The Andrew Bacevich collection

[John T. Fishel]

Since I saw Colonel/Dr. Bacevich's piece early this morning I debated long and hard about whether to post a response. Any critical response is likely to cause hurt to someone who has lost so much. Nevertheless, he has stepped into the public debate and chosen to use his son's tragic death to support his argument and, therefore it is appropriate to respond.

First, it is unconscionable to accuse Colonel Bacevich of being responsible for his son's death. But it is also appropriate, as 120 points out, to note that opposition to the war does undercut the troops and their effort. Again, as 120 states, is there a greater good served by this opposition? In this case, I think not, at least, not in the terms that the debate has taken.

This is not the first US counterinsurgency that Colonel Bacevich has opposed. He was the lead author of the famous (infamous) Four Colonels Report on the US effort to support COIN in El Salvador. In that report, he was wrong both as a military observer and analyst. This was a case where we and our allies got it right yet Bacevich argued that we were doomed to lose. The central argument was that we had sent in our second team, something that turns out to have been totally inaccurate as veterans of the El Sal MILGP built a better track record of promotion and responsible position than any other similar group in the contemporary Army.

Since leaving the Army Dr. Bacevich has been a professor of International Relations at Boston University. There, he has written on the American Empire - a position that is both highly polemical and questionable in empirical terms. Some of that line of reasoning appears in his Washington Post commentary which comes out sounding very much like Marine Major General Smedley Butler in the 1930s. IMO Dr./COL Bacevich's argument has about the same level of validity. One need only ask how the major oil companies have profited by the war in Iraq.

In short, while I certainly sympathize with his loss, I am saddened to see the discussion take the form it has.

[Tom Odom]

In short, while I certainly sympathize with his loss, I am saddened to see the discussion take the form it has.

Agreed, John T. I posted earlier when I first heard of the loss, offering appropriate sympathies.

Best

Tom

[jcustis]

I'm curious, and I hope this doesnt spin this thread off track, but where is the empirical evidence that opposition to a war aids the enemy?

In our current fight, how does opposition factor into things? Is it possible for a jihadist to become emboldened because an article is posted in the New York Times?

[WVO]

To build on jcustis's question, is the main effect of opposition that it supports the enemy directly or that it erodes support at home?

Certainly Bacevich is entitled to his opinion, any media outlet is entitled to publish it, and anyone is entitled to oppose it. Perhaps his best know published work ,"The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War," was pretty polarizing when it was published a couple of years ago, as mentioned in an above posting. It is among a body of newer writings expounding on the virtues of isolationism. It would be nice to redeploy behind our oceans and pull up the drawbridge, but that didn't work between the World Wars and is even less like to work in an ever more globalized international environment.

[SWJED]

To build on jcustis's question, is the main effect of opposition that it supports the enemy directly or that it erodes support at home?

Certainly Bacevich is entitled to his opinion, any media outlet is entitled to publish it, and anyone is entitled to oppose it. Perhaps his best know published work ,"The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War," was pretty polarizing when it was published a couple of years ago, as mentioned in an above posting. It is among a body of newer writings expounding on the virtues of isolationism. It would be nice to redeploy behind our oceans and pull up the drawbridge, but that didn't work between the World Wars and is even less like to work in an ever more globalized international environment.

Nice first post - to the point and quite true. Thanks.

Isolationism is not an option regardless of one's desires to "pull-back" and defend Fortress America. Unless we remain engaged - and not just military kinetic - we lose - plain and simple.

[John T. Fishel]

First, I know of no quantitative studies of the subject. There may be some that address the issue indirectly but I don't specifically know of any.

But empirical evidence does not need to be quantitative. There is plenty of evidence that the French lost Algeria when the French public lost faith in both Algerie Francaise and the French Army. There is also a lot of evidence that opposition to the Vietnam War aided the VC/NVA in their cause by influencing US policy and actual support to the RVN. The survey data do correlate with policy.

Finally, this issue is all part of the war for legitimacy which is fought in the country where the war takes place, the countries that support the "host government," and the "court of world opinion." (Sorry about the shorthand.)