All wars are necessarily politicized, but President Bush took it to a new level when he justified invading Iraq partially on their non-existent support for al-Qaeda. We couldn't reverse course, because any opposition to the war was drown out by the repeated claim (proven false later) that anyone who opposed it was weak on countering terrorism. After the tragedy of 9/11 no politician could afford to be seen as being weak on terror. Onward we marched to pursue the neo-conservative vision of the End of History, based on the belief that if we converted Iraq into a democracy it would gradually spread across the region. In fact, it is now hard to discern the difference between our global counterinsurgency approach and real counterterrorism operations focused on killing terrorists. Our efforts to remake the Middle East and broader Umma globally into stable democracies has been an expensive disaster that has promoted greater instability. Not only is the U.S. spending itself into irrelevance over the long run as the article states, we have let our conventional military capabilities and readiness decline to a dangerous level based on the nauseating COINdista rhetoric that insurgency was existential threat to U.S. interests, and the possibility of state on state war was non-existent.Originally Posted by davidbfpo
We confused by, with, and through as a strategy, rather than a means. When the means proved inadequate we thought the answer was to throw more resources at the failed means and ways. The argument that by, with, and through is more cost effective is only true if that approach achieves the desired goals. I suspect a more honest evaluation would present a supportable argument that it would have been more cost effective if we just did it ourselves in some cases. We're not going to effectively address underlying causes in most cases, and spending billions on economic development to solve a problem that isn't economically based is another way we bleed out our resources in pursuit of ends that simply don't matter.
Another argument against over reliance on the by, with, and through approach is the moral hazard associated with it. No problem of accepting risk if they're doing it and we're not. In many cases where we rely on a by, with, and through approach we wouldn't be involved if we had to do it, because we know the threat to our interests doesn't justify the investment. Yet, we can continue by, with, and through indefinitely by arguing the turning point is this year (year after year).
Outlined above is our failures, and they are expensive failures. However, if we narrow the metric to assessing our success in disrupting attacks on the homeland and our allies I think that war or security measures has been relatively successful. That requires sustaining a network of willing partners globally that detect and disrupt terrorists (not insurgents) as needed. That war is largely fought in the shadows, just as it was prior to 9/11 at a sustainable level. It must sustainable, because terrorism will never be defeated. It is a viable tactic for the weak, and even the strong if they want to shape an outcome without committing conventional forces. The USSR supported terrorist groups for decades as an element of their statecraft.
Our new defense strategy tells us to reduce spending on counterterrorism sustainable levels, which is different than quitting because we're tired. We can do this smartly, but the probability of being 100% successful is very low. How we react after the next terrorist attack will determine if we can hold the line on reducing the industrial scale counterterrorism efforts we're engaged in now, or if political rhetoric will convince Americans that the attack was due to reduced efforts in Afghanistan, etc. I have great faith in our military leadership to make rational decisions based on our national interests. I have almost no faith in our political leadership to do the same.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks