How Many More Wars?
Jeb Bush certainly had a bad week last week, as he struggled to come up with a clear answer to a question he really should have been expecting in the first place. Other Republicans also struggled to admit that the Iraq War was indeed a mistake (which is somewhat understandable, because by doing so they are criticizing a former Republican president). But while the spectacle of Republicans having to admit a big Republican mistake certainly is amusing, there's an even bigger question which so far has remained unasked: "Knowing all the things we've learned in the past decade and a half, what would it take for you to send American troops to fight an overseas war?" This is the real question the voters deserve an answer to. To put it more bluntly: "How many more wars can we expect if you are elected?"
The present situation should be taken as a starting point for this conversation. Already, some Republican candidates have openly called for more American ground troops to be sent back into Iraq to fight the Islamic State. It remains to be seen whether the other candidates will jump aboard this train of thought, in a frenzy of one-upmanship and chest-beating. But all those who criticize President Obama's handling of foreign policy -- which includes the entire Republican presidential field, it almost goes without saying -- should really have to detail precisely what they'd do differently. The voters really do deserve an answer to this question, since these people are running to take Obama's place in the White House.
What should we do differently about fighting the Islamic State in Iraq? Should we fight alongside Iranian militias, or give them air cover? If American ground troops are the answer, then how many of them do you think should be sent, and how close to the front lines should they be? How many American troops will it take to push the Islamic State out of Iraq and stabilize the country? How long are they going to have to stay?
The next questions are obvious: What about Syria? Should we be bombing Syria? On whom, exactly, should we drop these bombs? The government's forces? The Islamic State? Should American ground troops be sent in to Syria to pacify the situation? Who would they be fighting alongside? Who would they be fighting against? Would overthrowing Assad be part of their mission, or not?
Marco Rubio recently introduced what might be called the "Liam Neeson Doctrine," stating that Islamic terrorists should just be hunted down and killed, like in a Hollywood movie. He didn't qualify the sentiment at all. What he (and other Republican candidates) are really talking about is reviving the Bush/Cheney concept of the "Global War On Terrorism" (often shortened to "GWOT"). We'll fight terrorists anywhere on Earth, to avoid having to fight them here at home (that's the theory, at any rate).
So beyond the borders of Iraq and Syria, where else should we be taking this fight? How about Yemen? Should we throw our lot in with any of the three groups fighting for power there? How, exactly? Bombing runs? Boots on the ground?
Or how about the failed state of Libya? The Islamic State has become active in Libya, so should we be fighting them there, too? We tried an air war with no ground troops before, and it did succeed in its main objective of overthrowing Qaddafi, but we sure didn't follow through with any nation-building afterwards. So to really solve Libya, we'd have to not only defeat all the various Islamist militias but also occupy and pacify the country -- a project which could take years. How many American troops should be committed to such a mission?
There's a lot of Islamic terrorism happening in sub-Saharan Africa as well. Should America declare war on groups like Boko Haram? They're Islamic terrorists too, so wouldn't they be included in the whole GWOT grand plan? How many countries should American troops invade, realistically?
Then there's an even bigger problem to contemplate. All the Republican candidates seem to disagree with President Obama's attempt at diplomacy with Iran, some stating they'd unilaterally pull out of any Obama-negotiated Iranian deal "on Day One." Each of these candidates should be asked to explain, in detail, exactly what it would take for them to go to war with Iran. "War" in this case includes "bombing their nuclear facilities," which many Republicans seem to have an interest in doing. So they should be asked: How do you think Iran will respond to such an act of war (hint: the answer is not "They would not retaliate at all")? If Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz, would we then launch a naval or ground war against them? How many American troops is that going to take?
When you add all these up, it's clear that Republicans making good on bellicose campaign promises would be a costly thing for America. We're going to need a whole bunch of Liam Neesons, to put it another way.
But I really shouldn't be making snide jokes. Going to war is a serious thing. Sending in American pilots or ground troops is part of the job of being president -- the most serious part, in fact. All those currently running for this job should be asked what their criteria would be for committing American lives to a fight. Instead of "gotcha" questions over the Iraq War, these are the questions I'd really like answered.
