Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
Ricochet member Harlech submits this provoking question:
Republicans oppose giant omnibus spending bills because they're full of pork and because conservatives are skeptical of the ability of government to do anything right. Yet we support a war in Afghanistan and Iraq that costs as much as these spending plans, is likely laden with as much waste (contracting boondoggles, and so on), and is even more reliant on government (including the military) to essentially build up entire countries. Why does government intervention fail at home but work overseas?
I disagree with some of these premises, though support the general notion of pay as you go for both domestic and military spending. A few points:
A) The war in Afghanistan was predicated on the notion that in October 2001, there was a good possibility of more 9/11-like attacks originating from Taliban-held Afghanistan. We can argue over the merits of the long war, but the fact that there has been no repeat of 9/11, or even a European-style terrorist operation, suggests the rout of the Taliban from Kabul into the marginal lands has been very effective.
By 2003 in Iraq, we had 12 years of no-fly-zones, a 5-year-old Iraqi liberation act, and a vote from both houses of Congress to back the Bush-inspired 23 writs authorizing the war against Saddam, whose fall ultimately improved U.S. security and whose replacement by a consensual government offers hope for the region. We had all of this aside from the faulty intelligence about WMD.
Both wars account for about 1% of annual American GDP, and are not the causes of our crushing debt, the great majority of which is attributable to out of control entitlements--like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--interest, and general defense spending. Note that troops are leaving Iraq as planned, costs are being reduced, and in two years, there may be less than 10,000 American personnel of any type there.
B) "Government intervention" overseas was not the first but the last option that we considered over four administrations. In 1980-1990 we simply supplied radical Afghan and Arab insurgents against the Soviet Union, and then, naturally happy with the Soviet defeat and our own disengagement, ignored the consequences of the war.
Yet from 1990-2001, the combination of armed former insurgents, the confidence of Islamists after claiming sole credit (falsely) for defeating the Russians, Pakistan's duplicity, our detachment, etc., conspired to allow Osama bin Laden to operate freely against us from Taliban Afghanistan.
In Iraq, we tried the realist approach after 1990, and left Saddam alone after we got him out of Kuwait. But then there was the Kurdish genocide and bloodletting of the Shiites. (It should be noted that the international critics who damned us for our cynical hands-off-approach then, would a decade later damn us for our difficult intervention to establish the now thriving Kurdish and Shia communities.) The situation with the Kurds and the Shiites led to the No-fly-zones and a decade and more of UN sanctions, all of which were reduced to caricature by 2001. Staying on in 2003, after the removal of Saddam, was an imperfect reaction to all of this
In short, there are no easy choices, and each has its drawbacks. But the present two wars must be seen in the context of prior perceived failed policies that had only passed on the problems, rather than addressed them.
Note that despite all the threats of endless neo-con preemption, we did not intervene elsewhere and have been careful not to get too involved in Pakistan or Iran, both of which could, in the future, become very scary.
Bottom line: I don't think the distrust of intrusive government at home contradicts the idea of supporting consensual governments abroad, or even fostering those governments—especially when there is little alternative and past remedies have failed. The U.S. has a long record in the Balkans, Germany, Italy, Japan, Panama, and South Korea of staying on and spending a lot in the hopes of not having to come back and spend even more at a later date.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
Let me add something to this. National defense is without question legitimate business for the federal government, and it is not the proper business of the state and local governments. Most of the things that the federal government does domestically, however, are not within its proper sphere. If these expenditures are appropriate at all (and some of them certainly are), they fall constitutionally within the sphere reserved for the states and the localities. The appropriateness of particular interventions abroad must, of course, be judged prudentially.
Edited on December 29, 2010 at 5:18pmDec '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
"Why does government intervention fail at home but work overseas?"
I imagine because the United States is not colonizing theses nations--rather assisting them in establishing a representative democracy such as South Korea--this is an entirely different meaning of government intervention. I don't particularly like the idea of nation building, yet Iraq from 1991 to 2003 is a prime example of the consequences of an unresolved war. I think in the long run the benefits will outweigh the sacrifices. Afghanistan I'm not so hopeful about.
May '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
Harlech has a really nice house, by the way.
Afghanistan was forced upon us (and we're still not quite sure what to do with it), and Iraq has been worth the cost, I think, considering the scope of the achievement. But do you really mean we should pay as we go for wars, perfesser? A budgetary acknowledgement that we'll always be at war somewhere is called for, but throwing the economy into turmoil every few years seems not right.
There is a Libertarian school of thought (it's most vocal exponent being Neal Boortz) that says libertarianism is confined to these our shores, and some active foreign policy is necessary to preserve it.
