Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
Tristan Abbey’s post Of Aircraft and the National Interest: Libya and Qaddafi poses an interesting question that received some attention in the comments. Why, you might ask, do we have aircraft carriers, an air force, and an army? To do good in the world? To defend American lives? And, if we can answer the first question, how does the answer bear on Tristan Abbey’s more particular concern. What should we do vis-à-vis Libya in the current circumstances?
It is, of course, easier to address the abstract than the particular question. Certainly, the main reason we have armed forces is to defend our borders and the lives and material interests of our citizens? There is no harm in doing good to others but our primary focus is to do well ourselves.
Of course, doing good to others always comes at a price, and so we must always ask whether it is worth it. In my judgment, in assessing whether it is worth it, we have to ask two further questions. First, how great is the price? Is it measured in dollars only? Or is it measured also in American lives? And second do we as a people gain anything tangible along the way? The task of the statesman is to reconcile doing good and doing well wherever he can.
But doing well is the priority. And generally if we are to put young American soldiers in danger of losing their lives, there has to be a rationale grounded in a concern with our own well-being.
This leads on to two further questions – which cannot be answered except with regard to particulars. What are the conditions prerequisite to our well-being? And what, more generally, are the conditions favorable to our well-being?
One might argue, for example, that our armed forces exist to defend our borders – and that is all. I had an exchange yesterday in the comments on one of the posts that turned on this question. My interlocutor suggested that our military budget could be halved without danger, and he seemed to think that – unless there was serious danger of an invasion from Canada or Mexico – we could rest easy.
I think this view mistaken. The last thing in the world we want is a war on our own soil. We spent the entire 20th century trying to fend off even the possibility. Indeed, already in 1823, when John Quincy Adams in his capacity as Secretary of State first drafted for President James Monroe the foreign-policy doctrine that bears the latter’s name, we were looking not just to Canada and Mexico but beyond. In fact, figures such as Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton gave considerable thought to the matter well before that.
For a long time, of course, it was our policy to avoid what Thomas Jefferson – with an eye to the policy advocated in George Washington’s Farewell Address – called in his First Inaugural “entangling alliances.” It is important to recognize, however, that this was a policy that suited a relatively weak power that enjoyed the advantage of being at a great distance from the quarrels that rocked the rest of the world, and it is no less telling that the policy actually adopted by Jefferson while in office lead inexorably to the War of 1812, which took place under his successor James Madison. Not even at that time could we entirely avoid entanglement in the affairs of Europe. It is useful to remember that it was the French fleet that bottled up Cornwallis at Yorktown and that the French infantry force present for the battle that took place was larger than the American force commanded by George Washington. We have never been able to isolate ourselves entirely from conflicts in the larger world.
Even today, to be sure, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans offer us some protection. But no statesman in the last century was willing to rely entirely on the sea. I am no great admirer of Woodrow Wilson. But it is to his credit that he recognized that a victory on the part of Germany in World War I would pose a threat to us. I am no great admirer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But it is to his credit that he shared in this recognition when World War II broke out and that he also recognized that Japanese hegemony in the Pacific would also be a threat. We provided financial and logistical support to Britain and France in the struggle against Germany and Austria-Hungary long before Germany’s adoption of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare caused us to enter World War I. We did what we could, short of war, to help Britain against Germany and to contain Japanese ambition before the attack at Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war on the United States. And we were right to do so.
So, let me suggest that it would be naïve to suppose that our defensive perimeter ought to be at our borders. We are a great trading power. Our well-being depends to a considerable degree on international trade. Freedom of the seas is an interest well worthy of defense on our part. We also have an interest in promoting an international free-trade regime. It is the foundation of our prosperity, and it promotes peace.
Let me add that the same thing is true of democracy. Liberal, commercial democracies very, very rarely go to war against one another. At the end of World War II, we did what we could to promote liberal, commercial democracy in Germany and Japan. In the wake of the Cold War, we did the same for Russia and eastern Europe. We may have done some good, but it was always our intention first and foremost to do well.
