the cost of war

I've written a lot of posts that argue for a interventionist foreign policy, especially in regards to the War on Terror. Consequently, it's imperative that I acknowledge that this kind of policy has tremendous costs. The worst of those costs can be seen in excruciating detail in this story. Please don't follow that link unless you're prepared to see some sickening injuries.

Because the members of the American military pay a horrific price when we send them into battle, the decision to go to war should never be made lightly. War is not a game of chess and it's not an epic adventure; it's brutal, it's nasty, and no national leader should ever forget that fact.

Having said that, I owe a tremendous debt to the men and women who willingly face these dangers because they are ready and willing to fight the battles that I think are necessary. Austin Bay is one those men--he went on active duty in Iraq, understanding the risk, because he believes in the cause. If you want to know why I think America must continue the fight, read Bay's explanation:

Now, once upon a time we could ignore those suffering in the planet’s hard corners. Oh, we could send them a few bucks and the Lefties could bitch about colonialism and capitalism but the hard corners were isolated. A threat to security? Only nuns and missionaries and you are your brothers keeper types thought so. Well guess what — the nuns were right. 9/11 changed that deceptive calculus. Distance? [T]here isn’t any distance. We learned that the destruction of New York and Washington started in the backwaters, of Afghanistan, of Somalia. Technology has done it. We can’t escape one another, for good and for bad. Jet transports . . . put you on the other side of the globe in 14 hours. The internet doesn’t require description. East Asia shares diseases with Africa within days, if not hours. And special weapons? Nukes and nerve gas make every tribal war an international crisis. Goodbye Tokyo, Moscow, or Miami– because a sophisticated tribesman at war with his eternally despised neighbor decides that demolishing the global economy would make everyone pay attention to his neglected, forgotten grievance. Tyrannies keep breeding this insanity. The only solution is consensus, wealth-producing societies, where everyone gets a say and everyone has a buy-in. If it sounds like democracy then call it that. It’s sustainable stability, ever evolving sustainable stability when people police terrorists and don’t promote them. That’s a long struggle, and struggle may be a more apt word than war. But achieving it is so difficult. It takes more than military power, we know that. [T]he politics and economics will be decisive, but as long as the thugs are willing to kill we must fight. Is there a substitute for courage? If there is, show it to me. . . .

I don’t like it. I didn’t like it during the Cold War. Remember 1983? The same creeps who’ve quit now, quit then. Reagan was a warmonger, going to start a nuclear war in Europe [b]y responding to the Soviets deployment of theater nuclear missiles. The defeatists said the Cold War was our fault, we were the threat. Then the Berlin Wall cracked and that jackass calumny disappeared as Marxism’s Eastern European wreckage emerged in drab, polluted, horrifying, undeniable color.

This war follows the same arc, with the same defeatists adding new nouns to old verbs and adjectives. But it’s a war of liberty versus tyranny and they’re shilling for the tyrants.

It doesn’t matter if you and I don’t like it. We know the stakes.

Read the whole thing.

Principles of Foreign Policy -- Part 5

I began this series of posts with a preview:

I believe we have real interests in the world that we have to defend. Defending those interests is only possible if we have a global military presence. We face real enemies in the world because our historical actions have placed us in conflicts with people that don't like us, but it's wishful thinking to assert that we could have avoided these conflicts in the past and it's foolhardy to pretend that we can avoid more such conflicts in the future. This is especially true because many of our worst enemies in the world are irrational operators whom we can't consistently influence without a credible threat of force.

I've already looked at America's interests, the need for a global military presence and the historical roots of our foreign policy problems. Let's take a look at the last statement: can we trust our enemies to respond to us rationally?

In 1967 Israel concluded that its Arab enemies (Egypt, Syria and Jordan) were incapable of winning a war, but that the Arabs were irrational enough to attack anyway. Israel launched a preemptive attack and won a decisive victory in the Six-day War [10]. In 1973 Israel concluded that its Arab enemies (Egypt and Syria) were incapable of winning a war, and that the Arabs were rational enough to refrain from attacking. Israel ignore several direct warnings and were nearly defeated by a surprise attack in the Yom Kippur War [11]. History is full of cases in which nations and leaders badly miscalculate and pay for their miscalculations. When we predict what the world would look like if America were to withdraw, we shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that leaders throughout the world will understand that it is in their best interest to behave nicely to their neighbors and to America. It's far more likely that some power-hungry regimes will see America's withdrawal as an opportunity. Overestimating their ability to expand their power and underestimating America's willingness to defend its interests in the world, bad actors throughout the world would become more hostile and assertive, not less.

The assumption of rationality is especially misplaced when applied to our terrorist enemies. Al Qaeda doesn't view the world through the lens of realism but through the lens of fantasy [12]. No matter how irrational their plans for establishing an Islamic caliphate or how futile their desire to wage jihad against the West, Islamist terrorists see themselves in engaged in acts of fantastic devotion to their God, and no diplomacy, disengagement or bribe can change their willingness to strike a symbolic blow against their enemies. We are better off forcing them to fight their battles in Iraq (the outcome of which will either be a tremendous symbolic victory for one side or the other, in Al Qaeda's twisted logic) than allowing them space to plot for a bigger, better 9/11.

