7, 2008 4:15 PM

The only way to "shut down a war" from the outside of the parties is to nuke both parties - or the parties are so small and so weak as to make it barely worth calling the situation a "war".

I'm not aware of any "wars" going on in the world at the moment. The Iraq situation is an insurgency against an occupation mixed with an ethnic civil war. Afghanistan is the same with a bit less of the ethnic civil war (unless you count the opposition of the Northern Alliance to the Taliban - whom they are exploring negotiating with in recent reports.) Most of the other conflicts going on fit the same pattern - insurgencies against a governing state or an occupying state.

Inserting the US - or anybody else - into those situations is just asking for trouble. This is 4th Gen War stuff and just about nobody is equipped to fight 4th Gen War effectively.

As somebody wrote recently, 4th Gen Wars are not over until the guerrillas win. It's that simple.

And where the hell does McMegan get any credibility in military matters? Clearly this was bullshit she was spouting, nothing more.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 7, 2008 8:51 PM

It's worth pointing out there are a number of second- or third-tier powers that have carried out humanitarian interventions in the last 50 years. India in Bangladesh, Nigeria in Sierra Leone, Vietnam in Cambodia, France in a couple of African countries. Hell, even Tanzania carried out a humanitarian invasion of Uganda to overthrow a tyrant in 1979.

Quite a few other second-tier powers like Cuba, Israel, France and so forth have also shown the ability to deploy forces abroad. I would bet that today certainly India, Russia, and China could take on the task of policing their regions.

Posted by Hector | July 8, 2008 8:31 AM