What would it take for any future president to conduct drone warfare? On which countries should we be dropping bombs from unmanned aircraft? Which countries should American pilots be flying bombing missions over? Into which countries should American ground troops be sent? These are all valid questions to ask about the situation as it stands right now, not as it stood back in 2003.
There are no easy answers to these questions. There is great risk in almost all of these options. On a scale of U.S. involvement, every choice carries future problems. Arming a group of foreign fighters can backfire, as it did with the Taliban. Bombing from drones can actually create more jihadi fighters than it kills, as has happened in Pakistan. Using American air power without ground troops can succeed militarily but fail badly afterwards, as happened in Libya. Ground wars can be won by American troops but also lead to failure in the aftermath, as happened in the first few years of the Iraq War. Occupying a country can be a long hard slog with no good outcome ever achieved, again as shown in Iraq.
I'm not saying I have answers to any of the questions I've posed here. They're tough questions, I admit. But then, I'm not running for president. I'm not auditioning for the job of deciding what the answers to all these questions will be, if I'm elected.
Republicans have pushed back on the "Knowing what we know now, would you have sent troops into Iraq back then?" question, since it is not only hypothetical, it is actually an impossibility (absent a working time machine). Nobody making any decision can have knowledge of the future while making it. But there are plenty of other hypothetical questions which are entirely valid -- questions about what America should do now, or in the near future. None of these questions involves time travel. "What would you do now?" or "What would you do if you became president?" are both completely reasonable lines of questioning for any presidential candidate.
America deserves to know, from each and every candidate (in both parties), what it would take for them to enter our country into a war -- either a war that is currently ongoing, or a future war with a new adversary. I'm waiting for the media to wake up and realize this, now that they've had their fun with Bush and his floundering answer on Iraq. More important than "Which past wars would you have started?" is a much more critical question for our country's immediate future: "How many more wars will America enter if you become president?"
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The questions I would like to hear answered are: How will you pay for the next gigantic Middle Eastern catastrophe? Has Obama reduced America's debt and deficit to the point that it's no longer an issue? Can we put this thing on the credit card or will there be income equality improvement tax on billionaires to pay for the war with Iran?
I think they should tell us how they'll pay for their wars before they tell us how many they're going to start.
What did I say? I don't think I used any bad words. Maybe billionaires.
Don't worry about it, JFC, you probably just went off the cynic-o-meter. It happens. Heh.
I'd like to hear from all the candidates about how they would proceed if the US Congress votes down a reasonable nuclear deal with Iran. How would they propose to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons or would they opt to contain a nuclear-armed Iran?
And, if the P4+1 players endorse the deal, the candidate can't rely on sanctions because that option will be decidedly off the table.
Nicely put....
Given the level of funding for the vets returning from current wars one would think that one of the questions that belongs with the ones you pose would be some form of "will you fully fund on the front end, the treatment and benefits of troops we re committing to any action?"
If fully funding the post office retirement benefits is required, care for troops being sent into harms way should be as well......
That is a question many of us would like to hear an answer to as well...
The Liam Neeson Doctrine AKA Quickly There Is No Time Doctrine. Geoffrey Peterson did a spot on impression of the Liam Neeson Doctrine. Marco Rubio has apparently stolen this gag. Reporter: "What part of The LND do you like best Mr. Rubio?"
Marco hesitates a bit, right arm bobbing up and down, blue eyes flashing. "Uh, the middle part."
I miss Craig, and Letterman is going in 5,4,3,2.....
America deserves to know, from each and every candidate (in both parties), what it would take for them to enter our country into a war -- either a war that is currently ongoing, or a future war with a new adversary.
I completely agree...
So, in all fairness, let's here from the Democrat CANDIDATE on these issues first..
THEN we can hear from the POSSIBLE GOP Candidate...
Fair???
Good luck getting Hillary to take a stance on ANYTHING... :D
Michale
Both Republicans and Democrats are (at least publicly) pursuing a fantasy that Iraq can be dusted off and reconstituted as unified whole. Serving US interests as a counterpoise to Iran. The key difference in the stated positions is that Democrats want to avoid putting the US military into direct ground combat (just air,aid and advice if you please) while many prominent Republicans seem (over)anxious to augment the 3 A's with boots, which simply gets us back to square Dubya...which was of course, ultimately proved extremely popular with a clear consensus from the American public, right?
