It Always Starts Humble

I won’t dissect Bret Stephens’s column in the Wall Street Journal, analyzing Paul Ryan’s foreign policy speech given before the Alexander Hamilton Society a year ago. There is so much of it that I find wrong, objectionable, or irritating I hardly know where to start. I’ll just mention this tiny snippet:

So what follows? “If you believe these rights are universal human rights . . . it leads you to reject moral relativism. It causes you to recoil at the idea of persistent moral indifference toward any nation that stifles and denies liberty, no matter how friendly and accommodating its rulers are to American interests.”

Note the consistency of the logic. Note the quality of the language. Note, finally, Mr. Ryan’s understanding that America’s real interests are derived from our deepest values. For most other countries, it’s just the opposite: The interests come first, and “values” are a synonym for justifications.

None of this means that Mr. Ryan is a foreign-policy crusader. He talks of a “healthy humility” about the degree to which the U.S. can “control events in other regions.”

George W. Bush, October 12, 2000:

If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us; if we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that’s why we’ve got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom.

How has that worked out? We are in our eleventh year in a war in Afghanistan which accomplished as much as it was likely to accomplish roughly ten years ago. Our military budget is twice in real terms what Ike’s was at the height of the Cold War when he warned us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Gov. Romney has proposed increasing military spending. Do you see how I might be wary of talk of humility in our foreign policy?

I completely believe in American exceptionalism but I believe in both aspects of it. Not only is the United States different from other countries and that difference is good for us and good for the world. That;s just the one aspect. Here’s the other: the things that make us different can’t be transplanted and certainly can’t be imposed by force.

I think that we should be well-wishers to the freedom and independence of all but the champion and vindicator only of our own.

17 comments… add one
  • Hello Dave,
    Respectfully, I think you’re missing a few things here.

    We’re still at war 11 years after we were attacked because of the nature of our response, not the response itself. And ‘humility’ doesn’t play well with the type of mentality we’re dealing with. It’s seen as weakness and an admission of defeat.

    We tried the opposite approach during the Clinton years, essentially ignoring steadily increasing aggression from the jihad, starting with the 1993 WTC bombing (almost certainly an Iraq- assisted operation) – and I think we’ll agree it didn’t work very well.

    I think you’re familiar with my views on the AfPak farce. After 9/11, had we ignored Afghanistan ( strategically unimportant and with hellish logistics) and picked targets much more involved in fomenting Islamist terrorism and waged proper war against them, declared by Congress, and taken the sort of steps FDR did domestically when we fought WWII , things would be very different right now. But we had a very different kind of president, and one compromised by, shall we say, some old family relationships and certain aspects of ‘family bidness’.

    Ryan has it exactly right. We fail ( or rather our leaders have failed) to realize this is an ideological war, and treat it as such. Certainly the Muslim world does, by and large if the Pew polls and the bilge coming from their mosques and media are to be believed.’

    Humility’ or simply minding our own business isn’t going to make it go away. Especially since, thanks to the appeasement of the last three administrations, the enemy is already inside the gates. And they do not mean us well.

    Iraq might have been a successful ‘Go’ move ( I assume you’re familiar with the Asian game) provided we had gone in earlier instead of waiting 15 months, sponsored an independent Kurdistan as our ally, and kept the place under strict military occupation while teaching the people our values for a number of years while using the oil to pay for it.

    And we would have made sure that all-important first election was won byour preferred candidate, not someone who was huddled up with the Persian mullahs for years.

    That’s what we did, essentially, with Germany and Japan, after kicking the living daylights out of them. It’s why we have never had to fight them again.

    Another factor of the mindset we’re dealing with is the at your feet or at your throat mentality. Make an example of one of these countries ( say, Iran) and the rest eagerly fall in line. Even with the half measures we ‘implemented’ in Iraq, remember how quickly Khaddaffi started getting co-operative after we put Saddam in a cage? Even Basher Assad was making conciliatory noises…until they realized we were talking the talk but not walking the walk.

    Peace comes from strength and from victory, Dave.