[10] The Six-Day War
[11] The Yom Kippur War
[12] Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology

Principles of Foreign Policy -- Part 4

I began this series of posts with a preview:

I believe we have real interests in the world that we have to defend. Defending those interests is only possible if we have a global military presence. We face real enemies in the world because our historical actions have placed us in conflicts with people that don't like us, but it's wishful thinking to assert that we could have avoided these conflicts in the past and it's foolhardy to pretend that we can avoid more such conflicts in the future. This is especially true because many of our worst enemies in the world are irrational operators whom we can't consistently influence without a credible threat of force.

I've already looked at America's interests and the need for a global military presence. Let's take a look at the third statement: what role does our past foreign policy decisions play in our analysis of current foreign policy options?

When we examine the world of today and make decisions that will shape the world of the future, we have to understand that the world of today was shaped in the past by real people looking at real circumstances, making really important decisions based on really imperfect information. It's commonly argued that America has created many of the problems we face today by supporting people like Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran and others. It's an easy accusation to make, but it tends to fall apart when our past foreign policy decisions are analyzed in context. Let's take a very brief snapshot of our history for the last century.

We're in Iraq because of 9/11. Regardless what specifically motivated Bush to go to war (WMDs, oil, anti-terrorism, cultural imperialism, whatever), it's hard for me to imagine a world in which 9/11 didn't happen but we invaded Iraq anyway. Why did 9/11 happen? Al Qaeda has tried to justify 9/11 by claiming that it is a response to America's presence in Saudi Arabia, to our attacks against Iraq during and following the first Gulf War and to our support for Israel [6].

Why was America in Saudi Arabia? Because of the stand-off that resulted from the first Gulf War. Why did we fight the first Gulf War? Because Saddam very clearly threatened our national interests by conquering Kuwait and putting his powerful military in easy striking distance of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE [7]. We simply can't risk letting so much the world's oil supply fall under the control of a violent, capricious tyrant.

Why was Saddam powerful enough to attempt the invasion of Kuwait? In part because of U.S. military support during the '80s. Why did the U.S. support Saddam? In general, we supported him because we were in the middle of a cold war and we needed allies in a region that was (because of oil) critically important. More specifically, we supported Saddam because he was a counter-weight to the power of Iran, a country that attacked our embassy and held American diplomats hostage for more than a year.

Iranians attacked our embassy because they thought we were covertly manipulating their government and trying to undermine their Islamic revolution [8]. The Iranians badly misjudged our capabilities and our intentions, but it is true that we were a long-time ally of the Shah (whom they hated). Again, our support of the Shah was based on our strategic need for allies in the region in light of the Cold War that developed after WWII. It's possible to argue that America is at fault for the cold war, but only if you argue that we could have supported White Russian forces and defeated the Bolsheviks by military intervention after WWI [9].

Regarding American support for Israel, that too has an internal logic through history, from a Cold-war desire to support a democratic nation against attacks by soviet supported enemies, back to a decision to support the creation of a homeland for the Jews after the genocide of WWII, back to the historical reality that the land of "Palestine" was merely a province of the Ottoman empire up until British gained Mandate control after defeating the Ottomans in WWI.

Should we have fought Saddam in the first Gulf War? Should we have fought the cold war? Should we have fought WWII? What about WWI? How far back should we go in deciding that America had no right to intervene in the world to protect her own interests? Should we have just decided to let the Brits keep their colonies so that nobody in the world would be offended by our actions?

Our past policies have always been based to some degree on a need to protect American interests throughout the world. Some of those decisions have been flawed but that is unavoidable: we have always had imperfect leaders, they have always been beholden to an imperfect constituency, and no American has ever been blessed with perfect information about present circumstances or the future consequences of various policy options. We are where we are because our past leaders have tried to do what's best for America, and it's impossible to say how much worse our history might look if America had chosen not to intervene in the world.

It's easy to identify various bad apples that have in some ways been supported by America in the past and turned against us, but at the same time we should recognize the positive results of our interference in foreign affairs (a prosperous Western Europe, prosperous Japan and South Korea, a victory in the Cold War, and stable world trade that promotes prosperity in America). Only by ignoring the truth about what happened in the past can you claim that all of our past interventions in the world were unnecessary and counterproductive.

[6] Al Qaeda's Fatwa
[7] John Kifner, New York Times, August 6, 1990
[8] The Fallacy of Power
[9] Toward an Entangling Alliance

Principles of Foreign Policy -- Part 3

I began this series of posts with a preview:

I believe we have real interests in the world that we have to defend. Defending those interests is only possible if we have a global military presence. We face real enemies in the world because our historical actions have placed us in conflicts with people that don't like us, but it's wishful thinking to assert that we could have avoided these conflicts in the past and it's foolhardy to pretend that we can avoid more such conflicts in the future. This is especially true because many of our worst enemies in the world are irrational operators whom we can't consistently influence without a credible threat of force.

I've already looked at America's interests. Let's take a look at the second statement: why do we need a global military presence?

