The Israeli Option in Strategy

[walrus]

Curmudgeon:

I had a Spanish friend tell me that Americans are too hard on ourselves. That we are the greatest power on the earth and that we better get used to it instead of crying all the time that nobody likes us. That we need to embrace the responsibility that comes with the postion as the worlds greatest power instead of trying to deny what we are.

Becuase of our roots we are uncomfortable in the roll of the last great colonial power............................................. .....................................

.................................................. .......

In a vast oversimplification, you never love the guy in charge, but if he is fair, leaves you alone as long as you play well in the playpen but slaps you (or your neighbor) if you screw up, then you will come to respect and admire him.

This is a rather narcissistic worldview that is embodied in the PNAC and it overstates America's military might, as events in one very small and backward corner of the Globe (Iraq) have demonstrated.

I also have difficulty with the playpen analogy since what is "Fair" is a matter of opinion and America's "fairness" is a matter of some debate, particularly in the Islamic world.

If such a course was adopted, I believe other nations will gang up, under the leadership of Russia, China or India or all three and do to America and it's interests exactly what we did to Soviet Russia.


Tacitus:

To our foreign critics on this thread: I don't have any particular dislike for foreigners. I don't detect any xenophobia on this board. For all I know your own elected representatives combine the wisdom of Solomon, the character of George Washington, and common sense of Abraham Lincoln. And if they were taking the lead in world affairs, it would all be sweetness and light. Perhaps you can even point to a past record bearing out this ability. Feel free to solve this little Al Qaeda / Islamists problem any time it is convenient for you. Really, we wouldn't mind!

I remind you that JJackson (not that he needs defending) and myself come from countries that currently have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so we have a vested interest in the outcome of some of these discussions. We are also identified (for better or worse) as your natural allies, and as nations, have experience in successful counterinsurgency campaigns that we believe it is useful to contribute.

It has also been said that your friends can always be counted on to tell you things you don't want to hear - in your best interest of course.

My advice is quite serious, please consider the tactics and strategies used from approximately 1952 to 1990 that broke the USSR, first detaching its satellites (Poland, Czeckoslovakia, Roumania, East Germany, etc.) through the use of "Soft" power then by causing an economic implosion in Russia itself as it tried to keep up with American Defence spending.

The architects of this set of strategies are now mainly dead, but the history books contain many of the details. Most of the institutions that were part of it are long gone, the only exception I can think of being the Peace Corps.

In action, my proposed solution would mean using Diplomatic, Social, humanitarian and economic measures to detach countries from Iran, starting with Syria, supporting moderate opinion leaders everywhere among the Islamic community and providing them with the philosophical tools to confront Wahabism, the objective being to detach populations (especially the young and easily led) from Wahabism.

It's doable and it's feasible. Here is a hint; google "Arab Drifters" and watch the video on you tube. How easy is it to build a program to ensure that none of these guys and other rev heads never get radicalised?

[Tacitus]

In action, my proposed solution would mean using Diplomatic, Social, humanitarian and economic measures to detach countries from Iran, starting with Syria, supporting moderate opinion leaders everywhere among the Islamic community and providing them with the philosophical tools to confront Wahabism, the objective being to detach populations (especially the young and easily led) from Wahabism.

It's doable and it's feasible. Here is a hint; google "Arab Drifters" and watch the video on you tube. How easy is it to build a program to ensure that none of these guys and other rev heads never get radicalised?

Hey walrus,
Well, that's worth a try. It has the advantage of the prospect of holding together a coalition to oppose the Islamists. It sounds like an adaptation of the containment strategy used against the USSR in the cold war.

I feel like this will be a long, drawn out affair, like the cold war was. It doesn't seem very realistic to me from a political and financial standpoint (here or abroad) to maintain large conventional forces in places like Iraq. There just isn't support here or abroad for that kind of thing. Better to keep these "small wars" as small as possible, resisting the urge to escalate. Maybe sort of like what is going on in the Horn of Africa.