Notice what I am suggesting. It is in our interest to shape, as best we can, the international environment in which we operate. Diplomacy plays a role in that. So does commerce. And there is such a thing as “soft power.” It derives from the United States as an example. But commerce unprotected by military force has a propensity to wither: piracy has been the norm in human history. And diplomacy not backed up by a credible military threat is frequently useless.
We were never really an isolationist power – not at Yorktown, not in 1812, not in and after 1823. Our circumstances do not allow it (favorable though they are). And as we have grown in industrial and commercial power, our material interests have become more extensive. Lying beyond our borders we have a great deal to defend.
I have more than once expressed my fear that we are neglecting defense, and I have more than once expressed my fear that, in the interests of confronting the fiscal crisis we now face, we will indulge in even greater neglect. Neville Chamberlain was, after all, a man of the right.
What about Libya? To answer this properly, I would have to know what I do not now know – what is happening on the ground. I can begin with one pertinent fact. Gadaffi is no friend of the United States. He has deliberately and knowingly taken American lives. Remember the disco in Berlin where American soldiers died back in the days of Reagan. Remember Lockerbie. There is a case for taking him out.
Indeed, in general, there is a case for helping our friends and harming our enemies. That is the first definition of justice considered in Plato’s Republic, and it is no accident that is proponent bears the name Polemarchus – “War Leader.” It is the ethic of the warrior. Especially, in foreign affairs, it was the ethic that guided both the Greeks and the Romans – for, if you are known to be very good at helping your friends and harming your enemies, you are apt to have a lot of friends and very few enemies (which is a comfort in times of danger). We ought to be known as a country that hunts down and exterminates people who target Americans, and we ought to be known as a country that protects its friends.
What we should do, of course, depends on the likely costs and on the circumstances. If, without much cost, we could help the enemies of our enemy Gadaffi, we should almost certainly do so. If, in the process, we can help shape the environment in the central Mediterranean to our liking, that is also a very great plus.
Let me add that, in the abstract, the same concerns apply to Egypt, to Tunisia, and to Iran. We have to weigh the costs soberly; we have to consider the opportunities soberly. What these costs might be and what these opportunities are – that requires judgment, and that is why we need a statesman at the helm: not someone more concerned with political developments in Madison, Wisconsin than with the long-term interests of the United States abroad. In time, we may pay a high price for Barack Obama’s feckless flight from responsibility.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
"The task of the statesman is to reconcile doing good and doing well wherever he can."
If I may take the liberty to rephrase this statement: It appears to me you are saying that doing good is something that we do for someone else and doing well is doing good for ourselves; that to find the balance between them is the task of a statesman.
I would disagree. The task of a statesman is to incarnate the transcendent values of his culture as an ambassador to another culture.
To do good is to act in accordance with a set of values that are rooted in ideas of what is right and just. To due well is to act in accordance with what is good. These concepts are not in opposition and need not be reconciled.
Paraphrasing de Toqueville: "America is great because America is good. When she ceases to be good she will cease to be great." America is no longer great because she has ceased to be good. She wants to be good, but she is no longer able to discern good from evil. America, therefore acts at it's own peril when it tries to do good.
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
Actually, Good Berean, Tocqueville never said any such thing. This does not mean, however, that you do not have a point.
Oct '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
Professor, I accept your correction, acknowleging you, as I do, as an authoritative voice on de Tocqueville. I believe the saying has been attributed to him, and I am in agreement with its sentiments.
Sep '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
Good Berean, You may prefer this use of de Tocqueville:
Quoted from the Fall 2010 Issue of The Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly,
Edited on Feb 26, 2011 at 1:00pmDec '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
Iran has the capacity to harm its enemies and help its friends through its funneling of arms and money and training (and sometimes actual technical personnel) to Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and others. Iran is a direct threat to the United States and our interests at home and abroad.
Libya, until a few years ago, was in the same category. However, in the mid-2000s, Qaddafi had a "change of heart" -- that is, he saw what happened to Saddam and realized it could happen to him. He abandoned his nuclear weapons program and opened up a trade dialogue with the UK and the US. (The UK, not recognizing Qaddafi's signals of weakness, capitulated to his demand for the return of Lockerbie mass-murderer al-Megrahi.)