    And when you lack strength, you have neither peace nor victory. I think you’re enough of a historian to see that.

    Regards,
    Rob

  • Just to clarify…I totally agree with you that we should be well-wishers to the freedom and independence of all but the champion and vindicator only of our own.

    Where we differ is that I feel that in order to do that, we need to vanquish the poisonous ideology that threatens it. We can no more expect to live in freedom with jihad and Islamism than we could with the Nazis.

    Regards,
    Rob

  • Andy Link

    Interesting views.

    and kept the place under strict military occupation while teaching the people our values for a number of years while using the oil to pay for it.

    Easy to say, much harder to do. The Brits tried beating bad values out of wogs for over a century with decidedly mixed results.

    And we would have made sure that all-important first election was won by our preferred candidate, not someone who was huddled up with the Persian mullahs for years.

    I thought we were supposed to teach them “our values?”

    After 9/11, had we ignored Afghanistan ( strategically unimportant and with hellish logistics) and picked targets much more involved in fomenting Islamist terrorism and waged proper war against them, declared by Congress, and taken the sort of steps FDR did domestically when we fought WWII , things would be very different right now.

    What FDR did domestically? What were you saying about “our values” again?

    “Proper war?” A meaningless term.

    Where we differ is that I feel that in order to do that, we need to vanquish the poisonous ideology that threatens it. We can no more expect to live in freedom with jihad and Islamism than we could with the Nazis.

    Again, easy to say, much harder to do. How exactly does one go about vanquishing this ideology?

    It sounds to me like you propose to engage in an extended campaign of paternalistic wog-bashing in order turn them into little George Washingtons. Sounds like Don Quixote and Icarus wrapped in a bundle to me. Even assuming this strategy is sound, the US has neither the moral, economic or military capacity to carry it out.

  • Rob:

    There are different categories of strength. In addition to military strength there’s political strength, economic strength, moral strength, and intellectual strength, just to name a few.

    When you wish to make your arms stronger, you exercise your arms. When you wish to make your legs stronger, you exercise your legs. When you wish to make your heart and lungs stronger, you perform exercises that cause those organs to work.

    In my opinion we are militarily strong and politically weak. Consequently, the actions we’ve taken over the last ten years reflect that strength and weakness. We have not performed the exercises that would make us politically stronger. Indeed, we are weaker in nearly every way today than we were ten years ago.

    I am completely unconcerned with what you refer to as “the type of mentality we are dealing with”. Our military strength is so overwhelming that, given sufficient political and intellectual strength, the strength of those with that mentality is like a straw before a whirlwind.

    I am concerned, however, with our deteriorating economic, moral, and political strength. Those are perceived as weakness by those who would do us harm as surely as a weak military response would be.

  • Andy Link

    Dave,

    Your reasonableness always amazes me. You are like a zen master. I used to be like that, but haven’t been able to maintain my composure for a few years now. I don’t understand how you do it.

    Also, I nominate your response as the comment of the year – well said.

  • Andy:

    1)Actually, the Brits were relatively successful in many instances, less in others. India, Australia, The U.S., New Zealand, Canada, and many of the Caribbean republics are good examples.

    2) I find nothing inconsistent with our values in taking special steps in wartime to secure our domestic borders, investigate and deport as necessary those who were potential security risks and otherwise marshal the country’s citizens for war after a sudden attack. That includes, as far as I’m concerned the interning of the Japanese. There was no way of knowing how many spies and saboteurs were involved with that population.

    In talking with people alive at the time, FDR arguably saved a number of lives by removing Japanese-Americans to secluded locations. That was particularly true in California, where there was actually a danger of invasion had the Japanese realized how unprepared we were.

    After time was taken for some needed vetting, Japanese Americans were given the opportunity to serve and did so with distinction – but in the European Theater, not the Pacific.

    After Pearl Harbor, Japantown in downtown Los Angeles was wrecked by indignant Americans, and people of Asian descent were actually walking around wearing signs saying they were Chinese, Filipino or Korean.

