When did the alternative to isolationism become military intervention? Isn’t there some other kind of engagement than military?
When did the alternative to isolationism become military intervention? Isn’t there some other kind of engagement than military?
The introduction of a ‘red line’ stick is one reason for a military intervention. When a leader throws out such a threat he narrows down other less invasive options, as anything less dramatic is assumed to be ‘backing down.’ Even now, Syria is broadcasting that Obama consulting with the Congress, after his unilateral talk, is a sign of the great United States being a coward of sorts.
1992.
Here is a compelling summation dealing with a point by point rebuttal of the U.S. ‘s case for war with Syria.
It commenses with a basic skepticism in the body count tallied by the Obama people. Others have said it was anywhere from 350, by the UK, to 502 counted by a human right’s organization, rather than the precise 1429 asserted by Kerry. Other disputed claims deal with the chemical chain of custody, whether or not false positives could be in play, as well as a confusion of who was behind the delivery system, as both the rebels and governement had access to chemical weapons, as well as the ability to devise crude delivery systems.
Also, Obama’s assuaged the waiting game by saying an attack on Syria was not a “time-sensitve” matter. However, the military has begged to differ, referring to the cost of having naval vessels on hold indefinitely waiting for the President’s call, as well as the fatigue accrued by people on alert (like a doctor having more than a 24hr on-call duty) — mistakes are more likely to be made, the longer inaction and indecision reigns.
When did the alternative to isolationism become military intervention? Isn’t there some other kind of engagement than military?
Not sure about the answers to those questions. The question that troubles me most is, “When did Dennis Rodman become the USA’s most effective diplomat?”
It was the question I was alluding to recently. This is all often cast as diplomacy (code for isolationism) vs military. That seems Neanderthal to me.
I’m no foreign policy expert, but it seems to me that diplomacy with the implicit backing of military capacity is more like it. Its a synergistic approach.
I know this is the third bite I take at this issue but my mind is still boggled that the supposed leader of the free world made a mistake that some 28 year old negotiating their first M&A deal might make. Optionality has value. In fact, optionality may be the ultimate value in a negotiation. No red lines until options have dwindled to none.
Simpler: from the line in the Godfather when the Don slaps his idiot son in the face, Sonny, and says, “never let your enemies know what you are thinking.”
I guess Obama was too busy organizing communities and voting present.
“When did Dennis Rodman become the USA’s most effective diplomat?â€
Marketing. There seems to be a void in that arena right now. Just about anyone could fill it…….
So, that was the “new world order” we heard so much about?
Drew,
I really like that Godfather line! Gotta remember that one for future reference.
Dave,
Yep. That’s about the time the US no longer cared about strategic blowback and became overly concerned with American “credibility” and “leadership.” It’s about the time we declared the Cold War “over” and then proceeded to kick Russia in the balls at every opportunity, etc. etc. etc.
There sure as hell is a third alternative–those successfully tried at Munich in 1938 and Yalta in 1945.
1980 or 1991. Either with the Reagan build up, in many ways the rebuilding , of the military after Vietnam, or the victory of the Gulf War. We lead and it was easy. The blowback came so much later it was never connected to the event. (Reagan gets a bonus for arming and training the jihadists, not worrying about the consequences.)
Query- Does the concept of blowback even exist in some policy circles? I remember Ron Paul pointing out that it wasnt especially surprising that we would be attacked some day by someone from the Middle East given our constant meddling. This was met with total derision by a lot of people.
Steve
Kerry’s comment today is a great example of the dysfunction in American military policy since 1992. Consider this revealing comment from the testimony today:
Of course the general doesn’t want to speak to that, because he knows Sec. Kerry is full of shit. The idea that one side gets to unilaterally decide whether a military “action” is or isn’t a “war” is about the biggest bunch of crap I’ve ever heard. That it comes from the mouth of a decorated combat veteran only tells me that Kerry suffers from the same disease (whatever it is) as McCain. Is there something in the water?
The enemy ALWAYS gets a vote and so does the enemy’s patron(s), who we consistently ignore or threaten. Kerry doesn’t seem to realize it, but he’s making a gamble – he’s betting the Syrians or the Iranians or Russians won’t turn this into an actual “war.” I think the odds are that he’s probably right, but it’s a huge gamble nonetheless that will bring unknown consequences down the road. We can’t expect keep telling the Russians, “Okay, now here’s what you’ve got to do next – here’s some more shit for your face.”
I picked 1992 because that’s when this whole mess really took off. Once we won the Cold war our political class started in earnest down the road to the delusion that “limited” military action is consequence-free. We are too accustomed to the asymmetry of our military and economic power and the assumption that no one will challenge us is cemented into the DC group-think that passes for strategic thinking. If this fantastical thinking continues then eventually a lot of good people are going to die. Some adversary will decide that our “time-limited, scope-limited military action” is an actual war and not merely a symbolic demonstration of US “leadership” or “credibility.”