Given that it would be simple for Qaddafi to have another change of heart when he realized the weak, feckless nature of the new US and UK leaders, he remains in the category of enemy to America's interests at home and abroad.
Syria is a threat, but less so -- most likely, if and when Iran's regime falls, Assad will look to the West.
May '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
First of all, you've been killing it on Ricochet this week, and you're on a total hot streak.
Secondly, the same concern must persist in dealing with defense as the social welfare state. How can we pay for it? I'd prefer to dismantle government programs before the things that keep us safe. Military might derives from economic might. I don't disagree with you at all, this just concerns me deeply.
Also, I'd be curious what you thought about a presidential run for John Bolton. I don't see him having a chance unless foreign policy becomes the major issue for the 2012 elections. You seem to believe it will be the economy still. Can his views on foreign policy be adopted into an electable candidate.
Thanks!
Jun '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
These days, you can win the physical battle, while losing the propaganda battle, and on balance, lose the war. And, lose it based on complete lies. That's the frustration.
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
John Bolton, unless I am mistaken, has never held elective office. I admire him; I hope that his presence in the mix forces a serious discussion of foreign affairs in the course of the campaign for the nomination. But I am not sure that he is presidential timber. If I was hard on Governor Daniels in my earlier posts, it is because I suspect that he might be presidential timber.
The fiscal crisis must be addressed. In my opinion, we need to take on the domestic budget (especially, the entitlements budget) -- which is out of control. The first duty of the federal government -- national defense -- must take precedence. Most of what is covered by the domestic programs is the proper province of the states.
Edited on Feb 26, 2011 at 1:16pmNov '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
By doing well, America accomplishes much good.
America was not founded so that it could pursue good and do what's right. America was designed to ensure its people's freedom to pursue happiness, and to do as well as they can in that pursuit.
As a nation, the fortunate sum of those efforts tends to be much good.
America's efforts abroad are all exerted with this mission in mind. Some may be deemed "good", such as providing mesquito nets to millions of Africans, while others "bad", such as supporting strongmen like Mubarek. But there is a cost to the exertion of such efforts, financial or otherwise. Its the responsibility of the statesman to decide if those costs are worth the effort. They all impact America's ability to do well. the world is generally a far better place when America finds itself willing and able to bear the cost.
The people of Libya will be better off if we bear the cost. But can we?
We know Clinton regrets not accepting the cost to interfere in Rwanda, the biggest tragedy of my adult lifetime. But how much would it have cost?
Edited on Feb 26, 2011 at 1:39pmOct '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
Regarding the policy issues of the use of military force to do good, it seems that a part of our problem is lack of agreement on what is good. The neoCons believe that doing good means making the world safe for democracy. The neoColonialists see doing good as protecting American interests (ie business interests) overseas. The antiIslamisists see good as preventing the establishment of an new Islamic Caliphate, etc.. The moral issues are the most difficult to bring into alignment.
Oct '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
Lance: By doing well, America accomplishes much good.
America was not founded so that it could pursue good and do what's right. America was designed to ensure its people's freedom to pursue happiness, and to do as well as they can in that pursuit.
As a nation, the fortunate sum of those efforts tends to be much good.
Edited on Feb 26 at 01:39 pm
Well said.
Jul '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
I have shared this conversation to my sons. Thank you, professor.
On defense, there is no question that we are not as far along as we could have been, but we still dominate technologically. The flip side is that even under Bush, we did not freshen our equipment inventory in the wholehearted way we did under previous wars. Our mechanics are doing miracles with chewing gum and bailing wire all over the globe. The good news? In the event our military will be facing other militaries, with their own flaws and weak points.
There is no room for complacency, but we have not stood still while the world plays catch up. If only because of the rice bowls involved.
