QandO
Questions and Observations| « Weekly QandO roundup | Main | Kerry's non-plan for Iraq » |
|
August 08, 2004 Is military action always the worst choice? The fact that the "European" approach is having no effect in Iran and Korea somehow doesn't surprise me: American intelligence officials and outside nuclear experts have concluded that the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts with European and Asian allies have barely slowed the nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea over the past year, and that both have made significant progress. Here we are, working multilaterally with our "allies" as demanded by the left, and the result? Zip, nada, zero -- nothing. As one might expect of paranoid totalitarian regimes, diplomacy has failed and any previous agreements are being roundly ignored. My question then, since this is Questions and Observations, is if we understand the pathology of these sorts of regimes, why is the left so insistant that it was possible to solve the Iraq problem with diplomacy? Given the history of totalitarian regimes, I'd love to see just one historical example of where diplomacy was successful in stopping a single one of them from creating whatever sorts of weapons they felt were necessary to their survival. Just one. Perhaps ... perhaps .... these sorts of problems with these sorts of nations can't be solved in that manner. And if that is true, then why are we wasting our time with "multilateral diplomacy" if history continues to tell us (and it does seem to make that point to those who'll heed it) that it doesn't work with these sorts of rogue countries? I can only guess that its because we are of the opinion that all chances of a peaceful resolution must be exhausted before we pursue another course. But there's a downside to that. As Europe worked at exhausting its ineffective diplomatic course with Germany prior to WWII it allowed Germany the time and space to complete its rearmarment and launch a war. In the 20/20 hindsight of history, it is now obvious the course chosen by Europe was the wrong course. It made more sense to stop Germany before it too powerful to be stopped rather than wait until it had built its power and launched an attack. Understanding the results of that historical course of action ended in catastrophe its hard to imagine why we are today seemingly committed to doing the same thing where nuclear weapons are concerned. Do we continue to press for a "civilized" solution to sooth our misguided belief that military action (or at least the threat of it) is always the worst choice? Do we understand the stakes here? They are too high and the results of waiting has the possibility of being much more catastrophic if these nations are allowed to build and stockpile nuclear weapons. When looking at the possibility (or probability) of nuclear weapons in the hands of paranoid totalitarian states can we afford the luxury of playing any sort of ineffective diplomatic game? I'd welcome your thoughts and opinions on this subject. I think mine are pretty obvious. |
But, but...Kerry can do diplomacy BETTER...it's Bush's fault, while he was running around Texas acting as Governor....uh, he didn't say anything about North Korea, then...and, and..waita minute...uh..this administration has made everyone hate us...yeah, that's the ticket.
History. Learn it or repeat it.
Posted by: themarkman at August 8, 2004 12:57 PM
Prehaps we should paraphase Churchill.
"Military action is the worst choice except when compared to all the other choices."
Posted by: Frank Castle at August 8, 2004 02:30 PM
Heh ... well, Frank, in this case I'd agree with the paraphrase.
Posted by: McQ at August 8, 2004 03:07 PM
preemptively, of course.
with thousands of guided missiles
launched from the sea and the air
that would neutralize all of NOKO's artillery on the DMZ within 1 hour.
Posted by: dan at August 8, 2004 03:25 PM
Given the history of totalitarian regimes, I'd love to see just one historical example of where diplomacy was successful in stopping a single one of them from creating whatever sorts of weapons they felt were necessary to their survival
Libya :) Of course, they had some extra special motivation....
The left's idea of diplomacy is worthless, because they never entertain the idea of force backing it up. That's not diplomacy, that's groveling.
Posted by: shark at August 8, 2004 03:34 PM
My position on Kerry and Iraq is this: If he's elected President (heaven forbid) and his "superior" diplomacy cannot bring in the relief he has promised from France, Germany, NATO and the UN, I want him impeached. Period.
Posted by: shark at August 8, 2004 03:36 PM
Heh ... I figured someone would mention Lybia. I considered Lybia, but then I figured that the threat of force (actually the display or use of force) against Iraq is what converted Lybia ... not diplomacy.
Posted by: McQ at August 8, 2004 03:38 PM
Well, McQ, I'd consider it the whole Saying "Nice Doggie" While Look for a Big Stick Diplomacy thing.
Posted by: Sharp as a Marbl at August 8, 2004 08:17 PM
Holy Cow!
Kerry speaks here!
Posted by: themarkman at August 8, 2004 09:52 PM
Isn't there already a new Iraqi Constitution? Did Kerry get the memo? Or has the objective mainstream media not reported it yet?
Posted by: Frank Castle at August 8, 2004 10:38 PM
So, Kerry's bold initiative is to call for NATO involvement the day after the first NATO officers arrived in Iraq for the start of their training mission?
It seems as if Kerry has missed quite a few memos.
Posted by: Lance Jonn Romanoff at August 8, 2004 11:17 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, and even I'm not I'm sure you'll find some sort of distinction or caveat, but didn't we bring down the Soviet empire with a combination of containment and diplomacy, with little in the way of pre-emptive war that actually succeeded? That's why it's referred to as the "Cold" War, isn't it? We negotiated a number of arms reductions, and hell, negotiated nuclear missiles out of Cuba. Sure, we leveraged the use of force, but we always do. It's when we have confused the leverage with the goal that we've clusterfucked ourselves, to wit: Vietnam & Iraq.
Posted by: Bloggerhead at August 8, 2004 11:28 PM
Bloggerhead, what enabled the containment and diplomacy to work was the ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation, combined with the use of force by proxy. Detente didn't really work. Had we stayed on that course, we might still be mired in the cold war.
Add to that the fact that we armed the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, enabling them to keep the Soviet Union in a costly war to prop up their guy there. Let's not forget the military aid we provided to the factions opposing Communism in Central America. And the military build-up in the 80s that the Soviet Union just couldn't keep up with.
Posted by: Steverino at August 9, 2004 12:36 AM
Bloggerhead,
I believe that many commentators such as Natan Sharansky and Vaclav Havel who used to be behind the Iron Curtain say that the beginning of the fall of the Soviet Union was Reagan's invasion of Grenada. (I note that you left out that little military excursion.) That was the first actual rollback of communism and showed that Reagan was willing to use force. In other words, Reagan's diplomacy was backed up by a credible threat--credible because it was actually used.
Posted by: Rory Daulton at August 9, 2004 07:46 AM
"It's when we have confused the leverage with the goal that we've clusterfucked ourselves, to wit: Vietnam & Iraq."
Vietnam: a "clusterfuck" because we had politicians controlling military strategy and even tactics. Civilians should give the military its goals and then get out of the way.
Iraq: Last I checked, it wasn't remotely close to a "clusterfuck". Mission accomplished (removal of Saddam), secondary mission in progress (install democracy) but looking much better than any leftist predicted (They aren't ready for/aren't capable of/don't want democracy."), all for losses that don't even register on the Vietnam scale or even most SINGLE BATTLES of WWII.
In terms of blood spent, historically, that's ultra-cheap. Individually, of course, each loss is tragic, but thinking in individual terms NEVER wins wars (witness WWII, Korea, WWI, even Gulf War I, which was a micro-war at best).
If that's a "clusterfuck", I must have been mis-interpreting that word all these years and will proceed to use as a compliment from now on!
Posted by: Deoxy at August 10, 2004 05:08 PM