Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Intervention is Necessary with ISIS
In his recent post, Richard Epstein’s Faulty Case for Intervention, my Hoover Institution colleague David Henderson takes me to task for attacking what I termed “Rand Paul’s Fatal Pacifism“, a reaction to the senator’s position (since changed) that non-intervention against ISIS was the correct strategy for responding to the dangers in the Middle East. The implicit assumption in Paul’s position, as expressed in the Wall Street Journal, was that the United States typically makes a mess of its interventions overseas, and that it is thus better off doing nothing at all when the likely alternative is to stoke the flames of resentment and radicalism in distant nations by backing the wrong horses in all sorts of internecine fights.
There is no doubt that one can find a cautionary tale in our international efforts; one that suggests a presumption against overseas intervention given the costs of the operations and the all-too-evident danger that we will misfire. Even for libertarians, however, that presumption is rebuttable. Indeed, Rand Paul himself quickly changed his tune and announced in Time that he was different from President Obama and would follow a policy of “Peace Through Strength” that would allow the United States to combat the risk that ISIS poses to the United States.
The striking thing about Henderson is that he sticks to to the position that Paul has now abandoned: that the United States should not take steps against ISIS. His argument recognizes that the nation should respond if there is a direct threat to the United States, but he contends that there is a vast difference in dealing with matters that take place at home and in using American force to deal with threats “abroad.” ‘Why worry about these events?’ he asks.
In support of that position he quotes George Washington’s Farewell Address, with its prophetic warning against “interweaving” our fate with the intrigues of European ambition. That was surely sound advice in 1796, when it took weeks to cross the Atlantic Ocean and when there was no reason to involve ourselves in any conflict that didn’t pose a direct risk to the United States or augur mass slaughter for the rest of the world. Indeed, even if we wanted to intervene, no one could think of anything constructive that we could do.
Yet the question before us now is whether Washington would take that same view after 9/11, when over 3,000 American citizens were slaughtered at home, and after the events of this summer, when at least two Americans were beheaded overseas. I cannot imagine thinking in the modern world that events of this magnitude that happen abroad do not involve us in a direct way. The transformations in transportation and communication have changed the equation. ISIS is not capable of invading the United States, but it is capable of planning and launching stealth missions from its safe havens that could result in a major loss of life here and/or in places all over the Middle East and Western Europe.
Recent history also shows us the benefits of “interweaving.” The realities of modern warfare have led to the formation of alliances such as NATO, which, in the aftermath of World War II, committed the United States to actions abroad — and went a long way towards protecting Europe from Soviet rule in the immediate post-war period. That alliance (which had its rocky moments) produced all sorts of indirect benefits to the United States by increasing opportunities for trade and voluntary cooperation. It also had the clear humanitarian goal of keeping hundreds of millions of people living in free societies. It is sobering to remember that Europe was so spent by the ravages of World War II that it was not clear that it could have survived the threat of Soviet invasion without our assistance. NATO worked because it was, from day one, a commitment for the long haul.
Yet even this history does not seem to deter Henderson, who seems to chafe at (if not openly oppose) the United States ‘ entry into both World War I and World War II. I regard it as grotesque to think that the greatest perils to liberty are the use of conscription in times of war or the maintenance of high taxation levels when the country is engaged in a conflict, two evils that Henderson cites. I think that the arguments for intervention in World War I were weaker than those for World War II, where the great shame of American was the slowness with which it responded to the perils of German and Japanese attacks and mass murders everywhere. Henderson is right to criticize unsound tax structures, but they long predated both World Wars — and there are surely better ways to address them than to stand aside in the face of the mass slaughter of innocent human beings. And yes, no one likes conscription, but it is part of the messy business of life in times of national necessity. No nation has ever been able to survive without it, and, similarly, no nation will long survive if it cannot rally people to enlist (which, of course, many Americans did in World War II wholly without regard to conscription).
At this point, we are left with the question of whether our intervention overseas was based on humanitarian concerns (which I regard as valid and often as imperative) or on the sense that prudentially it is better that we intervene sooner rather than later. I do not know how to disentangle the two, and in general it is not worth trying to do so. Unfortunately, there has been — and will be — no strong theory that tells a nation when it should or should not aid others in peril. It is playing with fire to think that we can hold off indefinitely while others build their strength with comparative impunity, which is what Henderson seems to advocate.
In dealing with these issues, it is exceedingly hard to figure out what should be done with the countless examples of intervention gone awry. I find the historical record more complex than Henderson does because all too often (as the recent history of Afghanistan and Iraq show) the greatest dangers come from trying to finesse some middle position: Use just enough force to win and get out as quickly as possible. So what would have happened in Iraq if Barack Obama had decided to continue with the policies of George Bush after the surge? My guess is that the system of what Henderson calls “bribes” would have worked — not perfectly, but well enough to lead to a slowly improving situation on the ground. What is perfectly clear to me, however, is that a loose assembly of unruly local interests will not stop ISIS from engaging in the slaughter of thousands of innocent beings, too many of whom have been put into peril when the United States, after Obama took office, switched course and backed off its earlier commitments.