Perhaps there is so much bad blood politically between Western nations as a result of this Iraq invasion, that things just can't be patched up at the highest level until all the previous leaders leave the scene. Come November 4, 2008, the slate will be wiped clean. Bush is probably radioactive for any foreign leader--not exactly a good thing when trying to wage coalition "small warfare."

[JJackson]

Maybe sort of like what is going on in the Horn of Africa.

I will have to come back to this one (I need sleep) and I know it is covered in other threads but this is a prime example of why I am so scared of what I view as US medalling. The stability that was spreading with the expansion of UIC control was improving the living conditions of the Somalis. The US's prints are all over the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. The legitimacy of the imposed puppet regieme is laughable as is any attempt to justify it as being what the Somalis wanted. It is what America and Ethiopia wanted. Ethiopia thought it might work to their advantage if they could install a friendly regieme and then leave the UN or AU to prop them up and America just had a paranoid fear of Islamic terrorists. The big problem is you lit a match and you dont know how the fire will spread. Somalia could quickly become Somalia, Ethiopia (Ogoden and other factions) and Eritrea. That block in conjunction with either Sudan (North, South and Dafur) plus Chad or Uganda/Congo/Rwanda/Kenya is a recipe for anything but a small war. None of the players may be in a position to pose Americans at home much of a problem but the untold misery a war rageing across this area could cause for the impoverished inhabitants does not bear thinking about.

[Ron Humphrey]

Curmudgeon

In a vast oversimplification, you never love the guy in charge, but if he is fair, leaves you alone as long as you play well in the playpen but slaps you (or your neighbor) if you screw up, then you will come to respect and admire him.

I would agree with this in a large sense and I will explain why

In corrections individuals are given the responsibility of maintaining order and enforcing restrictions on others over whom they truly have no power (reference number of officers to detainee or inmate ratio) yet because of that responsibility they must do their job. Society as a whole may agree or disagree with the how's, why's, when's etc but as a whole they have a system which has been given the task of determining that

This being said, although the officers job is neither fun nor altogether rewarding besides the serving society aspect they must and do fufill that responsibility. This more often than not makes them very unpopular amongst the population wherein they are big brother. Anyone who has done this for a period should be able to tell you how the respect given to those who perform their mission dutifully and justly is not at all proportionate to praise recieved ( as would be expected) but in the end that respect is what keeps things quiet or allows the settling of issues through somewhat more soft techniques many a time.

I posit that if one takes this and expands it to a global scale there are enough commonalities to make it a viable example.

This is a rather narcissistic worldview that is embodied in the PNAC and it overstates America's military might, as events in one very small and backward corner of the Globe (Iraq) have demonstrated.

As with anything else in life would you actually expect any populous to automatically jump on board with something they don't perceive yet.

I think we have to ask if the Iraqis perceived us as coming to do our job as big brother or if they expected similar events to that which they have known throughout history. If you look at it; kicking the Iraqi army out of Kuwait and then leaving those who tried to stand up against Sadam to hang in his gallows, or to suffer horrific deaths due to his WMD's probably did not set the stage for them to expect us to really care about the long term this time.

I really don't think it's narcissism so much as maybe the result of some select willful ignorance at the wrong places, in the wrong time.
(said thus in order for others to fill in the blanks as they see fit)

In action, my proposed solution would mean using Diplomatic, Social, humanitarian and economic measures to detach countries from Iran, starting with Syria, supporting moderate opinion leaders everywhere among the Islamic community and providing them with the philosophical tools to confront Wahabism, the objective being to detach populations (especially the young and easily led) from Wahabism.

It's doable and it's feasible. Here is a hint; google "Arab Drifters" and watch the video on you tube. How easy is it to build a program to ensure that none of these guys and other rev heads never get radicalised?

I think you would find that if we focus on some of what you said the ism's tend to sort themselves out.