The world is a big place, so logistics matters. When our interests span the globe we have to be able to effectively protect those interests around the world. Our air and naval forces are unmatched in the world, but neither force can be of much use if we don't have a logistical support structure built up that spans the globe. A fleet needs ports and an air force needs air bases. Ports and air bases are only available through the cooperation of allies.

Neither a navy nor an air force is sufficient to truly protect our interests throughout the world because neither force can put boots on the ground. Bombs, torpedoes and cruise missiles can cripple an enemy's economy by wrecking infrastructure and halting trade, but a regime that is willing to let its people suffer is a regime that can ignore our navy and air force if we don't have the capacity to put boots on the ground. While a few marine expeditionary units can be maintained on ships, MEUs simply do not have the firepower or logistical infrastructure necessary to fight and win a long war against a well equipped, large army [4].

If we want to be capable of winning wars like the first Gulf War, we have to be capable of quickly putting a modern army in the field. This is only possible if military equipment is prepositioned around the world. Prepositioning of military equipment again requires allies and basing agreements. If we want to have any chance of effectively intervening around the globe, we must have a logistical footprint of basing and cooperative allies around the globe to support our efforts [5].

[4] Rethinking Army-Marine Corps Roles in Power Projection
[5] The U.S. Army and the New National Security Strategy

Principles of Foreign Policy -- Part 2

I began this series of posts with a preview:

I believe we have real interests in the world that we have to defend. Defending those interests is only possible if we have a global military presence. We face real enemies in the world because our historical actions have placed us in conflicts with people that don't like us, but it's wishful thinking to assert that we could have avoided these conflicts in the past and it's foolhardy to pretend that we can avoid more such conflicts in the future. This is especially true because many of our worst enemies in the world are irrational operators whom we can't consistently influence without a credible threat of force.

Let's take a look at that first statement: what interests does America have that are worth defending with an interventionist foreign policy?

Commerce: we trade with virtually everybody which means Americans and American properties are everywhere, our economy relies on natural resources such as oil, and our prosperity is based in part on a global trade network that is only possible when stability throughout the world allows sea lanes to stay open and global trade to flow freely [1].

Power: All other things being equal, when America faces threats we are better able to deal with those threats if we have more power. Not every opportunity to gain power is worth the price, but sometimes it is absolutely true that we are better off paying a price to gain or maintain power. Additionally, power is only useful if there is a credible possibility that the power will be used. If we are forever demonstrating an absolute unwillingness to use our power, our enemies will learn that it is safe to ignore our power and attack our interests [2].

Honor: we are better off in a world in which we have many friends that want to cooperate with us and few enemies that want to harm us. This means that we have to preserve a reputation for being a good friend as well as a reputation for being a dangerous enemy. If we renege on promises to friends or we
demonstrate a willingness to back down in the face of provocation, we will find ourselves with fewer friends and more enemies [3].

[1] The Pentagon's New Map
[2] While America Sleeps
[3] On the Origins of War

Principles of Foreign Policy -- Part 1

For the last few weeks I've been engaged in a long running email debate with a friend of a friend about the merits of Ron Paul. Yeah, imagine that. Ron Paul is my white whale. Anyway, lately we've been discussing the role of the military in America's foreign policy. The basic issue seems simple enough: should America's military be spread out around the world intervening in the affairs of other nations, or should the military be primarily located within our borders and primarily tasked with protecting our borders?

As I was writing my latest email I realized that there are a lot of unspoken assumptions underlying any proposed strategy for utilizing our military in support of our foreign policy objectives. So I took a step back and laid out the basic assumptions I make when I talk about these issues. Rather than transcribe the entire email in a single post, I'll break it up and look at in a few chunks that are a bit easier to manage. Here's a preview:

I believe we have real interests in the world that we have to defend. Defending those interests is only possible if we have a global military presence. We face real enemies in the world because our historical actions have placed us in conflicts with people that don't like us, but it's wishful thinking to assert that we could have avoided these conflicts in the past and it's foolhardy to pretend that we can avoid more such conflicts in the future. This is especially true because many of our worst enemies in the world are irrational operators whom we can't consistently influence without a credible threat of force.

Deconstructing America's Savior - Part 4

Libertarians and constitutionalist conservatives typically support Ron Paul. Since I consider myself to be moderately libertarian in my political views and I lean towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I feel compelled to explain why I do not and will not support Ron Paul as a candidate for the Presidency. This is the fourth in a series of several posts in which I pick apart his policy platform and explain my objections.

Previous posts in the series:

1. An introduction to Ron Paul's policy platform.
2. Ron Paul on Debt and Taxes.
3. Ron Paul on American Independence and Sovereignty.
   

This time, let's pick apart his policy statement regarding War and Foreign Policy:

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Ron Paul begins by attacking Bush's Iraq policy on three fronts: first, by claiming that it "was sold to us with false information"; second, by arguing that it has increased the danger of terrorism, finally by stating that its costs have been high.

Was the war in Iraq "sold to us with false information"? It's possible that Paul uses the phrase "false information" instead of "lies" precisely because he knows that the intelligence reports regarding WMDs in Iraq were sincerely believed by intelligence communities both foreign and domestic, by national leaders from both parties and by foreign governments. It seems clear that Ron Paul wants to imply that the Bush administration lied to America, but he doesn't come right out and say that. In other words, Ron Paul is either being dishonest by trying to imply something that he knows isn't true, or he sincerely believes that Bush lied. In either case, this opening statement doesn't reflect well on Paul's fitness to serve as President.

