Skip to comments.The Next Intervention
Posted on 08/06/2007 1:26:20 PM PDT by neverdem
Is the United States out of the intervention business for a while? With two difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a divided public, the conventional answer is that it will be a long time before any American president, Democrat or Republican, again dispatches troops into conflict overseas.
As usual, though, the conventional wisdom is almost certainly wrong. Throughout its history, America has frequently used force on behalf of principles and tangible interests, and that is not likely to change. Despite the problems and setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, America remains the world's dominant military power, spends half a trillion dollars a year on defense and faces no peer strong enough to deter it if it chooses to act. Between 1989 and 2001, Americans intervened with significant military force on eight occasions -- once every 18 months. This interventionism has been bipartisan -- four interventions were launched by Republican administrations, four by Democratic administrations. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the situations in which an American president may have to use force have only grown, whether it is to respond to terrorist threats, to curb weapons proliferation, to prevent genocide or other human rights violations, or to respond to more traditional forms of aggression.
To sustain broad, bipartisan support for interventions requires that we rebuild a domestic consensus on a fundamental but elusive issue: the question of legitimacy. That consensus has been one of the casualties of the Iraq war. Many of President Bush's critics, at home and abroad, argued that the war lacked legitimacy since it was not a clear instance of self-defense nor received the sanction of the U.N. Security Council. Many of Bush's supporters respond that it is not the opinions of other nations or institutions that provide legitimacy but the substance of the action itself. Toppling Saddam Hussein...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Therefore, you simply do what is right and then spend your efforts communicating that to the American people in very strong terms.
One failing our leadership has had, IMHO, has been spinning wheels trying to form some consensus or understanding with a group of people (the dems) who have no desire whatsoever on anything but your political destruction, and not enough energy simply communicating the correctness of the actions to the American people directly.
As regards the general WOT in going into Afghanistan and Iraq, the actions were correct and spot on. But when wheels spin in trying to bring the dems "around" the perception of uncertainty is nourished when instead we should have plowed on, full speed ahead, and simply communicated the need for it direct to the American people as often as necessary. With documentaries and footage on all the good that is occurring and progress being made that the left, the Dems, and the MSM will not report.
Fascinating history lessons in the book. He is right that it's good to get agreements among democracies; however, a "legitimate" war may sometimes not allow for much agreement. Germany and France didn't think too highly about the Iraq war (though they're softening their tone since 2 quasi-conservatives got elected).
If a Dem wins the 2008 election, the next intervention will be here, in the USA. Nothing more needs to be said.
An Exit Policy .....on Draining the Middle East SWAMP.....NOW That’s a JOKE!!!
Kosovo? Kosovo, to the contrary, was a signal failure of the sort of international diplomacy that is a necessary precursor to the sort of sanction the authors are recommending. There was no consensus even among NATO nations until after the bombing started (which, incidentally, was criticized at the time with certain validity as a "unilateral" step on the part of the United States).
This won't do at all. The truth of the matter is that he who pays, plays, and that until NATO or the EU can pull their military weight independently their collective opinion in the matter will always be discounted, and deservedly so. "We'll tell you how we want to dispose of your assets" is the position of the internationalists in this. Thank you, but no.
And we didn't start this WAR either....see this:
Thanks for the link.
Bill Clinton had "military" interventions?! Let us get real guys, the man ordered some air and missiles strikes and never had the heart, the brain, the soul and the will to launch a war against our islamic terrorists enemies or Iraq. He was too much of a politician and not a leader and hence he could not go to war, because wars by nature are unpopular and Clinton lived all his life to be popular, well he ended up as the NOBODY, DO NOTHING President who will only be remembered by his sexaul realtion with "that woman".
From time to time, Ill ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
They didn't, although the bad guys did declare war on us, the same way Osama did, verbally, and also symbolically by cutting down the flagpole in front our legation. That was the First Barbary War, during Jefferson's administrations. During Monroe's administration, Congress was again asked for permission, but not to declare war, it being understood that a state of war already existed, courtesy of the Musslemen.