    Frankly, we had more important things to be concerned with at the time, and putting up the Japanese temporarily in places like Manzanar while passions cooled and a needed vetting occurred was an intelligent use of resources and actually beneficial to the Japanese in securing their persons.

    3) A proper war? Of course there’s such a thing. And the quicker you end them, the less it costs in blood and treasure.

    And finally, the war to vanquish an ideology is here, whether you like it or not. And it’s definitely possible, since we’ve done it before.

    You can put such things off, but again, you pay interest on that installment plan in blood and treasure.

    Regards,
    Rob

  • Dave,
    You may be completely unconcerned with what I refer to as “the type of mentality we are dealing with”, but I assure you it is central to our peace and security and to ending the foggy wars you are justifiably concerned with.

    Frankly, I see that as the huge error that has kept this conflict going. It is the mentality and the ideology that we need most to be concerned with.

    I agree with you that our actions after 9/11 ( actually, going back to the Iranian hostage crisis) reflect our political weakness. And because of that, our military strength has been misused and placed in a posture of weakness as well.

    And that posture is perceived by our enemies. We’re not talking about gym workout here. Strength is the prism through which that mentality sees things, whether we like it or not.

    I’ll repeat this, because it’s central to what we’re talking about: We can no more expect to live in freedom and security with jihad and Islamism than we could with the Nazis.

    Sooner or later, we will have to deal with it. If we choose later, as I said above, such things always cost more on the installment plan. You may not find the additional price to your liking.

    Regards,
    Rob

  • TastyBits Link

    @Rob Miller


    And when you lack strength, you have neither peace nor victory. …

    You did it now.

    You apparently know nothing about the Inuit. They lack strength, but they have had peace. I am sure somebody else can provide other examples – maybe Finland or Luxembourg.

  • Andy Link

    Rob,

    Thanks for the reply.

    1. All the countries you list with the exception of India were successes because the native people were killed or pushed out of the way to make room for the permanent settlement of transplanted Brits (and others). That isn’t teaching the locals “our values” in order to make them better.

    2. We will have to agree to disagree on that – locking up entire classes of US citizens through executive order to mitigate a threat that didn’t really exist in clear contravention of the US Constitution is not something I could ever support. We rightly criticize other nations who take similar actions, regardless of the justifications given.

    3. War is, by definition, the use of organized violence toward political ends. “Proper” is meaningless in this context. I think you are actually talking about “warfare” which is more about the tactics than the strategic underpinnings of the use of military force. Which brings me to:

    And finally, the war to vanquish an ideology is here, whether you like it or not. And it’s definitely possible, since we’ve done it before.

    It sounds like you are using “war” in a similar way to the “war on drugs” or the “war on terror.” Those aren’t actually “wars” since military force is not suited to addressing those problems. Nor is the military instrument historically very effective at “vanquishing” an ideology. It would be interesting to see your examples of where the US has done this before.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Rob Miller

    3) A proper war? Of course there’s such a thing. And the quicker you end them, the less it costs in blood and treasure.

    I am being serious. I disagree with this. Victory is achieved when the enemy’s will to fight/resist is broken. By the time Japan and Germany surrendered, the military and civilian population were ready to surrender. The fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo were brutal, but war is brutal.

    In Iraq, the quick take-down meant trying to control an unbroken population, and it was never going to succeed. The Iraqi army, police, and civil workers should have been guaranteed a paycheck starting with the previous two weeks. There would have been corruption, but we got the corruption and chaos.

    I disagree about the elections. The US should have put an Iraqi in charge, and the bastard should be our bastard. The army could have been restructured, and military leaders could eventually take control of the country. One can like it or not, but it is effective.

    I realize that my views are well out of the mainstream, and it is another subject I try to avoid.

  • Hello Tasty Bits D’accord on Iraq. We should also have supported the Kurd’s bid for Kurdistan. They were our only real allies in that mess.

    As for Inuit, they had one supreme advantage we lack – nothing to steal, and a relatively undesirable neighborhood.