Our options are worse now than they were a year ago. We have few friends in the region, largely because we have done nothing to keep the trust of those who might have been loyal to us if we had stayed loyal to them. Indeed, the right course of action is hard to define. Right now, the debate centers over the use of ground troops in the Middle East, to which a majority of Americans are probably opposed. Alas, hesitation can often be fatal in war. People fear both terrorist attacks and lengthy engagements overseas. But they cannot have it both ways. Keep out the ground troops and the war lengthens — and the risk of a terrorist attack is likely to increase, along with political dissension at home.
It is a mistake for President Obama to announce (sort of) that ground troops are, for the present at least, off limits unless he decides otherwise. That sentence is more than a grammatical monstrosity. It is an accurate rendition of the current presidential mood. And it also points to the sad truth that the strongest argument against military intervention abroad lies in the inconstant leadership of Barack Obama, which makes it highly unlikely that he will show the toughness and resolve to restore order to the Middle East or anywhere else. It will not help matters to read him Washington’s Farewell Address to support Henderson’s naïve position that we can, or should want to, isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. In our interconnected times, opting out of the world is not a viable option.
Published in General
Muscular libertarianism. ;)
It is tricky though. There was zero support for combatting ISIS 4 months ago because they were just one of thousands of such jihadist groups. I think Paul’s position was prudent and common then. When they quickly metastasized, he changed his tune just as over 50% of the public and even the president reluctantly did.
I find the current intervention scheme moronic in its half-hearted air strikes and arming of groups aligned with ISIS in Syria. I have zero confidence that we will be arming “moderates.” General Lemay’s haunting warnings to Kennedy and Johnson echo once more; never fight a war you’re not willing to use every weapon in the arsenal to annihilate the enemy, its supportive population, and its cities.
Did he change his tune “just as over 50% of the public . . . did” or because they did? I think Paul’s position (and that of Barack Obama) before the beheadings was anything but prudent. When ISIS seized Fallujah, it should have been nipped in the bud. Waiting around for public opinion to shift is folly. The task of a statesman is to anticipate trouble and to lead.
Rebels in Yemen seized parts of the capital this week. Boko Haram already controls large swathes of Nigeria and could threaten the Nigerian capital as well this year. I know of no statesman calling for our involvement to destroy either.
ISIS does warrant leveling, but I am not supportive of getting involved in anything short of their complete dismemberment. Half-measure bombings will only prove our tepidness and lack of resolve to win.
First I think Iran presents the biggest threat in the region. I think it is true now, was true prior to our invasion of Iraq and has been the case since the mid-eighties. This is not to say ISIS does not present a real threat to the US. I think it would be prudent to ask what is our ultimate goal? Simply degrading and dispersing ISIS and then leaving might bring some temporary satisfaction, but little more. Thinking an Iraq, with an inclusive government, that would be some sort of counter balance to Iran could be established is wishful thinking, but then I thought it was wishful thinking prior to our initial invasion. Those who think otherwise should provide the strategy, cost, and time time frame for such an intervention. They might also explain how they plan on negotiating an agreement with the Iraq government that would allow for such a thing. Frankly, what I have heard from Obama and most others are ill conceived reactions, that in all likelihood, would in the end make a bad situation worse.
The irony is thick. Here is Obama, having criticized GWB for years because he intervened in Iraq without having thought through the consequences, himself starting an intervention without having thought it through. Of course, this is to be expected, as he never thinks anything through.
Obama is the worst kind of leader. He thinks he knows everything, but he seems to know nothing. Now he wants to micro-manage the targeting of the air campaign. In the hands of a competent war leader, intervening against ISIS would be an easy decision. Obama, however, will find a way to fail in this campaign.
American prestige will suffer, and hundreds of thousands of innocents will die.
No, I can not support sending troops into harms way under this administration. To do so is irresponsible. Their mission will be flawed, their goals unattainable, their Rules of Engagement unworkable. Their lives will be sacrificed in the name of political expediency. Benghazi showed me the truth of how our current government will support those Americans on the pointy end. I treasure our best and brightest men and women in the armed forces lives too much to entrust them to this administration’s care. Elections have consequences, this is such a consequence.
On the day that the second reporter was beheaded by ISIS, 8 citizens of Saudi Arabia were beheaded by the state. Saudi Arabia, I might remind people, is our ally.
One does not have to agree with ISIS – but there is no way to “intervene” in ISIS. All we are doing is volunteering to be hall monitors for the next 10 or so years..
We keep sending our troops to their death, then claim that their lives were wasted if we don’t “do something”.
We don’t have to do something. Not unless there is an attack on American soil.
This is a hard argument to refute. We had an embassy attacked by terrorists and an ambassador killed and dragged through the streets and all this administration could think about was the domestic political implications. What I think we should do in theory keeps running headlong into the incompetent reality of our situation.
Of course there are ways to intervene. Kill the members, interdict their supply lines, deny them resources…
So Americans abroad are fair game??
The big take away is this: any military intervention under the Obama administration is more dangerous for our troops than for our enemy’s.
I agree, elections have consequences. Time to change the electorate.
You mean like an attack on an embassy?