Oct '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
The nexus of domestic and foreign policy from a budgetary perspective is the "military industrial complex". This is where the pork barrel aspect of this nexus occurrs. With regard to jurisdictional issues, I agree with Professor Rahe. The federal government is the necessary and proper agency to conduct foreign policy but it has far overstepped it's bounds with regard to domestic policy. We must re-establish the principles of federalism in order to restore our Republic. This process of necessity requires that state and local governments regain fiscal and public policy control over domestic issues.
Edited on December 29, 2010 at 6:04pmJul '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
I'll add one critical difference is that We are more apt to have a definition of victory or success for Our foreigns endeavors and practically never domestically.
Jun '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
Victor Davis Hanson:
The war in Afghanistan was predicated on the notion that in October 2001, there was a good possibility of more 9/11-like attacks originating from Taliban-held Afghanistan. The fact that there has been no repeat of 9/11 suggests the rout of the Taliban from Kabul into the marginal lands has been very effective.
This outcome might also indicate that bin Laden had no plans beyond the initial 9/11 attacks. The prediction that hundreds of terrorists cells had already infiltrated the U.S. and were only waiting to be activated proved a fiction. Al Qaeda had neither the resources nor the reach to carry out any kind of grand strategic plan. What resources they did have in terms of volunteers and munitions were foolishly squandered in Iraq.
The Taliban likely would have been spared strikes by the U.S. military had they taken the logical step of simply surrendering bin Laden. We don't know why they refused. My guess is that their rustic culture and medieval outlook caused them to severely underestimate American capabilities. They are skilled at insurgent tactics on home turf, but their reach is limited to regional operations.
Jun '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
If nothing else, both wars have been graduate courses in military science. At least we've learned a lot about fighting from inside a hornets nest. And a corrupt hornets nest at that. You don't know what you don't know, until you discover that nothing's working the way you planned it and you have to look at the whole problem from a different perspective.
Dec '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
~Paules
Victor Davis Hanson:
The war in Afghanistan was predicated on the notion that in October 2001, there was a good possibility of more 9/11-like attacks originating from Taliban-held Afghanistan. The fact that there has been no repeat of 9/11 suggests the rout of the Taliban from Kabul into the marginal lands has been very effective.
This outcome might also indicate that bin Laden had no plans beyond the initial 9/11 attacks.· Dec 29 at 9:07am
When you see a single termite in your attic, do you conclude it lacks the wherewithal to weaken the structure of your home?
Then, the recrudescence of rummaging rats in your basement force your call to the exterminator to treat the rodents before the insects, do you think in the meanwhile, under the roof of your still standing home, the threat from termites was a fiction?
Now, after noticing when the rodents roamed they diverted termites from settling in, but once subdued, left a space for the termites to proliferate, do you say nothing can go wrong?
The threats to our way of life extend beyond what you see.
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
An apt point -- but, alas, sometimes we do not quite know how to define victory. In Vietnam, for example, we certainly knew what constituted defeat, but I never thought that LBJ had a sense of the end game -- of what it would mean to be victorious and how such a victory might be achieved. We may have a similar problem in Afghanistan. The place has never really had what we mean when we speak of "a viable government." If that is our end, it may well be beyond us. Once again, it is clear what constitutes defeat. But is there something concrete and within our reach that could justly be termed victory? I am inclined to be skeptical and to think that the old British policy -- Butcher and bolt! -- described in Winston Churchill's first book, The Story of the Malakand Field Force, might have been the best policy. All that is important is that Afghanistan not be a base for Al Qu'aeda.
Dec '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
"...the recrudescence of rummaging rats in your basement.."
This passage is simply wonderful, Charles.
Jun '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
Michael Horn: "...the recrudescence of rummaging rats in your basement.."
This passage is simply wonderful, Charles. · Dec 29 at 11:19am
Humans are neither rats nor termites. Al Qaeda is composed of men, and they have the motivations of men. The problem is Wahhabism which has its roots in Saudi Arabia. Terrorist cells are locally recruited and paid for with Saudi/Wahhabist money. With the possible exception of the Mumbai attack, I'm not sure the Taliban/Pashtun faction of Islamic terrorists is responsible for anything outside the borders of Afghanistan-Pakistan. We have been successful trimming the branches, but we have yet to strike the root. Clearly, if Saudi oil is funding terrorism, then US energy policy becomes part of the equation. I'm not convinced that Afghanistan is the right theater of operations at this point.