[JJackson]

I think Ron’s prison analogy exposes the fundamental difference at the heart of the problem. I view the kid in the sand pit as a bully because all the kids in the pit did not agree a set of rules and ask the big boy to enforce them. The big boy just disciplined who ever he felt like. In the prison example; society (what ever that is) decide a set of rules and employed one group to enforce them (police), another group to decide what should happen to those who did not play by them (judiciary) and a third group to incarcerate those who could not be trusted in the play pit (warders). There is of course a fourth group (military) who’s job is to stop the kids from other playpits from taking over ours and imposing their rules. The question is when the US invades Iraq, or threatens Iran, are they doing it as the bully or because they have been asked to by the society of nation states? I fear Ron’s example leads me to think he views their actions benignly where I would view them more as kids from another pit who are convinced their way is better and have come to impose it on us – with the best of intentions off course (benevolent dictatorship?).

I think there is a problem of Sovereignty (I am not sure that that is quite the right word). What I mean is as individuals we are willing to accept a dilution of our personal will to other groups to achieve group benefits. For me allegiance probably runs family>friends>town>region>UK>EU>Homo sapiens>Planet Earth, or something like that for Osama BL or GWB I suspect it would be a bit different (note I have no religious component). In a zero sum game how much fealty I give at each level is personal and fluid. In a basically capitalist society with ‘no taxation without representation’ in mind a crude measure might be how much we are willing to contribute at each tier. The argument I was beginning to articulate in my previous post is that too much power currently resides at the country level and states should be more willing to divest some sovereignty up, or down, the chain to solve problems at the appropriate level.

[Ron Humphrey]

I think Ron’s prison analogy exposes the fundamental difference at the heart of the problem. I view the kid in the sand pit as a bully because all the kids in the pit did not agree a set of rules and ask the big boy to enforce them. The big boy just disciplined who ever he felt like.

I might agree with the difference in perception between parties but that said in order to accept that wholeheartedly one would need to show that the US has not been defacto expected to be big brother in the world.
For me the problem with this thinking is that in WW1, WW2, and various other conflicts we were basically expected to be exactly that. Now have we perhaps been too eager to jump in without testing the water in other situations from time to time, of course, but I seriously doubt anyone truly expects us to never make mistakes.

In the prison example; society (what ever that is) decide a set of rules and employed one group to enforce them (police), another group to decide what should happen to those who did not play by them (judiciary) and a third group to incarcerate those who could not be trusted in the play pit (warders). There is of course a fourth group (military) who’s job is to stop the kids from other playpits from taking over ours and imposing their rules. The question is when the US invades Iraq, or threatens Iran, are they doing it as the bully or because they have been asked to by the society of nation states? I fear Ron’s example leads me to think he views their actions benignly where I would view them more as kids from another pit who are convinced their way is better and have come to impose it on us – with the best of intentions off course (benevolent dictatorship?).

Perceptions vs Ground Truth
Did we install another dictator or did we work to allow the citizens of Iraq not America to vote for a representative government(of sorts) there.
Are there those within the population who feel dis-enfranchised, yes
Do they now and will they still have an opportunity to become more involved in that new government?

From a warfighting perspective, Do we do what would be simple and protect ourselves while they fight amongst themselves, or do our soldiers go out everyday putting their lives on the line in efforts to try and help them find ways and means not to fight.

I think to view us as the bullies in the matter one must truly believe that our actions and deeds are other than what they are.

I think there is a problem of Sovereignty (I am not sure that that is quite the right word). What I mean is as individuals we are willing to accept a dilution of our personal will to other groups to achieve group benefits. For me allegiance probably runs family>friends>town>region>UK>EU>Homo sapiens>Planet Earth, or something like that for Osama BL or GWB I suspect it would be a bit different (note I have no religious component). In a zero sum game how much fealty I give at each level is personal and fluid. In a basically capitalist society with ‘no taxation without representation’ in mind a crude measure might be how much we are willing to contribute at each tier. The argument I was beginning to articulate in my previous post is that too much power currently resides at the country level and states should be more willing to divest some sovereignty up, or down, the chain to solve problems at the appropriate level.

