From Robert McFarlane, WSJ:
A profoundly important point is being missed in the campaign debate over which candidate was right on Iraq. In 2006, when conditions on the ground were trending downward and a decision was required either to continue the struggle or to cut our losses, Barack Obama stated that the proposed deployment of more forces, the “surge,” was doomed to failure and instead called for a phased withdrawal of all forces within a defined period.
In short, Sen. Obama was willing to lose. It was an astonishing display of ignorance to be so cavalier about defeat, almost as if losing a war was tantamount to losing a set of tennis — something without lasting consequence.
I recall very vividly April 30, 1975, the day we acknowledged defeat in the Vietnam War — the day Ambassador Graham Martin and others were evacuated ignominiously from the roof of our embassy in Saigon. Only later did it become clear how damaging that defeat was.
There were consequences for all nations, especially small states who are vulnerable to great-power pressures. In the late 1970s it contributed to a greater Russian willingness to take risks and a more aggressive Soviet foreign policy. Indeed, in the years immediately following our defeat in Vietnam, an emboldened Soviet Union established a dominant influence in Angola, Ethiopia, South Yemen, Mozambique, Nicaragua and ultimately invaded Afghanistan with 100,000 troops.
Our loss also lessened our willingness to criticize the Soviet Union and thereby undermined the struggles of oppressed minorities inside that totalitarian state.
— Sure. But what about saving energy by wearing sweaters? You act as though Jimmy Carter did nothing! —
Further, losing a war also has a profound effect on the thinking within our military concerning how it was led, restricted, or abused in wartime. Painful reflection on a loss penetrates every level of the military and conditions its future relationship with civilian leaders — as it surely did in the wake of the Vietnam War. Specifically, it led to the adoption, at military urging, of the Weinberger Doctrine, which asserted stringent criteria to be met in the future before any resort to the use of military force. These criteria included not committing forces to combat unless it was vital to our national interest, we had clearly defined political and military objectives, and unless the engagement had the support of the American people and Congress — and then only as a last resort.
Allies and adversaries could see that these criteria were virtually impossible to fulfill, thus worrying the former and encouraging the latter.
[my emphasis]
And there is the nut of the argument, simply put: attaching public conditions to those instances when the US shall be “allowed” to use force (always already a last resort) is a mistake, one that provides potential enemies with a bloodless way to defeat us: simply play to the sympathies of the knee-jerk anti-war crowd, stoke partisan animus, and recruit useful idiots to spread your propaganda — effectively hamstringing the ability of the US and its military to react quickly to situations that may otherwise spiral out of control.
Which is not to say the US public shouldn’t have a say in the matter; just that their say cannot be the final say, given that they will never be privy to the information available to the CiC and Congress.
Continues McFarlane:
Losing a war also affects our body politic. Americans have a low tolerance for foreign wars; losing one only reinforces their inclination to avoid foreign involvement and focus on matters here at home. Now is such a time. Yet can you imagine how much worse our political stability would be today — faced with the financial and housing crises — if we were also coming home from losing a war?
Consideration of these costs raises the question of whether we are forever bound to continue suffering losses if it becomes clear that we aren’t winning. Considering the family of threats we face today, the question is specious. Notwithstanding the hubris and intelligence failure regarding Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program, which motivated our launching the Iraq war in the first place, and our failure to plan for the likely contingency of an insurgency arising, it is difficult to imagine circumstances anywhere in the world today where the U.S. military cannot prevail if properly employed.
This is not at all to say that we should be frivolous toward using military force — quite the contrary. We are entering a time requiring consummate judgment and careful deliberation toward how to resolve the panoply of challenges before us. Indeed these challenges put a very high premium on coordinating the use of our political and economic resources with allies and avoiding war wherever possible.
The next president will enter office with the war in Iraq winding down but with the conflict in Afghanistan requiring urgent, focused attention. The stakes engaged there go well beyond restoring order in that country alone. How we emerge from Afghanistan will go far toward determining our ability to prevail in the global war against radical Islam, our ability to limit nuclear proliferation, and to bring order and the hope for a brighter future to the almost two billion people in South and Central Asia. These are issues of profound importance to the future security of our nation and our citizens. Losing is not an option, and no sensible leader should entertain the thought that it is.
And, to add a more pointed to conclusion to the one offered by McFarlane, no sensible leader should ever consider agitating for a loss anything other than an unpatriotic strategy for winning an election — regardless of how convinced s/he is that such a loss, and subsequent rise to power of one who advocated for it, would serve the Greater Good.
Listen, Democrats have no interest whatsoever in losing a war. From what I’ve observed, they are nothing short of ruthless in their campaigns against the enemy and will resort to scorched earth tactics if necessary. I have every bit of faith that they’ll wage relentless war against their enemies: Republicans. Terrorists and despots? “Let’s talk.”
If Obama could organize a Big World Hug, I think he’d feel like we have less enemies which in turn would free up his military for the purpose of keeping his lowly subjects in line. That’s all he’s sayin’.