The above vision is nonsense. Iraq, as we have known it, is finished. It has broken along Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish fault lines. All the King's air support and all the King's men (that we are able and willing and able to commit)can't put Iraq together again. The Sunni regions will simply resist, cause a steady stream of US casualties, and wait us out. (Question, why does every other third rate power figure this out and not us?) The Sunni's don't have any realistic hope of controlling the Shiite regions either. The Kurds just want out, period, they always have.
ISSL (pronounced aswhole) is just a nastier incarnation of the the old Saddamm talent, with a Wahhabi crew cut and bad manners which are useful in terms of 1) maintaining local crowd control and 2),channeling enough funding from crazy radical Islamic conservatives in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere to be sure) to keep things going. Oh, and they use foreign fighters which we all know are ever so popular with the locals. Remember how popular the Hessians were with the American Colonists? See local crowd control, above.
The only US strategy that makes any sense to me is to contain the Sunni portion of Iraq, which has never been able to break out and control the whole of what we once regarded as Iraq. Strangle "ISSL's" economy, by blockade, by air interdiction and strategic bombing of power, water and oil. Keep them too busy and too poor to export anything, tangible or otherwise. Turn the place into a roach motel for young, starry eyed Islamic fundamentalists. What goes in never comes out. Sorry, you can't go home again. Enjoy your squalor, sullen wife and eventual green carpet when the locals who know the terrain tire of you. Sorry, no prisoners. The border is as closed as we make it, should you escape be very,very quite and preferably very far away from a Western State. You are a contagion young man or woman. We will kill you if we find you. It's nothing personal. (That was most chilling statement Cromwell made in the Wolf Hall series).
Containment is feasible, given US air, US naval plus Shiite and Kurdish regions which are willing to fight savagely on their own ground, plus basic geography (placement of mountains, deserts and seas, that sort of thing).
It's possible that a partitioned Sunni region of Iraq may toss ISSL out and become a sort of mini Baathist state, with all the charm of the Saddam era. More likely, it just stays a squabbling failed state for one or more decades. That's not great, but it beats a failed state + vast sums of US treasure and a steady stream of dead and maimed US personnel.
Not pretty and Iran might even consider it a victory (until they too get overextended), but to repeat for emphasis, it beats the alternatives. I've left out Syria, which is largely the same deal, but with a boarder to Israel.
I'd be impressed with any candidate, Republican or Democrat thinking along these lines, or any other lines that don't involve magic wands. For all I know, containment may be the unstated policy of the Obama Admin (they don't ask my advice). It might H. Clinton's policy too.
Anyhow, that's my view, have at it folks.
Impressive, TS...
Simply impressive...
Michale
The Obama Doctrine: A Recipe for Failure Overseas
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/21/the_obama_doctrine_a_recipe_for_failure_overseas.html
This is why Obama's method of dealing with the Middle East has failed and failed miserably..
It's a given that the GOP field will offer solutions and approaches vastly different from Obama's...
If Hillary Clinton doesn't divorce herself from Obama and chart her own course, she is doomed and will not ascend to the Presidency...
The problem with Hillary's divorce is that she is directly responsible for MANY of the problem's the US faces in the Middle East... She CAN'T divorce herself from the very policies she helped put into place...
For this and so many other reasons, I can't see how Hillary can hope to prevail in the coming election...
Michale
TheStig [5] -
Amen to that, brother.
"Quickly! There's no time!" was one of Geoffrey and Craig's best running gags. Right up there with "Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'" in Morgan Freeman's voice. Peterson did the best Freeman imitation I've ever heard.
I thought seriously about writing an article today about "late night suffers loss... it's now been XX days since Craig Ferguson has been on late night" without ever mentioning Letterman. Good to know someone would have appreciated it, if I'd written it!
:-)
Michale [6] -
I don't care who goes first. Hillary's written extensively about what military interventions she was for and against, though, in her book. She's a lot more hawkish than most Democrats, in actuality. That's why I specified there at the end "of both parties" -- because I'd like to hear her attempt to define what would be the "Hillary Doctrine" for foreign intervention.