In that way, it's very analogous to both the first and second Persian Gulf Wars, and the war in the Afghan theater. The War existed. the President asked permission to fight it, at a time and place of his choosing.
Thanks for the update!
You will never achieve consensus to go to war with your enemy from your enemy.
Ping. Really excellent summary of recent events in Iraq, and the related U.S. politics.
Oops, sorry folks. I posted in the wrong window.
America has frequently used force on behalf of principles and tangible interests, and that is not likely to change. Despite the problems and setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, America remains the world's dominant military power, spends half a trillion dollars a year on defense and faces no peer strong enough to deter it if it chooses to act. Between 1989 and 2001, Americans intervened with significant military force on eight occasions -- once every 18 months. This interventionism has been bipartisan -- four interventions were launched by Republican administrations, four by Democratic administrations. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the situations in which an American president may have to use force have only grown, whether it is to respond to terrorist threats, to curb weapons proliferation, to prevent genocide or other human rights violations, or to respond to more traditional forms of aggression. To sustain broad, bipartisan support for interventions requires that we rebuild a domestic consensus on a fundamental but elusive issue: the question of legitimacy. That consensus has been one of the casualties of the Iraq war.Simply done -- the media takes care of it, and makes sure that the four launched by Democratic administrations (singular -- media golden boy Slippery Bill launched all four of them) are considered legitimate (I'm sure you all remember the newsmagazine cover with the smiling soldier and crowd in Haiti, with the glowing headline) and the four launched by either Bush (starting with, hmm, Panama?) are not considered legitimate. And NPR worked tirelessly to reinforce the partisan biases of its drones who listen to nothing else.
And who is going to carry this message to the American people for you? Not the Politically Corrupted media. They made VERY sure to either not cover, minimally cover or cover hostilly anything the President did to get his message out on Iraq. It not the message people, it the medium. The Politically Corrupt media in the late 1990s gave up even the illusion of objectivity. Take for example the month of June. Bush did 3 hours a week on Iraq. What did the "News" media report about these Iraq presenations? A Reporter's stupid question about Libby! They simply tuned out all the facts on Iraq to fixate on their own fantasy political axe. The solution here is NOT to mindlessly squeal the "Bully Pulpit" dogmas of the 1970s ers Political Sience Major but to grasp the reality that the Politically Corrupted "News Media" cannot be saved but must be replaced. The next Republican President should simply limit access of the Junk Media to responding to the nonsense spewed by his foes (which I agree this President should of done more forcemably) and develop talk radio, the blogs etc as a counter wieght to their partisan extermism. This ALSO means Republican Congressional Leaders have to get off their dead butts and HELP him. The Republican Congress spent the last 7 years hiding from the media and letting Bush twist in the wind. The ONLY time you ever saw a Republican out there was when they were attacking the President. The President has GOT to have a team. Conservatives cannot sit on their butts whining for someone to come fix everything for them. They have to get off their butts and HELP get the message out.
Against whom? The Northern Alliance was the legitimate Govt of Afganistan. Cannot declare war either on Al Qeda or the Taliban? Had no need to against Saddam. He was in violation of the 1991 cease fire. The Senate was being run by the Democrats at the time remember? THEY demanding the Authorization of Force resolution so they could show "we are fighting the war too".
I believe the president had the chance to do this...sadly, it is one of his major failings IMHO that he was not able to do so.
Reagan did not have a media that censored or ignored what he said.
Reagan had a Congressional Republican Caucus that left him to carry the message on his own to the People.
Bush has both.
Reagan DID NOT have a majority in both houses of congress at anytime, and yet he still carried the day and the majorities arrayed against him dared not try and derail him presicely because he was so effective at communicating to the voting public.
The fact is, it was Reagan's ability and willingness to communicate that carried the day. I am simply saying we could use such communication now.
Thanks for the ping.
Also, Reagan had a Republican Senate for the first six years, but never had a Republican House.