Has the war in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism? Al Qaeda didn't need the excuse of a war in Iraq to launch attacks against our African embassies in 1998, against the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 or against our mainland on 9/11. Al Qaeda may be using Iraq as a recruiting tool, but the important question is how future events in Iraq affect al Qaeda's recruiting efforts. If the U.S. withdraws in defeat, al Qaeda's propaganda will turn their victory into an even greater recruiting tool. If the U.S. perseveres and is successful in building up an Iraqi state that rejects terrorism, al Qaeda will have suffered a clear defeat that no amount of propaganda will be able to spin. Which path forward is most likely to lead to reduced terrorism? As I argued earlier this year, our best hope of truly defeating al Qaeda is to keep them fighting in Iraq:

This war isn't about WMDs alone, or about oil, or even about deposing a cruel dictator. Rather, in Iraq we have an opportunity to redefine the cultural landscape of the Middle East. By giving common Iraqis a shot at real freedom we threaten the cultural foundations upon which Islamic terrorism is built. So Al Qaeda must fight in Iraq, but theirs is a defensive war fought on territory of our choosing, in their own backyard.

Al Qaeda can not defeat us in a conventional war, so they resort to terror tactics, to suicide bombings and IEDs and kidnappings. The purpose of these tactics seems to be two-fold: to erode American support for the war and also to destroy Iraq's fledgling democracy in civil war. American support is eroding and Iraq is dangerously close to civil war, but Al Qaeda's tactics also pose a danger to their own existence. With one bloody attack on civilians after another, the Iraqi people are learning who their real enemies are. Already we see signs of Sunni tribes uniting to fight against Al Quada. If we hold on, Al Quada may yet destroy their domestic support in Iraq and the wider Middle East. And therein lies our hope of really solving the problem of Islamic terror.

Is Paul right to say that the costs of our war in Iraq been too high? To honestly evaluate the costs of Iraq we have to consider both the perspective of the past as well as the perspective of the future:

1. What were the perceived costs of war vs. the perceived costs of inaction when Bush made the decision to go to war in 2003? As I've already argued, the decision to go to war was made on the basis of incomplete information, when consensus opinion held that Saddam had WMD programs and that his regime posed significant risks to America in the future. In retrospect, the costs of allowing Saddam to keep his WMDs seem negligible--after all, he didn't really have any WMDs. But at the time the decision was made, Bush had to act on the basis of evidence that made the costs of inaction seem high. If Paul sincerely believes that Bush was lying about the evidence, then it makes sense to argue that the lives and money we have lost in waging this war are too high of a cost. But if Paul believes that we should have avoided war even if it were true that Saddam possessed WMDs, I question his wisdom.
   


2. What will the costs of war vs. the costs of inaction look like 25 or 50 years from now? History has a nasty habit of looking very different with a few years of perspective. Right now it's easy to point at Bush's decision in 2003 and argue that he was wrong, based on 2007 evidence. But the real benefits to be obtained by planting a pro-democratic, non-Islamist regime in the Middle East will take years to fully develop, just as the real benefits of planting democracy in Japan and Germany took decades to play out. By completely ignoring the long-term benefits and focusing solely on the short-term costs, Paul is displaying exactly the kind of naivety that he accuses Bush of. As one supporter of the war argued before we invaded Iraq:

   In a new millennium where a few diseased people can carry a suitcase with the power to kill millions, the lesson we must learn is simply this: the only way we will be safe, prosperous and free is when everyone is safe, prosperous and free.
   
   Critics of this War on Terror call it ‘eternal’ and ‘never-ending’ as a means of discouraging us from fighting it at all.
   
   But there can be an end to this war. It will end when all people are inside the bubble we have built for ourselves and our children – warm, well-fed, free to pursue their dreams and ambitions, their minds and bodies and women liberated, racial and tribal hatreds put aside, and so on.

3. Additionally, Ron Paul can't simply argue that we never should have invaded in the first place. As a presidential candidate, he can't turn back the clock to 2003 and undo Bush's decision. As I already argued, a pullout from Iraq will benefit al Qaeda and lead to a higher threat of future terrorism. Ron Paul only mentions the costs associated with continuing to fight the war. These costs are real, but they should be weighed against the equally real costs of withdrawing from the war. If Paul wants to lead this country effectively, he'll need to make decisions based on current reality, not reality as of 2003.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Washington's warning against getting involved in foreign alliances came in the context of a war between Britain and France, with various prominent Americans arguing that the U.S. should ally with one or the other of the foreign powers. Thomas Jefferson was one of these national leaders who advocated closer ties with France.

This is the same Thomas Jefferson that as our minister to France attempted to form an international coalition to combat the Barbary Pirates. The European nations refused to work together with America, so as President Jefferson sent the fledgling U.S. Navy to the Mediterranean to protect our commercial interests by fighting a war against the Barbary Pirates. Jefferson may have talked about avoiding foreign entanglements, but his actions as a national leader prove that he was both willing to work with foreign nations when circumstances dictated and was willing to fight wars in foreign lands for the sake of protecting America's commerce.