In this I would agree that for most people this is close to their thinking in regards to loyalty and and how they perceive their leaders, thus I would think that the efforts by Coalition forces and civilians to teach those leaders how to work together at each level without having to be directed by on high, would be seen as a good thing not the opposite.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Curmudgeon:




This is a rather narcissistic worldview that is embodied in the PNAC and it overstates America's military might, as events in one very small and backward corner of the Globe (Iraq) have demonstrated.

I also have difficulty with the playpen analogy since what is "Fair" is a matter of opinion and America's "fairness" is a matter of some debate, particularly in the Islamic world.

First off, we won the "invasion" of Iraq hands down. Where we are failed, and are still failing, is in our policy of trying to overlay our social structure and form of government onto a culture that does not see it as correct. The same problem the soviets had in Afghanistan. So I disagree with you that we do not have the power to smite a wayward nation-state should we feel it is appropriate. I agree that a broad base of international support for any action is better, but I don't agree that a broad base is necessary.

Second, what is "fair" is rarely a matter of true debate. For America, or for that matter any other country, "fair" equates directly into "what is in MY best interest". To claim anything else is self delusion.

Lately, what we feel is in our best interest is to install democracy everywhere regardless of whether the society wants, or I would argue, is in a position to benefit from it. It has the sound of being "fair". Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling that we are helping the repressed nations of the world gain their freedom. Everyone really wants to be "free" like us so we will help everyone get there. But the democracy drive is strictly in our best interest based on the concept that democracies have open trade policies and rarely go to war with each other. In Iraq, in my opinion, we were hoping for a domino effect. That once the other nations around Iraq saw how good things were there they would take a dip in the democracy pool. But ultimately it was still in our best interest to take that action.

I am siding with the idea that we stay out of another country's affairs until they pose a threat to "our" security interests. At that point, once we determine that Diplomatic, Informational, or Economic actions will not be sufficient to reduce the threat, we take limited military action to REDUCE the threat. That does not mean that you embrace "regime change" which was a euphemism for "replacing a dictatorship with a democracy". Depending on the culture of the country you are intervening in, that can be an intergenerational commitment that is primarily a Informational and Economic effort with the military playing only a very minimal roll. The decision to involve ourselves in that kind of action must take into account the society that we are attempting to re-engineer.

From a policy prospective, we need to decide whether sovereignty or human rights are more important. Is a stable government more beneficial to us than one that is democratic. If your choice is democracy, then you better be prepared for that type of commitment. I would submit that, as far as use of the Military form of national power is concerned, our choice should be sovereignty. This is what we did in Desert Storm. We made no attempt to replace the Emir of Kuwait with a democracy. What they had worked for them even though their women did not have the right to vote.

Realize also that, no matter which one of these choices we make, someone will be able to argue that you were wrong. If you try to install a democracy and an insurgency results, you were wrong. If you leave a dictator in charge, you were wrong.

This also does not mean that we abandon joint actions through the UN to stop genocide or to provide disaster relief. It means that 1) unilateral actions to reduce a threat should be taken regardless of international support; 2) these actions should be limited to reducing the threat to an acceptable level, not eliminating it unless absolutely necessary (containment); 3) where elimination of the threat is required or where there is a failed state, limit your intervention to what is required to restore a functioning, stabile government; and 4) if you determine that installing a democracy is absolutely necessary, plan on a twenty to fifty year commitment.

[Sean Osborne]

First off, we won the "invasion" of Iraq hands down.

Yeah, roger that. Given the size and sophistication of the forces involved the American, British, Australian, Kuwaiti and Coalition victory was unprecented in modern warfare.

Where we are failed, and are still failing, is in our policy of trying to overlay our social structure and form of government onto a culture that does not see it as correct.