I think that even if things weren’t at the point they are now, with a strong likelihood of success in Iraq no matter what the Democrats do, that were Obama to become president, he would have suddenly discovered that there were “new facts that only a president is privy to” that meant we had to continue the fight, but that we would get out “real soon.” Plus, the pressure would’ve been off because a Democrat president is allowed to “clean up after the Republican’s mistakes.”
Perhaps I’m incredibly naive, though.
In any case, though, people used to pretty much go along with decisions on war after they had been made, accepting the fact that we were in it and the job was now to win. During and after the Viet Nam era, not so much.
A few too many “thoughs.”
The Democrats have been trying to relive their near-orgasmic ecstasy of the Saigon Embassy roof episode for more than 30 years.
The New York Times seems to disagree with you on that, Jeff.
Whether to use US Military Power is too importand to allow just the Congress or US citizens decide. We need allies and an International Test to decide whether to fight or lose a war.
Well, I screwed up again because I didn’t read close enough to see part of my point had already been made in the text. I plead stupidity.
Well, duh. Baracky wanted to do all those things McFarlane is talking about. He was a lot agitating and anxious for a signed sealed and delivered bona fide ignominious-type defeat. It’s not my fault he’s gay.
Someone else captured McFarlane’s position yesterday, albeit somewhat more closely to an ordinary citizen’s pov:
War and the economy. For contemporary liberals of all stripes (most just happen to be Democrats), defeat and poverty are what are needed to gain votes and power. Isn’t that the game?
We lost the war and it cost eleventy bazillion dollars and all those young American kids and the 50 million Iraqis our babykillers raped and tortured and murdered and Iran is stronger than ever and
Man, this trolling schtick is so not easy.
It is most inappropriate to infer a “cavalier” attitude towards defeat simply because someone recognizes that on some occasions it is appropriate and better for the country and the world to alter your original plans. Unless of course you think sunk costs are imaginary.
Funny how Iraq doesn’t really matter anymore now that the libs have stopped demagoging it.
If thise were such a case, that might be a trenchant comment, Matt. But things being what they are, no.
On the other hand, Matt, it is perfectly reasonable to infer a cavalier attitude when one is in evidence.
Matt – sunk costs are just that – sunk. They should not factor into rational future decisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
McFarlane doesn’t understand: with O! and his cohorts, the American military is not of their side. The left are not just indifferent, they are actively seeking defeat, so much the better to reign the capitalist hubris of all those flag-waving hicks in fly-over country. O! acts indifferent to cover his true feelings.
If O gets elected he will do whatever he can to help “them” lose, right up to and including precipitous withdrawal from both arenas, and then blame the ensuing mess on the “flawed policies of the last administration.” Even if he’s doing it in 2011 to shore up his base before the next run, the shills will let him get away with it.
Or is that too cynical/tinfoil-hat?
The U.S. will abandon both Iraq and Afghanistan by 2010, following the Obama victory.
Millions will die. Islam will surge into Europe, climbing over the wreckage of the nannystate economies. They won’t be armed with AK’s and bombs.
They will carry hard currency – the result of decades of American dependence on foreign oil.
Yep. We’re all done for a bit, if Obama wins. And I think its pretty much a given
Why lose one war that is for all intents won, and another that could be after this summer, with the scheduled reallocation of resources?
Because Bush won in 2000, then 2004, and for all his talk, Barak Obama is going to defeat John McCain the beginning of next month. All those brown people, all those dead Americans and allies, all that money… a small price to pay for the Left to have a grave to dance upon. To Hell with a grave; they want a pyre, and they will not be denied.
Maj John, accept my apology for my part in not getting the job done.
Obama will walk away from the war, confident that Europe’s fate will distract the Islamists while he carves up America with his socialist mentors and allies.
Pretty cynical, isn’t it. Oh, and who ever proposed that there will be a constitutional convention in our future, yah, I agree.
Tmj,
That is a bit cynical. OK, that is a lot pessimistic. I think that campaign promises aside, we are still going to win here. 16 month run away! plans aside.
AQ is still going to kill people, but they don’t have the ability to win anything on their own. Iran can, and probably will still make it bad – but nothing gets Arabs going like Persian meddling.
I’m more worried about Afghanistan being f’d up, should Sen Obama win. Hopefully GEN Petreaus,now CG of CENTCOM, would be listened too – no matter what type of odd military advisors a President Obama would bring with him.
Off to bed, I have a convoy I have to roll with tomorrow.
I find it telling that Biden sounded soooo concerned with the genocide in Dafur and other such stuff last night, but apparently couldn’t care less about the Iraqis who were dying by the hundreds of thousands under Saddam’s brutal reign. I guess Iraqi suffering doesn’t really count as suffering in ol’ Hairplug’s eyes.
What happens to commanders like Gen. Petraeus and Odierno when, god help us, Pres. B. Obama puts his people in charge of DoD and the JCS?