In our global economy, America's commercial interests span the globe. Because no other country or coalition of countries is willing or able to effectively protect America's interests abroad, our government has to send our armed forces around the world to do that job. Paul advocates withdrawing our troops from the work they do around the world, but he neither acknowledges that America has interests that spread beyond our borders nor offers any mechanism by which these interests can be protected after our troops are withdrawn.

It's true that our troops are spread thin, but the only "new calls for a draft" that I have seen have come in the form of a cynical ploy by anti-war Democrat Chuck Rangel. The Rangel bill failed in a 402-2 vote, in part because not even Chuck Rangel was willing to vote for it. Since then, the all-volunteer military has continued to meet recruiting goals, and veterans of the Iraq war have continued to reenlist in large numbers.

I think a big part of Paul's objection to the war in Iraq is his insistence that military action is only constitutional if Congress explicitly declares war. How he reconciles this view with the fact that Jefferson took us into an undeclared war with the Barbary pirates, I don't know. So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never seen fit to rule on any legal challenge to our previous undeclared wars. If the Supreme Court accepts the constitutionality of an undeclared war, Ron Paul's objections are moot.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Objecting to the UN's involvement in Iraq is disingenuous at best. We didn't go to war in Iraq because the UN twisted our arms and forced us into it. We used the Iraq's violation of a UN resolution as our most prominent casus belli, but Bush led us into war because he believed it was a war we needed to fight. The UN was more of an impediment to Bush's foreign policy goals than a motivating factor.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

I'm not going to argue that foreign aid is a great thing--it's often inefficient and counterproductive, harming the people it's supposed to help. The specific charges that Paul makes are somewhat overblown, though. Our decision to arm the Afghans against the Soviets was made in an entirely different strategic context. We had a cold war to win, and we won it.

Additionally, Bin Laden may have begun his career as a jihadi in Afghanistan, but he was no creation of the CIA. Reading "The Looming Tower: al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11", my impression is that Bin Laden's biggest accomplishment in Afghanistan was managing to avoid getting killed. He isn't dangerous because we armed or supplied him, he's dangerous because he is effective in selling an ideology of jihad and in gathering money and recruits to his cause.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

If America is going to be involved in the world, we have to be prepared to defend our interests abroad. This has been true since the earliest days of our republic. In a perfect world, our interests would not need to be defended, but we don't live in such a world. Ron Paul doesn't seem to recognize this fact.

Next up: Ron Paul's policies with regard to Life and Liberty.

If actresses had a perfect grasp of history, there would be no stupid political rants during the Emmys in the first place.

One of the distinguished historians of our day, Sally Field, has been "censored" by Fox while trying to make this particularly cogent argument against war:

"If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g-dd-mned wars in the first place."

No doubt Ms. Field is basing this statement upon the historical record of women like Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi. Clearly, it's coincidental that the Yom Kippur war, the Falklands war and the 1971 war with Pakistan were all fought while these women led their countries. After all, they were mothers. Q.E.D.

Ron Paul, the founding fathers, and foreign policy

Recently I've seen quite a few statements online comparing the foreign policy positions of Ron Paul to the foreign policy positions of the founding fathers. These statements generally assert that Ron Paul is a non-interventionist in the same mold as the founding fathers: we should defend the U.S. from foreign aggression, but otherwise meddling in the affairs of foreign nations is out of the question. One such statement (which I'd link to, but that statement was later deleted by the author) read, in part:

He's consistent. War does not a conservative make in my opinion. I do think we need to defend ourselves when we believe it is nessecary, I agree with Ron Paul, . . . the kind of libertarian he is, is just like Jeffersonian, and actually more Jefferson Adams.

I appreciate the desire to support the policies of the founding fathers, but I don't think the founding fathers were as non-interventionist in their outlook as is commonly believed. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was the first president to send the United States military to the Middle East to use force to protect American commercial interests. Check out Wikipedia's history of the First Barbary War:

On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

The Barbary Pirates were attacking American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean and demanding tribute--protection money, really--to stop the attacks. Jefferson chose to employ force (without a declaration of war) in the defense of America's commercial interests. Ron Paul doesn't seem very Jeffersonian when Jefferson's actual practice of foreign policy is taken into account.

mission impossible

Dennis Prager draws some lessons from the war in Iraq and the recent war in Lebanon:

The world defines victory of the stronger party — in this case, Israel — as either total victory or as a loss. Israel did not destroy Hezbollah, therefore it lost. . . . Likewise, America is said to have lost the war in Iraq. As with Israel, the stronger party — America — has not achieved total victory. Since no one has surrendered and there are still terrorists and insurgents, America is deemed to have lost. And the media — and its ideological ally, the Democratic Party — have been announcing the American defeat for years.

One lesson to be learned from these two wars is that victory as we have understood it in the past may not be possible when fighting terror organizations. There will be never be an equivalent to the Japanese surrender aboard the USS Missouri in 1945. There is no way to completely stop suicide terror against "soft" targets or to stop car bombs in public places. The only total victory over Islamic terrorists will have to come from within the Muslim world. There will have to be a theological and moral revulsion so great that no Muslim would dare risk hell and universal Islamic opprobrium by targeting innocents for murder. Unfortunately that day seems quite distant.