And for the record, Hillary wasn't always on the same page as Obama. Separating herself in the campaign won't be hard for her to do on individual issues. Not saying I agree with either her or Obama on any of those issues, mind you, but separation won't be hard for her to accomplish.
-CW
And for the record, Hillary wasn't always on the same page as Obama. Separating herself in the campaign won't be hard for her to do on individual issues. Not saying I agree with either her or Obama on any of those issues, mind you, but separation won't be hard for her to accomplish.
IF she truly separates..
The problem is that, to separate herself from Obama, she is going to have to separate herself from herself, as she was Obama's foreign policy for the first four years...
Now, if you think separating herself from herself is going to be easy, especially in such a short time span...
Well, I have some swampland down here these parts for ya?? :D
Michale
That's why I specified there at the end "of both parties" -- because I'd like to hear her attempt to define what would be the "Hillary Doctrine" for foreign intervention.
A point I took care to mention..
In this regard (and in many others) you have always looked past the '-x' and held BOTH sides of the aisles feet to the fire...
Pretty soon we will be faced with the "accountability" phase... :D
Michale
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCjLV0cUEAEmZVs.jpg
Michale
TheStig -
OK, here you go. Today's column is now up.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/05/21/i-miss-craig-ferguson/
:-)
"Who's that at the door?!?"
Heh.
-CW
Michale [11] -
You should really take an unbaised look at what Hillary's foreign policy opinions are.
Short of Joe Lieberman running for Pres., she's about as hawkish a Democrat as you're likely to come across...
Not saying you should jump on Hillary's bandwagon or anything -- feel free to complain about all her other stances all you want. But seriously, dude, for someone who says they're all about projecting American power, Hillary's really your gal on the Democratic side of things.
Give her a chance. You'll probably like her for all the reasons Lefties are very, very wary of her.
I'm just sayin'...
-CW
Not saying you should jump on Hillary's bandwagon or anything -- feel free to complain about all her other stances all you want. But seriously, dude, for someone who says they're all about projecting American power, Hillary's really your gal on the Democratic side of things.
Hillary knows how to say all the right things to the right people, I'll give you (and her) that..
But I don't like Hillary for the same reason I don't like Obama..
They can't be trusted...
THAT is all there is to it..
Obama with his Syria "red line" PROVES that he can't be trusted.
Hillary with her dodging sniper fire in Bosnia and her Foundation slush fund PROVES she can't be trusted..
It's really that simple...
And over 60% of Independents, the ones who actually decide elections, agree with me...
Michale
Having said that, you know me..
If Hillary has a position on Foreign Policy or National Security that I agree with, I'll give credit where (and when) credit is due..
But, at the end of the day, it all comes down to trust...
Can I.... Can ANYONE trust Hillary to do the right thing for this country??
About the ONLY thing that CAN be trusted is for Hillary to do the right thing... For Hillary..
Michale
May 21, 2015 One of the most underappreciated stories in recent years is the deterioration of the Democratic bench under President Obama's tenure in office. The party has become much more ideologically homogenous, losing most of its moderate wing as a result of the last two disastrous midterm elections. By one new catch-all measure, a party-strength index introduced by RealClearPolitics analysts Sean Trende and David Byler, Democrats are in their worst position since 1928. That dynamic has manifested itself in the Democratic presidential contest, where the bench is so barren that a flawed Hillary Clinton is barreling to an uncontested nomination.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/democrats-vanishing-future-20150521
This is why I don't think Democrats are much of a threat in the upcoming elections..
Michale
I mean, ya gotta face the reality here..
Such a flawed, baggage-ridden and skeleton-ridden a candidate as Hillary Clinton..
And THAT is the best candidate the Dems can field??
Ya'all just GOT to know how bad that makes the Dem Party look..
Michale
If someone says hawkish stuff while seeking the Democratic nomination, I think it's reasonable to infer that she means it.
There's no such thing as a military solution, to pretty much anything in the modern world. Probably not in the ancient world either, for that matter. Rather, there are military components to overall solutions.