Are we really attempting to overlay Judeo-Christian social structure on a predominantly Islamic (Sunni and Shiite) society? Is not the social fabric of Iraq an artifical construct of the British after WWI?

Seems to me a sizeable portion of the Iraqi people made death-defying choices to express their will and return home on election days with a purple stained finger. It also seems to me that its not Iraqi society as a whole which opposes democratization but Islamists and remnant totalitarian Ba'athists who violently oppose this.

Second, what is "fair" is rarely a matter of true debate. For America, or for that matter any other country, "fair" equates directly into "what is in MY best interest". To claim anything else is self delusion.

I agree. "Fair" is a keyword most over used by the political left.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Are we really attempting to overlay Judeo-Christian social structure on a predominantly Islamic (Sunni and Shiite) society? Is not the social fabric of Iraq an artifical construct of the British after WWI?

Seems to me a sizeable portion of the Iraqi people made death-defying choices to express their will and return home on election days with a purple stained finger. It also seems to me that its not Iraqi society as a whole which opposes democratization but Islamists and remnant totalitarian Ba'athists who violently oppose this.

An election does not make a democracy. The Soviet Union, China, and other single party states hold regular elections an no one accuses them of being democracies. What we in the west normally equate with a “liberal democracy” is one where the individual reigns supreme and the government serves the individual.

First, I would argue that the tribal society that underpins the social structure in most of Iraq holds the tribe supreme. This cultural norm is what is keeping the leaders of the country from being able to put the needs of the whole of the people ahead of needs of their tribe, even if their tribe is not the ones who elected them.

Second, because of the tribal/religious nature of the society, there is no history of free and open debate, of decision making at intermediate levels, of not taking bribes as a normal trapping of authority, or of the rule of law. These are integral to a democracy. They have to be embraced as a social norm. That type of social re-engineering takes time.

As an aside, having the national election so early may have even been detrimental. In Against all Odds, Against All Odds?Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq & Afghanistan, (http://www.psci.unt.edu/enterline/aj...v48singleb.pdf ) Andrew J. Enterline and J. Michael Greig argued that when an attempt at a democracy fails it becomes harder to install another democracy in the same country in the future. They speculate that where the promise of democracy fails to deliver, the society becomes less apt to want to try that failed experiment again. They also contend that, based on historical evidence, it takes a minimum of twenty years of military intervention to form a stable democracy. I see this as being an generational shift. The young embrace those ideals needed to make a democracy function and then you are on autopilot. But until that happens, you better be prepared to hold the hands of the country's leadership until that fundamental change occurs.

[Sean Osborne]

An election does not make a democracy.

I agree, and I didn't imply that a couple of elections indicated a democracy had been established in Iraq. My point is that the process of democratization had been begun, as we all know, where none had existed before.

What we in the west normally equate with a “liberal democracy” is one where the individual reigns supreme and the government serves the individual.

Well, actually I believe it safe to say that in true a democracy, such as we're supposed to have, the government rules by the consent of the governed. We're trying to instill this among the Iraqi's from the basic family level on up. I'd say that we have been successful in the endeaor since as I noted so many of them "made death-defying choices to express their will and return home on election days with a purple stained finger."

First, I would argue that the tribal society that underpins the social structure in most of Iraq holds the tribe supreme.

No doubt about this. Moreover, I've learned that the loyalty of the individual Iraqi citizen is a level or two deeper than the tribal level. Family is the rock-bottom basic level. And that's where US/Coalition efforts began - at the basic level of Iraqi society and upwards/outwards from there.

[JeffC]

Well, actually I believe it safe to say that in true a democracy, such as we're supposed to have, the government rules by the consent of the governed. We're trying to instill this among the Iraqi's from the basic family level on up.

If by "we", you mean the United States, then what you're referring to as a "democracy" is technically not a democracy but a republic, or more precisely, a republic with representation. There's an important difference between the two terms which you can read about here.

And I'm not sure if I've read you correctly, but your quoted sentence above implies that we're trying to instill democracy at the family level. Now I don't know about you, but I've never seen a family structure work that isn't a benevolent dictatorship, and depending on the family's religious beliefs, that dictatorship may only extend to the male parent. Of course, it's probably better to not even try to use a political model to describe family dynamics. In my opinion, the two aren't compatible in any way.

[Sean Osborne]

If by "we", you mean the United States, then what you're referring to as a "democracy" is technically not a democracy but a republic, or more precisely, a republic with representation.

Check this Jeff:

de·moc·ra·cy

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

As stated previously, "government rules by the consent of the governed."

This or something quite similar is what we are attempting to have take root in Iraq where it has never before existed.

And I'm not sure if I've read you correctly, but your quoted sentence above implies that we're trying to instill democracy at the family level.

Jeff, it's called grass roots. Getting the basic unit of any nation to understand why it would be to their benefit to get together with other basic units to establish a government by enfranchising themselves to elect their government and establish their laws for the common good.

Doing this within a framework of longstanding Islamic traditions and ideology may well be the most daunting task is 'selling' western democratic principles.

[Rex Brynen]

It also seems to me that its not Iraqi society as a whole which opposes democratization but Islamists and remnant totalitarian Ba'athists who violently oppose this.

I agree that a great many Iraqis want some sort of democratization (although they may understand the details in very different ways, and they also want other things, such as security and a decent standard of living). I would somewhat modify your statement, however, to read "(some, predominately Sunni) Islamists..." given that among the most enthusiastic proponents and beneficiaries of formal electoral democracy in Iraq are the strongly Islamist (Shi'ite) Supreme Council, al-Dawa, and even Sadr...

(I'll leave aside their degree of commitment to other aspects of democratic values.)

[TheCurmudgeon]

I agree that a great many Iraqis want some sort of democratization (although they may understand the details in very different ways, and they also want other things, such as security and a decent standard of living). I would somewhat modify your statement, however, to read "(some, predominately Sunni) Islamists..." given that among the most enthusiastic proponents and beneficiaries of formal electoral democracy in Iraq are the strongly Islamist (Shi'ite) Supreme Council, al-Dawa, and even Sadr...

(I'll leave aside their degree of commitment to other aspects of democratic values.)

Rex,

you are dead on the money. Democracy means different things to different people. It is a term that is overused and misunderstood. What many people really what are security and a decent standard of living, regardless of what form of government provides them with that.

[marct]

Hi Curmudgeon,

First off, we won the "invasion" of Iraq hands down. Where we are failed, and are still failing, is in our policy of trying to overlay our social structure and form of government onto a culture that does not see it as correct. The same problem the soviets had in Afghanistan. So I disagree with you that we do not have the power to smite a wayward nation-state should we feel it is appropriate. I agree that a broad base of international support for any action is better, but I don't agree that a broad base is necessary.

I am going to disagree with you on this - you won the Battle for Iraq, Phase 1-3, but the war is still up in the air. The invasion, which was a resounding victory, may well end up classified along with Pyrrhus' victories at Heraclea and Asculum. Yes, your attempt to impose a foreign social and political structure on Iraq are, in some ways, a failure but not so much because they are viewed as "incorrect". Rather, the administrations' assumptions of republican "democracy" as an evolutionary ideal that all societies strive for and people "really" (innately) want forgot that any form of democracy require an internal revolution and cannot be imposed by a foreign power.

In general, I certainly agree that the US has the power to "smite" any other nation state. So what? So did Pyrrhus. Beating the snot out of someone doesn't turn them into bosom buddies and automatically convert them to "right thinking" (however that may be defined). If you want to engage in cultural and social engineering, which is how the victory conditions for OIF were defined, you need a lot more than overt military power.