In effect, then, America will have lost in Iraq when America decides it has lost. And then it becomes what is known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The primary point of his article is that America is only "losing" in the sense that our definition of victory is inherently unattainable. I think there's a deeper lesson about the goal of our war in Iraq. This war isn't about WMDs alone, or about oil, or even about deposing a cruel dictator. Rather, in Iraq we have an opportunity to redefine the cultural landscape of the Middle East. By giving common Iraqis a shot at real freedom we threaten the cultural foundations upon which Islamic terrorism is built. So Al Qaeda must fight in Iraq, but theirs is a defensive war fought on territory of our choosing, in their own backyard.

Al Qaeda can not defeat us in a conventional war, so they resort to terror tactics, to suicide bombings and IEDs and kidnappings. The purpose of these tactics seems to be two-fold: to erode American support for the war and also to destroy Iraq's fledgling democracy in civil war. American support is eroding and Iraq is dangerously close to civil war, but Al Qaeda's tactics also pose a danger to their own existence. With one bloody attack on civilians after another, the Iraqi people are learning who their real enemies are. Already we see signs of Sunni tribes uniting to fight against Al Quada. If we hold on, Al Quada may yet destroy their domestic support in Iraq and the wider Middle East. And therein lies our hope of really solving the problem of Islamic terror. As Prager says,

The only total victory over Islamic terrorists will have to come from within the Muslim world. There will have to be a theological and moral revulsion so great that no Muslim would dare risk hell and universal Islamic opprobrium by targeting innocents for murder.

If we want to see the Middle East reform itself, our best bet is to keep Al Quada fighting in Iraq.

State of the Union

8:09 PM -- So, I'm going to try to live-blog the SOTU address. I'm watching it on HDNet rather than any of the standard networks. Is that Dan Rather I hear commenting? I'm not sure. Whoever it is, he's at least smart enough to keep his mouth shut most of the time. I flipped through the networks and heard a lot of worthless commentary. As usual. All times are CST.

8:10 PM -- There he is. I love the irony of everybody shaking hands with the president. No doubt within the next 24 hours at least 95% of them will be slandering him (or each other) for all they're worth.

8:13 PM -- ah... the president and the speaker are so cute together. Totally sincere, the both of them.

8:17 PM -- State of the economy--wonderful. Yes, it is. But that's not really what anybody cares about. He's talking about the budget and earmarks. Why preach on this issue now? We had six years of control to do something about earmarks. Way to go, all of you fiscal "conservatives" in the minority. Good luck doing something about the problem now.

8:22 PM -- Hearing a president claim credit for improvements in education is hilarious. I know this sells well with certain segments of the public, but it is *not* an issue for the president to waste time on.

8:24 PM -- Who needs a balanced budget when we can buy votes with health insurance tax loopholes? Our tax code is way to complicated. Simplify George, simplify. No more tweaking.

8:26 PM -- Interesting. He just got a unanimous standing ovation by saying that individuals are better at making health decisions than governments and insurance companies. They all like to give that idea lip service, but our health industry keeps getting more regulation, not less.

8:30 PM -- Immigration policy. George is right on this one, and everybody is sitting on their hands. Lovely. We've got an incredibly low unemployment rate, Republicans were giving him a standing ovation when he talked about the strength of the economy, but he suggests that we should have a more rational policy towards allowing immigration and they go stone quiet.

8:32 PM -- Energy policy. This is stupid--more regulations, more subsidies for alternative fuel. No pigovian taxes. Listen to your econ advisers, not your special interest group supporters on this one, George.

8:34 PM -- Doubling the size of the strategic oil reserve? Interesting. More stockpiled oil means more of a cushion if we end up taking action with regard to Iran. Good idea.

8:37 PM -- Foreign policy. Everybody agrees: we must cheer incessantly for his rhetoric. But when it comes time to take a stand and figure out the path forward, who wants to actually fight? Who's willing to do something more than criticize the current strategy? If you don't like Bush's plan, propose your own.

8:38 PM -- Ok, Iran is funding terror. You know it Bush, but what are you doing about it? I want to believe that Bush is willing to do more than lecture Iran, but I'm not certain. I am certain that the legislative branch is more than happy to bury their heads in the sand on this one.

8:41 PM -- Good point. Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan are all making steps towards democracy and have become the focal point of terrorism as a result. Terrorists lose if democracy survives in the Middle East. If we want to win the war on terror, that's where we win it. That's how we win it. If we retreat to our shores and hope the terrorists leave us alone, we've lost this war. Stop with all the clapping when he speaks in generalities about fighting terror--we need support for real action, not polite applause at politically appropriate rhetoric.

8:47 PM -- I don't know if this plan can succeed, but what's the alternative? Allowing Iraq to devolve into true civil war? Sure, they've already got vigilantes and militias murdering each other, but that's nothing to what we'll see if we abandon Iraq. We are going to have to be there for years. It's time to accept that, or acknowledge that we're OK with a bloody division of Iraq, complete with open interference by Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria.