    Andy

    Likewise, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

    1) In Canada, New Zealand and many of the Caribbean republics the native population was not pushed aside or killed, but simply ruled over. Canada in particular had few Indian wars, and while there were Maori wars in New Zealand, once the disputes, essentially about territory, were settled, things were actually pretty amicable.

    If you look, you will find that many of the Brit’s failures in instituting democratic institutions and the rule of law were in countries with a significant Muslim population. There are perfectly good reasons for this, but that’s another discussion.

    2) The U.S. has always abrogated certain freedoms in a common sense way during wartime..at least wars that were declared. It has never lasted once victory was achieved. Our history with undeclared wars like Vietnam, Korea, AfPak and Iraq have been, shall we say, different.

    3. Contrary to what you might think, I used to hurl every time Dubbya used that turgid phrase ‘War on Terror’. It was like FDR telling people we were in a war against airplanes after Pearl Harbor.

    Terrorism is merely a tactic, and al-Qaeda merely some of jihad’s subcontractors.

    We are actually in a war against Islamic based fascism (which is actually quite different than being in a war with all Muslims). There are perhaps a half dozen countries or so that actively support, fund and abet it. We will continue to be in what amounts to a pointless war of attrition until we admit it and do something about it.

    Regards,
    Rob

  • Andy Link

    Rob,

    1. Ok, but in all those cases the territories were colonized. That is not the same thing as a military occupation to teach the locals “our values” presumably at the point of a gun. Unless we are there to stay, it will notwork (and it hasn’t worked over the last 10 years). If there’s one theory that’s been destroyed by experience over the last ten years, it’s the theory that we can change and build societies through armed nation-building.

    2. We probably disagree on what is “commonsense.” To me, rounding up all members of an ethnic group, depriving them of their property and livelihoods, all without due process, is not “commonsense.”

    We are actually in a war against Islamic based fascism

    War is a social activity between organized political communities. By contrast, war against “Islamic based fascism” (whatever that is) is not a coherent idea, nor is any “war” against an ideology, religion, or pattern of thought. Attempts to conduct such wars usually end in failure….

  • Icepick Link

    They lack strength, but they have had peace.

    That’s because no one wanted anything they had until the boundaries were all settled.

    I am sure somebody else can provide other examples – maybe Finland or Luxembourg.

    Finland has been in several wars with the (now defunct) Soviet Union in the last 100 years. Not so peaceful. And the Fins put up some fierce resistance. (Check out Finnish Snipers for fun – White Death was particularly badass. Not only not so peaceful, but given their size they were extremely tough.)

    Luxembourg has had peace only when the major powers haven’t been marching back and forth through it to get to each other. Besides, it isn’t like they could field a terribly impressive force, not even compared to the Netherlands or Belgium (should those nations force the issue) much less Germany or France.

    And the peace in Europe for the last 67 years has been bought and paid for by others.

  • Icepick Link

    Nor is the military instrument historically very effective at “vanquishing” an ideology. It would be interesting to see your examples of where the US has done this before.

    Seriously? It worked pretty well with National Socialism in Germany, Fascism in Italy and Japan’s flavor of imperialism, all around 1945. (Yes, we had help, but the point stands.) Not saying it will work here, there or anywhere, am saying that it can work. (Current Americans aren’t willing to kill the requisite numbers to make it work.)

  • TastyBits Link

    @Icepick

    Finland or Luxembourg

    It was a callback to an earlier thread where I was schooled. I was passing on what I learned, but you are right.

  • It worked pretty well with National Socialism in Germany, Fascism in Italy and Japan’s flavor of imperialism

    I think we were fighting the Germans, the Italians, and the Japanese. I don’t recall drawing lines and only attacking Nazis, Fascists, and Japanese imperialists.

  • Andy Link

    Seriously? It worked pretty well with National Socialism in Germany, Fascism in Italy and Japan’s flavor of imperialism, all around 1945.

    Dave’s exactly right – we went to war against nation-states, not ideology. We didn’t, for example, go to war with Spain.

Leave a Comment