May '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
Professor, I always find your writing both educational and reassuring. But I cannot shake a worry that all the good we've done in Iraq is soon to be undone. When I consider, for instance, the abject failure of the current Iraqi government to stop the flight and slaughter of its Christian minority, I am inundated with misgivings about this "consensual government" we're propping up half a world away.
With Obama, not Bush, in the White House, can we have any reasonable confidence that Iraq won't soon be subject to Iran?
May '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
~Paules
This outcome might also indicate that bin Laden had no plans beyond the initial 9/11 attacks.
No plans except for all the attacks we foiled or that went wrong for the terrorists:
Then there's the UK subway bombing as well as countless other attacks around the world.
It seems impossible, given that they in fact attacked us multiple times, to say there were no plans for additional attacks.
Oct '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
Indeed. With all of the ongoing strife in the current Iraqi parliamentary democracy, I can't shake the notion that it might fold like a cheap lawn chair at the slightest sign of difficulty, much as what happened to France's Third Republic in 1940.
May '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
Other than Mullah Omar making a financial deal with bin Laden, which was only to allow his group to remain, I have yet to see any evidence of any Afghan Taliban having any interest in anything beyond their own border. There have been a few that have gotten tied in with the Pakistani Taliban, but they still present no threat to the West.
No Arab al Qaeda is welcome in Afghanistan, by any group Talib or tribal Arabs are roundly disliked. If our reason for remaining in Afghanistan is Pakistan I can understand some of it, but certainly not the strategy.
I would love to understand why we remained after 2003 and why we are there now.
Jun '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
Maurilius
~Paules
This outcome might also indicate that bin Laden had no plans beyond the initial 9/11 attacks.
No plans except for all the attacks we foiled or that went wrong for the terrorists:
Then there's the UK subway bombing as well as countless other attacks around the world.
It seems impossible, given that they in fact attacked us multiple times, to say there were no plans for additional attacks. · Dec 29 at 1:03pm
I'm not sure about the UK bombing, but all the others you mentioned were carried out by men recruited well after 9/11. The inept attempts by Reid and Mutallab speak for themselves. The occasional attack by a lone wolf indicates precisely my point: no strategic vision or plan was ever devised or put into play. I think our luck so far has less to do with our efforts in Afghanistan than with the fact our enemies are a bunch of stumble-bums.
Jul '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
~Paules:
I think our luck so far has less to do with our efforts in Afghanistan than with the fact our enemies are a bunch of stumble-bums. · Dec 29 at 3:42pm
Whose least stumbly-bumbly members got baited by a big, shiny, American military presence into Iraq.
Dec '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
Further putting our “government spending” on Iraq and Afghanistan in perspective… it is much like our military spending during WW II and the subsequent Marshall Plan that help rebuild much of Europe after WW II, putting it back on its feet economically.
Government spending levels on Iraq and Afghanistan pale in comparison as a percentage of GDP relative to spending on WW II and the Marshall Plan. For example, WW II spending levels peaked in 1945 at over 37% of GDP and almost 90% of all federal spending. Annual spending on Iraq and Afghanistan has been about 1% of GDP and about 3% of all federal government spending.
One caveat. Iraq and Afghanistan war spending is accounted for independent of other defense and national security spending. The WW II spending cited above is not. However, defense spending plummeted dramatically after WW II, dropping to 5.5% and 3.5% of GDP in 1947 and 1948 respectively (same cite as above).
Contrast this with current domestic spending on all of those Departments of Everything (excepting Defense and Homeland Security), Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare.
Dec '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
Gen'l Petraeus is a counterinsurgency expert, correct? He wrote the book on it.
It seems that successful counterinsurgency is a dirty business: The US in Iraq, the French in Algeria, the Brits during the Malayan Emergency. IMO, we must be willing to accept (and in many cases expect) some waste/fraud/abuse to empower Petraeus to win.
May '10
Re: Government Intervention Abroad vs. at Home
F. L. Booth: Other than Mullah Omar making a financial deal with bin Laden, which was only to allow his group to remain, I have yet to see any evidence of any Afghan Taliban having any interest in anything beyond their own border. There have been a few that have gotten tied in with the Pakistani Taliban, but they still present no threat to the West.
The Haqqani network obviously doesn't exist, furthermore it;'s not a problem. And Waziristan is only a problem because we are messing up Afghanistan. And Khan didn't exist.
I don't know which worries me more- the Right neoisolationists or the Ostrich Wing of the Democrat party.
All of our enemies are only a problem because we have had the temerity to object to their behavior. We have caused all the problems.
Protocols of the Elders of Crawford.