Second, what is "fair" is rarely a matter of true debate. For America, or for that matter any other country, "fair" equates directly into "what is in MY best interest". To claim anything else is self delusion.

I do agree that "fair" is rarely a matter of true debate . However, let me remind you that nations are not actors in and of themselves; they are collections of people. JJ's levels of moral obligation is a much more accurate way to look at self interest (I think he took it from Heinlein ).

Lately, what we feel is in our best interest is to install democracy everywhere regardless of whether the society wants, or I would argue, is in a position to benefit from it. It has the sound of being "fair". Gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling that we are helping the repressed nations of the world gain their freedom. Everyone really wants to be "free" like us so we will help everyone get there. But the democracy drive is strictly in our best interest based on the concept that democracies have open trade policies and rarely go to war with each other. In Iraq, in my opinion, we were hoping for a domino effect. That once the other nations around Iraq saw how good things were there they would take a dip in the democracy pool. But ultimately it was still in our best interest to take that action.

Hmmph! I hadn't realized that the Catholic doctrine of Salvation through Good Works was so prominent in US culture . Well, we should probably add in another naive assumption to go with the rest: the idea that democracies have open trade policies.

I am siding with the idea that we stay out of another country's affairs until they pose a threat to "our" security interests. At that point, once we determine that Diplomatic, Informational, or Economic actions will not be sufficient to reduce the threat, we take limited military action to REDUCE the threat. That does not mean that you embrace "regime change" which was a euphemism for "replacing a dictatorship with a democracy". Depending on the culture of the country you are intervening in, that can be an intergenerational commitment that is primarily a Informational and Economic effort with the military playing only a very minimal roll. The decision to involve ourselves in that kind of action must take into account the society that we are attempting to re-engineer.

Absolutely agree!

This also does not mean that we abandon joint actions through the UN to stop genocide or to provide disaster relief. It means that 1) unilateral actions to reduce a threat should be taken regardless of international support; 2) these actions should be limited to reducing the threat to an acceptable level, not eliminating it unless absolutely necessary (containment); 3) where elimination of the threat is required or where there is a failed state, limit your intervention to what is required to restore a functioning, stabile government; and 4) if you determine that installing a democracy is absolutely necessary, plan on a twenty to fifty year commitment.

Totally agree with this as well. For 3 and 4 I would also add in that specific UN approval is also a pre-requisite unless there is a clear and present danger.

Marc

[Sean Osborne]

I would also add in that specific UN approval is also a pre-requisite unless there is a clear and present danger.

There will always be a lack of consensus on whether specific UN approval is a pre-requiste, among individuals and nations. As you note there is the 'clear and present danger' caveat in which the National Security of a state is deemed at risk.

It is that National Security 101 definition of what is a threat that will be the ultimate definer -- Capability plus Intent plus Opportunity = The Treat.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am going to disagree with you on this - you won the Battle for Iraq, Phase 1-3, but the war is still up in the air. The invasion, which was a resounding victory, may well end up classified along with Pyrrhus' victories at Heraclea and Asculum. Yes, your attempt to impose a foreign social and political structure on Iraq are, in some ways, a failure but not so much because they are viewed as "incorrect". Rather, the administrations' assumptions of republican "democracy" as an evolutionary ideal that all societies strive for and people "really" (innately) want forgot that any form of democracy require an internal revolution and cannot be imposed by a foreign power.

In general, I certainly agree that the US has the power to "smite" any other nation state. So what? So did Pyrrhus. Beating the snot out of someone doesn't turn them into bosom buddies and automatically convert them to "right thinking" (however that may be defined). If you want to engage in cultural and social engineering, which is how the victory conditions for OIF were defined, you need a lot more than overt military power.

I agree with you. My point was simply that the US still has the ability to project power to most places in the world in sufficient quantity to ruin another country's day. Most other countries lack that ability except through air/missles.

The decision of when and how to use that force is a different matter.

Well, we should probably add in another naive assumption to go with the rest: the idea that democracies have open trade policies.