To formulate an overall solution, you have to acknowledge who has real power in a situation -- meaning everyone who has any real power there at all. Then you have to have a genuine understanding of the actual incentives facing all such groups. That includes not just what they say they want, not just what they think they want, not just what they really want, but what they actually believe will enable them to hold or gain the means of getting what they want. Then you have to have a game-theory understanding of commitment -- as applied both the commitments you've made or have the option of making, and as applied to the commitments that the other parties have made or have the option of making.
Macho posturing is a really stupid reason to go to war.
Macho posturing is a really stupid reason to go to war.
Yea... Damn that FDR and his macho posturing, eh? :D
Michale
Dawson - 21
I completely agree. I would add that Game Theory often tells you the best solution to the problem demands almost literally rolling the dice. Try and sell that in a political market place that actually counts votes. Statecraft is a lot easier if you hold absolute power.
M - 22. how so macho? Teddy, yes, but
FDR?
M - 22. how so macho? Teddy, yes, but
FDR?,
For me, macho = arrogance
And FDR was very VERY macho..
Almost as much as Reagan...
:D
Michale
M-24
"For me, macho=arrogance"
Fair enough, but not in any English dictionary I can find.
Macho = manliness, virility. Comes from the Latin.
Arrogance = overly inflated sense of importance and/or ability.
Please send CW an English/Michael dictionary. He can post it as another affiliated site on the upper right hand side. This will clear up a lot of confusion and quite likely reduce comment traffic by, maybe 50%?
Given the definition, it's hard to see how a President can be fairly judged arrogant. A President IS important. Even when the USA was just 13 states, but especially now with 50 states, a Triad and a Twitter account. A President can be excused for thinking he (or perhaps she in near future)is very capable. He/(She?) is in charge of a large staff that knows how to work the Triad and Twitter account. Plus, nobody else got as many people to vote them President. Granted, those people are (usually) members of The Electoral College, but hey, important people are are still people (see Mitt Romney). It's not hard to draw an inference, mistaken or not, from this. So let's cut Presidents a little slack on this inflated sense of ability thing.
Macho = manliness, virility. Comes from the Latin.
Arrogance = overly inflated sense of importance and/or ability.
"Close enough for Federation work"
-Lt Hikaru Sulu
:D
Please send CW an English/Michael dictionary. He can post it as another affiliated site on the upper right hand side. This will clear up a lot of confusion and quite likely reduce comment traffic by, maybe 50%?
What fun would THAT be!!?? :D
Given the definition, it's hard to see how a President can be fairly judged arrogant. A President IS important. Even when the USA was just 13 states, but especially now with 50 states, a Triad and a Twitter account. A President can be excused for thinking he (or perhaps she in near future)is very capable. He/(She?) is in charge of a large staff that knows how to work the Triad and Twitter account. Plus, nobody else got as many people to vote them President. Granted, those people are (usually) members of The Electoral College, but hey, important people are are still people (see Mitt Romney). It's not hard to draw an inference, mistaken or not, from this. So let's cut Presidents a little slack on this inflated sense of ability thing.
To be honest, I actually misread DSWS's post initially when I posted... gimme a break, it was 0200!! :D
But the article that put the idea in my head was here:
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2015/05/16/ted-cruz-the-only-republican-arrogant-enough-to-be-president/?singlepage=true
Michale
DSWS-
Speaking of game theory, BBC reports John "Nash Equilibrium" Nash has been killed in a car crash.
I really need to figure out how to kill autocorrect (aka autocratcorrect) on my tablet (see 23)
I really need to figure out how to kill autocorrect (aka autocratcorrect) on my tablet (see 23)
Model???
M- IPad 64GB, modelMC987LL/A
Thank you in advance for enabling my laziness.
Go to your settings..
Find the GENERAL section..
Look for the KEYBOARD section..
Auto Correct ON/OFF should be there...
Michale
M-
Autocrat is caged! Everyting is warking purfootly now. Frey at last! thank Dog Almighty I'm free at last.
thank Dog Almighty I'm free at last.
Do ya know what ya call an agnostic dyslexic insomniac??
It's a person who lies awake at night wondering if there is a Dog... :D
Glad it worked out for ya... :D Now ya can have typos with the best of us!
"yes, it's true, I am human. I can stub my toe with the best of them."
-Q
:D
Michale