8:52 PM -- What in the world is he talking about with this civilian reserve corps? That was about the most obtuse and vague proposal I've ever heard. I don't know if he's talking about an institution for formally providing mercenaries or truck drivers or teachers.

8:54 PM -- I'm sick of the lip service given towards dealing with the Darfur problem. DO SOMETHING. Hire mercenaries, if we don't have enough regular troops to do it. There are companies ready to do this thing: let's kick this program into high gear and give it some official support.

8:58 PM -- Yippee. Way to go, Baby Einstein. Now we're into the *real* meat of the address.

9:02 PM -- Now I feel like a heel. Those last two feel good stories deserve more than applause. They risked their lives when they didn't have to. Thank you random man who saved a man from getting hit by a train. Thank you soldier (or marine? I didn't notice) who sacrificed your body for your country and your comrades.

9:05 PM -- ok, lets get on with the scripted "response".

9:06 PM -- Time for a diet coke, I think...

9:12 PM -- It is Dan Rather. He hasn't done a bad job. I still think he's a buffoon for his hatchet job with the fake documents, though.

9:15 PM -- Jim Webb is doing the response. I know virtually nothing about him.

9:16 PM -- He can talk on camera. That's an improvement over previous responders.

9:17 PM -- Wow. I'm impressed. I totally disagree, but he's good. Well structured speech so far. Start with a reasonable statement of agreement about energy policy. Move on to a clear statement of where the Dems disagree with Bush: 1) state of the economy and 2) Iraq.

9:19 PM -- Nice try, attempting to prove that the economy is falling apart. College tuitions are high. The rich are getting richer. I think that was the sum total of his proof.

9:21 PM -- Iraq. Fine, there were some people that didn't want us to go into Iraq. I get that. Granted, Congress was heavily supportive at the time, but I'll let it slide. But we don't have a time machine. We are in Iraq. We have to decide how we're going to proceed. Whining that we never should have gone in is *not* an alternative plan. If you don't like Bush's plan, then propose something. Don't tell me what you stand against, tell me what you stand for. Please.

9:38 PM -- The focus group discussion is unbearable. Republicans, Democrats, independents--they all come across as ignorant buffoons. OK, maybe not completely. But I can't watch this. Time to turn off the TV.

the worm has turned

Iran's protests are hilarious:

The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Thursday summoned the Iraqi and Swiss ambassadors to protest a raid by U.S. troops on an Iranian consulate in Iraq.

U.S. troops stormed the Iranian Consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil on January 11 and arrested six people. According to the U.S. military, one of the Iranians was freed on Friday.

“The U.S. troops’ action is a violation of international law since the arrested people were working there at the request and with the permission of the Iraqi government,” Foreign Ministry Director for Persian Gulf Affairs Jalal Firuznian told Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Majid al-Sheikh.

“We expect the Iraqi government to act quickly to obtain the release of these people and to condemn the U.S. forces,” he stated, adding that the Iraqi government should not let the United States disrupt Iran-Iraq relations through its illegal actions.

If the raid did in fact occur at an officially designated Iranian consulate, the Iranians are right to suggest that the raid violated established rules of international relations. Diplomats and diplomatic property are sacrosanct and should be virtually immune from outside interference. If U.S. troops encroached on an Iranian consulate during the raid, they effectively invaded Iran's sovereign territory--an act of war, by any normal reckoning.

You have to feel just a little bit of pity for the Iranians here--they've been the (apparent) victims of an illegal act of war, a raid on their diplomatic facilities under the pretext of searching for spies. And the more they protest this provocation, the more it will become evident that this is exactly what Iranian radicals did to the U.S. embassy in Tehran back in 1979. Of course, there is one key differences: our diplomats were (by and large) not engaged in espionage, while their "diplomats" are almost certainly guilty of inciting violent insurrection and terrorist attacks inside Iraq.

Iran can scream to our diplomats, complain to the press, protest to the U.N. and do pretty much anything they want to do. I certainly don't care and it seems evident that Bush doesn't care either. The regime in Iran has been playing a game of chicken against America for the last quarter century and the rules have always been the same: Iran can do anything it wants while America will consistently back down before hostilities commence. If Bush is changing the rules, it's past time.

Iran has probably been counting on two things to keep America passive: 1) we're occupied in Iraq, and 2) we care about keeping the oil flowing. What they fail to realize is that we have *not* over-committed our Army in Iraq. Yes, our soldiers and marines have been much busier than we would like them to be, but if we need to surge a few brigades to the region we can do it. More importantly, we don't have to send the Army or Marines deep into Iran if we don't want to. Our naval and air forces should be sufficient to keep the oil flowing from the rest of the Gulf countries, and Iran's oil fields are in easy striking distance from southern Iraq and the Gulf. We can win a strategic victory against Iran just by turning off their oil production. They need their oil revenues to prop up their economy more then we need their oil to fuel ours. If we choose to attack, we could wreck their economy, destroy their nuclear program and make it very difficult for them to continue supporting terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon.