Perhaps "open trade policies" was not the right term. Replace “open trade policies” with “capitalism” and you get my meaning.

[Ken White]

some minor quibble points but only a couple I'd state for your consideration:

Hi Curmudgeon,
. . .
Hmmph! I hadn't realized that the Catholic doctrine of Salvation through Good Works was so prominent in US culture . Well, we should probably add in another naive assumption to go with the rest: the idea that democracies have open trade policies.

Really? Been around for a long time -- generally coupled with self interest, to be sure but there are a good many US graves in places where we had no overwhelming interest...

Totally agree with this as well. For 3 and 4 I would also add in that specific UN approval is also a pre-requisite unless there is a clear and present danger.

Marc

While I generally agree with that, I'd also suggest that mild dislike and distrust of the US -- some merited, some not, most understandable -- make that a very arguable and situation dependent restriction.

I'll also note that my prediction on Iraq going in was a 60:40 chance of reasonable success. Over the last 18 months, I've upped that to a 75:25 probability -- though, of course, our definitions of what is therein constituted may differ...

[SteveMetz]

I'll also note that my prediction on Iraq going in was a 60:40 chance of reasonable success. Over the last 18 months, I've upped that to a 75:25 probability -- though, of course, our definitions of what is therein constituted may differ...

Interesting. I'm sitting here at this minute writing up the events of the past six months I remain pessimistic. We gave them a window of opportunity but the best I can see, the various sides used it to train and re-arm and have decided to just wait until we're out of the way. Lamentably, I think the Vietnam analogy still holds--there will be a "decent interval" and then it will fall apart.

[Ken White]

Interesting. I'm sitting here at this minute writing up the events of the past six months I remain pessimistic. We gave them a window of opportunity but the best I can see, the various sides used it to train and re-arm and have decided to just wait until we're out of the way. Lamentably, I think the Vietnam analogy still holds--there will be a "decent interval" and then it will fall apart.

outcome, I think. There was always going to be a Sunni-Shia trauma, the degree remains to be seen -- as does the timing and the end result. In my view the majority of what I believe (but obviously do not know) were the real as opposed to stated strategic aims have been accomplished, the few remaining are of no major consequence though they would be nice.

My belief is that it may "fall apart" however that is somewhat unlikely and the probability is that we'll be there in relative peace for quite some time. I do think that fall, if it occurred, would be quite different than the Viet Nam analogy.

There was never going to be a US friendly Republic and I'm not at all sure anyone of any consequence ever really believed that would happen, just that some though it was worth a try. The entire operation was always a calculated risk and if it succeeded the world would be better off -- and the international oil supply would not be significantly disrupted at any point -- and if it did not succeed, only the US would suffer much harm. Not total altruism but not totally devoid of it either.

Politics in the ME are always factional and fractured, and the various sides in every nation there are always jockeying for power and firearms are frequently involved. Been that way for a long time -- I'm still touting 2018 for the approximate rule of law and 2033 for a functional nation IAW world (not western) norms...

While it failed as a "shock and awe" (really dumb phrase and idea) event it did catch AQ off balance and though they are flexible and recovered to a degree, it has dispelled the belief that the US would cut and run -- that means little to most westerners; it means a great deal in the ME. What will cause a falling apart sooner rather than later and of great instead of small magnitude is to leave precipitously. Obviously had the intel and the planning (and our doctrine and training 1980-2000) been better, it would have had a greater future deterrent effect but the effect actually achieved hasn't been that bad.

I think the adverse situations can be avoided unless we leave too soon, not least because, appropos of Viet Nam, it would again show that the US is not to be trusted as an ally, a factor that arguably contributed to our inability to build a better coalition to go to Iraq this time (Desert Storm is not a valid comparison). Hard to build coalitions when you're suspect. That and a really poor job of making and stating the case on the part of the Administration...

We'll see how it goes; I think the glass is more than half full...