I have no particular knowledge of how such things work, but it does seem plausible at least that if the Pres. doesn’t want a certain fellow in a certain job he may have the means at his disposal to have that fellow removed. If this isn’t true of the way things work in the upper echelons of military command, I’d be happy to be disabused of my disposition to believe it possible.
McCain and Palin keep allowing the Obama talking points to take center stage without refuting them. One on this financial crisis and the other on the Obama position on withdrawl. Obama claims everyone now supports his position but the Obama position of withdrawl in defeat by the end of 2007 is NO LONGER possible . The Bush position from DAY ONE was to train Iraqi Troops and Police and hand over regions to them. Obama claims Bush adopted his position? Obama then changed to a gradual withdrawl by the end of 2008. Now his timeline is somewhere in 2010. Even a broken clock is right twice a day..
Let me repeat. The OBAMA position of withdrawl in defeat by the end of 2007 is NO LONGER possible.
Understanding the O! view of conflicts:
Iraq = Blood for oil, Boooooooosh lied
Afghanistan = War he always thought was just…unless he wins the election…
Iran = need for appeasement, don’t believe all that mean talk about Israel; thy’re just foolin’
Darfur = GENOCIDE !!1!1!eleventy!!11!! righteous war cause African brothers are being brutalized…
God help us all if he’s elected…
The irony, DennisD, is that O!bama has taken Bush’s position. Not vice versa.
– McFarlane is spot on with his assessment of Obama’s glib unstudied simplistic view of the WOT. Its in O’s blood. He’s a blame America firster Socialist/soft Marxist, so it follows like night to day.
– But the points he makes on Russian aggression are wrong by 180. After MAD was deployed the Russians were totally stalled out, and in fact, had no choice but to limit their adventures into areas such as Afghanistan, where we saw limited percieved American interest. Even at that, the Russki’s got their asses kicked.
– Some of his historical accuracy is wanting also. Mozambique was a Communist state from the days when the Ketchup sluts daddy was a party founder. So I don’t know what he’s talking about there.
– McFarlane’s article is like a meat loaf recipe’ without the most important of the three meats, in terms of the fallout from ‘Nam.
IOW, I agree with you. So do most non O!bama groupies/followers.
Comment by Answerman on 10/3 @ 11:52 am
left are not just indifferent, they are actively seeking defeat
I don’t know about that, but I know my idea of a victory is likely different than Obamas.
Sen. Biden had some prerequisites for military intervention.
IFILL: Is there a line that should be drawn about when we decide to go in?
BIDEN: Absolutely. There is a line that should be drawn.
IFILL: What is it? BIDEN: The line that should be drawn is whether we A, first of all have the capacity to do anything about it number one. And number two, certain new lines that have to be drawn internationally. When a country engages in genocide, when a country engaging in harboring terrorists and will do nothing about it, at that point that country in my view and Barack’s view forfeits their right to say you have no right to intervene at all.
Ok, so…um, does gassing Kurds en masse qualify as engaging in homicide? What about wood chippers and rape rooms?
I seem to remember William Cohen going on Meet the Press with a five pound bag, does anyone else remember that? Didn’t the DEMOCRATS (Clinton, Gore, Albright, Cohen, Sandy Burglar) ALL say that Saddam Hussein was the greatest threat of passing off weapons of mass murder to terrorists and exporting murder and mayhem around the globe…especially against American interests? Didn’t the DEMOCRATS push regime change into law?
What…pray tell did BOCO (Barack Obama, Chosen One) know in terms of intelligence…that would overturn the entirety of the argument for the DEMOCRATS who had said he was a clear and present danger? When the terrorists killed thousands of our countrymen, targeted our civilians, attacked our Pentagon and were heading for our seat of power in the White House or the Capital…we said that state sponsored terrorism was a danger. What did Sen. Obama know that the WORLD did not about Saddam’s ability to produce and hand off weapons of mass murder to terrorists?
Please remind me, if Saddam had ever shown a willingness to harbor terrorists? Or stated a willingness to conspire with them? Committed genocide.
As a theater of operations, does anyone believe that Afghanistan would be easier than Iraq? Wouldn’t bin Laden have a home court advantage there? Does anyone believe that the leftists and their Black Hole of Truth Squad in the media would have done anything other than mark “grim milestones” and counted pennies spent?
And that BOCO would be out front and center saying that he “warned” against spending lives and treasure there?
The arguments by Biden and Obama is a transparent sham. Leftists have never met a defense of this country they couldn’t slander with revisionist lies.
Our next Commander in Chief of our esteemed armed forces will be a black man. I predict, wielding a Shakespearean touch and unaffected by those from Whoville who doth protest too much.
The human tragedy consists in the necessity, as Gordie-baby would say. Building their country, isn’t.
Stand when he enters the room. Salute when he approaches. Obey when he speaks. Buy American!
We like pizza, yes we do!
We like pizza, how ’bout you?
(All we are saying is “give pizza chants”.)