It would be a hugely risky move on our part and Bush would face withering criticism, both at home and abroad. But, I'm not sure that he really cares at this point. He's not running for re-election, after all. What do I think? Taking the gloves off is probably the lesser evil. Iraq will never settle down as long as Iran is funding both sides of the developing Sunni-Shia civil war. If we abandon Iraq now, we've lost the war on terror and it will come back to haunt us. If we try to sit steady and fight a war of half measures, we'll eventually wash our hands of the mess and lose the war just as effectively as if we bail out now. If we up the stakes and strike back at Iran? Things would certainly get messier in the short term. I'm optimistic that Iraq, at least, would return to normalcy in the long run. If Iran's mullahs lose power, that would be a good thing. But even I'm not optimistic enough to believe that airstrikes and economic disruption will be sufficient to drive the mullahs from power. I suppose we'll find out soon enough if Bush is serious about shutting down Iran's interference in Iraq.

the best defense

In my last post I noted that Austin Bay sees an opportunity for Iraq's government to pressure Iran's mullahs into withdrawing their support from the Shia insurgency in Iraq. Michael Ledeen isn't so sanguine:

But dumping responsibility for dealing with Iran in the quivering laps of the Iraqi leaders is precisely the wrong thing to do. We have to lead this war, we have to go after the Iranians. Otherwise, surge or no surge, fifty or a hundred thousand troops more or less, we’re gonna lose. Because the peoples of the Mideast, who have seen many armies come and go over the centuries, are going to throw in with the likely winners. And we can’t win if we refuse to engage the main enemy, which is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Neither is Omar Fadhil:

If the way forward requires maintaining the basic course of the political process and empowering (and cleaning) the current government and its head then the only way to do this is to relieve Mr. Maliki, his party and the rest of the Shia alliance from the dominance and influence of Sadr, and there are two ways to accomplish this: either persuade Mr. Maliki and his team and promise them great support and protection from Sadr's reach, or deal a lethal blow to Sadr and his militia in order to render him unable to inflict harm on Mr. Maliki and other members of the United Iraqi Alliance.

Now really, it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out that the first way isn't working out right, what's needed now is to take the decision to try the second way and deal with the biggest threat to stability in Iraq in the way we should.

Given that Sadr is supported by Iran, we might not be able to shut down the former without crippling the latter. Given that Bush isn't exactly operating from a position of political power, he may not opt to take any drastic measures. If he doesn't, I believe Iraq will be very messy for a very long time.

mad mullahs

The NY Times is reporting that American troops have captured Iranian agents in Baghdad who are responsible for organizing attacks in Iraq:

The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington.

The Bush administration made no public announcement of the politically delicate seizure of the Iranians, though in response to specific questions the White House confirmed Sunday that the Iranians were in custody.

Gordon D. Johndroe, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said two Iranian diplomats were among those initially detained in the raids. The two had papers showing that they were accredited to work in Iraq, and he said they were turned over to the Iraqi authorities and released. He confirmed that a group of other Iranians, including the military officials, remained in custody while an investigation continued, and he said, “We continue to work with the government of Iraq on the status of the detainees.”

If this is true, we now have solid proof that the Iranian government is actively fighting a war against the U.S. and against Iraq. Granted, this news isn't exactly new--we've been hearing about Iranian interference in Iraq for the better part of two years now--but it *is* the kind of smoking-gun evidence that Iran will not be able to deny. Austin Bay sees an opportunity:

But this is also an opportunity. The Times article points out that the Iraqis have been complaining for years about Iranian troublemaking in Iraq. (The Iraqis also complain about Syrian troublemaking.) The UN Security — once again– called for sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. As weak as UN sanctions are, they still represent a strategic political problem from Iran. Ahmadinejad’s government was rattled by recent local elections in Iran. Iranian students and other domestic opponents are restive. And now the US has “tactical” evidence of direct Iranian support for attacks on Iraqi forces inside Iraq.

The possibility exists that the Iraqis could play good cop-bad cop with the Iranians. Here’s the Iraqi diplomatic pitch: “You’ve been caught red-handed. Better to deal with us in Baghdad than with the big bad US and its Air Force.”

What might a deal look like? Hard to say, but it should entail Iran giving up its support for Shia militias.

I'd like to believe that the Iranian regime can be convinced to retreat from Iraq, but I'm not so certain. The Iranian government is a puppet of Iran's mullahs whom aren't necessarily students of realist foreign policy. They came into power when their radical followers stormed the American embassy in 1979, but Iran never paid a price for the crime. Iranian supported Hezbollah is probably responsible for the Marine barracks bombing in 1983, but Iran never paid a price for the crime. Iran is probably responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, but they never paid a price for the crime. Iran has been supporting Shia insurgents in Iraq since 2004, but they've never paid a price. Iranian supported Hezbollah was again responsible for initiating war with Israel in 2006, but Iran never paid a price. After decades of belligerent behavior that have gone unpunished, Iran's mullahs might be feeling untouchable. It may take more than sabre-rattling to convince them to back down.

the funniest thing I read today

Mark Steyn on the Iraq Study Group's recommendations for engagement with Syria and Iran:

Of course, Syria “should” do this and Iran “should” do that and, if they were Sandra Day O’Connor, I’m sure they would. But they’re not.