This post was motivated by something in comments:
We have always been way too ready to use the military. Look at the list of US military interventions. If the neocons had been in charge, we would likely have been at war with Iran, and have troops on the ground in Libya. Syria too, or maybe just two out of three as even they might realize we can overcommit our troops.
First, I think the case that we’re too willing to use military force is difficult to make prior to about 1990. As the comment suggests, look at the list of instances of our refraining to use military force up to that time. It certainly doesn’t characterize our behavior prior to 1941. The urge to “give war a chance” is a relatively recent one and one more a product of internationalism or Wilsonianism (variously construed) than of warmongering. “Always” is not synonymous with “as long as I can remember”.
With respect to Libya, which course of action would have been most consistent with American interests?
- Don’t intervene.
- Remove Qaddafi, place enough troops in the country to maintain order.
- Remove Qaddafi and let the chips fall where they may.
I think it’s #1 and I think that what was actually done was an expression of moral cowardice. That’s the problem with our leaders today. Neither willing to take the political heat for not intervening if it’s not in our interest to do so nor willing to take the political heat when war proves difficult and messy.
The problem with #2 is that “enough troops” is a lot more than anybody can possibly fathom, and there is always the notion that it will be “over by Christmas”.
In Libya, #1 was the correct answer for the US and Europe. For the US, Gaddafi was an irreplaceable intelligence resource, and Libya was a relatively stable country. For Europe, paying off Gaddafi to keep refugees from heading north probably looks like a bargain at any price.
The Libyan intervention came because President Obama did not want to be the turd in the European’s punch bowl. The only cries for intervention were from the usual suspects, and I have no doubt they would invade Antarctica if somebody informed them that penguins did not have a democratic society.
The Iraq invasion was a once in a multi-generational lifetime opportunity, and they blew it. There will be no unprovoked large scale military ground actions for a long time. There are several weasel words in there. Granada is not Iran. Iran kidnapping US citizens hiking there is not provoked. Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz is. Sending missiles to take out N. Korean launch pads is not a ground action. The First Gulf War would not fit the definition, but the Libya bombing would not either.
President Obama is probably at the edge of what he can militarily do in Syria with the existing political climate. Sending ground troops into the theater, and then, announcing an invasion, is impossible. It would take weeks, if not months, to build up the ground forces and equipment needed, and it would be a little difficult to hide.
The problem with any analysis that includes alternate history – what if we didn’t attack Libya – is that it tacitly assumes facts not in evidence. It assumes Gaddafi would have survived his impending civil war. It assumes refugees would not have flowed from events already under way by the time we went all bomb-y on them. I don’t think either assumption is a gimme.
There was no civil war. There was a coup attempt engineered by somebody.
I never tracked down the sources, but I read somewhere that the reason the Europeans went after him was over the refugee issue. In one form or another, they had been funneling money to him to stop the flow of African immigrants north into Europe, and the problem was over the amount of money he was being paid.
I have never had the time nor inclination to vet this, and I have never tried to track down who actually was behind the various coup attempt over the last 10 years.
We cannot question the past because it could have prevented a worse scenario from occurring. I am willing to play the game.
If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam would have been able to restart his nuclear program, and within 5 years, he would have built a nuclear bomb. He would have used it to obliterate Israel first, and then, he would have re-taken Kuwait and subjugated Saudi Arabia.
I can do this all day long. The Bush tax cuts saved the US from financial ruin. The waterboarding saved the world from WW3. I can keep going.
I really, really like this game.
A good example is North Korea, I’ve read some estimates that 3.5 million people starved in the 90’s and this is poised to reoccur. When Kim rattles his missiles, it usually means economic distress and he wants sanctions lifted or economic aid.
Well how about we invade, depose him and avert the humanitarian catastrophe about to occur?
1. The North Koreans will fight us, not welcome us.
2. Things will get worse, not better for them. At least in the short run.
3. It’s none of our damn business. And we’re broke anyway.
4. When I say “our” I mean our elected officials sworn to uphold the constitution. Nothing in there about foreign nation building.
I’ll go with #1, because Qadaffi surrendered his WMD (mainly nerve gas) and was quite willing to behave. By working to kill him, we showed once you’re in the bad book you will be destroyed no matter how sincerely you repent and make amends.
Now, whether he survives, Libya partitions itself, becomes a safe haven for street mimes is another issue.
In the past, we were quite willing to bombard Japanese and Korean fortifications prior to trade talks, pick fights with Spain over Cuba and the Philippines and Mexico over Texas and the West Coast. Plus ride British coat tails after the Opium Wars to gain Chinese trade concessions. I will exclude the Punitive expedition in Mexico since Pancho Villa shot first.
I can’t tell from that comment whether you support or reject the analysis of contingencies. Iraq was invaded and Qaddafi brought down in Libya on the basis of contingencies. If you’re against that, you should be against it before the fact as well as after.
“First, I think the case that we’re too willing to use military force is difficult to make prior to about 1990.”
All of our interventions in Latin America were actually merited? Heaven knows there was no lack of public support for the Spanish American War.
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested….. Smedley Butler
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in… Smedley Butler
I also think #1 was the best option, but when the opposition wants maximal intervention all of the time, failing to take some action leads to charges of being too weak. Look at China now. Because Obama is not bombing China, or something, he is being called too weak. I don’t see how you can fail to acknowledge that our domestic politics influences foreign policy.
Steve
Not only do I acknowledge it—I think it’s dispositive. I think the only consideration in most of our interventions is either through a desire for short-term political gain or worry about short-term political loss
For those unaware, Smedley Butler is a Marine Corps Major General, and he is one of the heros. Interestingly, the Marine Corps forgets to mention that after he retired, he became a frickin’ communist. (In the Marine Corps, bad mouthing your country makes you the lowest of the low, and that makes you a communist by association.)
The Latin American references are to military interventions conducted at the behest of US companies to advance or protect their business interests. They are known as the Banana Wars because of the fruit companies they were meant to protect.
@steve
The US public was not clamoring for the government to send the Marines into Nicaragua or anywhere else on the list. As usual, you need to dig deep into the annals of US history and set the stage just right. These would be better examples of Corporations Gone Wild, and they would document that it was not just a recent or rare phenomenon.
Of course, you could not sh*t on your fellow Americans to feel morally superior. Newsflash: When history is re-written, those who thought they were morally superior become no different than those history has condemned. If the future decides that this was a bloodthirsty era, your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will think of you as a war monger.
TB- Far as I can tell the public rarely if ever initiated the desire for intervention. Some coalition of rich people (includes corporations) or party leaders always stirred the pot, but the American public always went along with it. Show me the mass movement to kick out leaders because they were too aggressive in deploying our troops. Doe snot exist. The fact remains that we have deployed our troops often, and rarely for what could be termed national interests or defense.
Steve
@steve
Again, you must waterboard the facts to get the conclusion you desire, but if your standard is anything one does not actively denounce must be actively supported, I can play that game too.
I had a longer screed, but the short version is be careful about the belief system you profess. One day you will be judged by it, and unless you have tested it with a sledgehammer, it is most likely that you will be a miserable failure. Today’s liberal college professors are quickly learning that by their standards they are not really liberals, and even as they try to confess their guilt, some are still fascists attempting to oppress the powerless.
Well, not all interventions are equal. It’s pretty easy for us to intervene with airpower or with special & covert operations. An invasion is another matter. I don’t see another one of those happening soon unless it’s forced upon us (ie. North Korea attacks South Korea). Our forces are not prepared for another OIF much less a Desert Storm and the American people currently have a healthy skepticism toward large land wars of choice.