Edited on Feb 26, 2011 at 2:17pmOct '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
The case for defensive violence is so undisputed, that we default to justifying -- and virtually redefining -- every other potential use of military force as only another form of self-defense. This is a mistake which obscures that which our old friend von Clausewitz long struggled to clarify. While he did distinguish between different kinds of war, his best known adage is still most relevant here:
"War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means."
It is on precisely this point that the great parting of ways occurs. The self-defense school rejects the political instrumentality of our armed forces as nothing but a license to indulge our worst instincts and ambitions. Misguided efforts to subsume every desirable end under the heading of defense only exacerbates that cynicism, when, in fact, political purposes also naturally include using the military as a vehicle for both benevolent assistance and sabre rattling deterrence.
May '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
"we need a statesman at the helm: not someone more concerned with political developments in Madison, Wisconsin than with the long-term interests of the United States abroad. In time, we may pay a high price for Barack Obama’s feckless flight from responsibility."
Agreed.
What I'm having trouble with vis-a-vis Libya is what could we do?
Enforce a no-fly zone? Send in the Marines? For how long? How much would it cost (recall the national debt is now around $14,200,000,000,000)? Do we have the military assets (I know the size of the armed services is being contracted)? How would we benefit?
Make a novenna to St. Jude?
Take us to school professor.
Jan '11
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
This all kinda depends on the mission in Libya. Choose from the following options:
Then the big question is: are we prepared to shed blood to succeed in whatever the mission is? Do we fight the tribes to hold Libya together? Do we squash a civil war if it breaks out after Qaddafi's gone?
Once we go in, we own the thing. This is to say nothing of whether we have the resources to do all this. The Sixth Fleet may nominally be in charge of the Mediterranean, but it's a shadow of its former self.
Dec '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
Lance, a point of information: the scale of death and destruction in Congo dwarfs that of the Rwandan genocide. This, in spite of a UN force ostensibly there to stop the killing (but whose members include villains who've engaged in trading contraband and in exploiting the locals for sex).
This brings up another point. The UN has had an "Interim Force" in Lebanon for 25 years, with the mission of preventing war between Israel & Lebanon. It failed to stop Hezbollah from abducting Israeli soldiers, leading to the 2006 war; after that war, it failed to prevent Hezbollah from re-arming, though directed to do so by a Security Council resolution.
The point is, absent strong US leadership, no other international body will take on the challenge of doing good, as in preventing war and stopping genocide or other massacres. The world loves the slogan "Never Again," but only the USA seems capable and willing to act on it. And it's not clear that the USA should have the primary responsibility to do so everywhere and at all times action is needed.
Edited on Feb 26, 2011 at 3:00pmMay '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
In time? I just paid it at the pump this afternoon: $4.06 per gallon for gasoline. The markets are pricing in Obama's fecklessness.
Here's another reason we can do well by helping the Libyan people against Qaddafi: It is in our interest to end the conflict quickly, before he torches the oilfields in his own Saddam-esque Gotterdammerung. Imposing a no-fly zone and preventing the importation of more foreign mercenaries will increase the chance that his enemies can end his rule quickly. Reducing uncertainty in oil supply can help bring prices back down. Sounds like a good use for our forces.
Aug '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
Actually, there were two things that happened. First, we invaded Iraq and Qadaffi saw the speed with which we were making our way to Baghdad. Second, he was caught red-handed when a ship carrying WMD technology was intercepted and he was implicated. He opened negotiations with the US almost immediately after.
I would support John Bolton in nearly any capacity in our government, but I am not willing to pay for OJT. The current trainee is just costing too much.
However, given the damage to our international standing caused by our feckless incumbent, I would like someone who can stand on principle. The Iranians would have never given back the hostages to Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt. It took Reagan, although I think W would have scared them as much.
Jan '11
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
What you're asking, professor, is how to reckon our national self-interest.
I certainly agree that our interest doesn't stop at the water's edge, but it isn't all-encompassing, either. Our ability to promote our self-interests is mitigated by our practical limitations and by the sovereignty rights of foreign states. It may be in our interests for one party to achieve power in a particular country, but that doesn't mean that we can, or have the right to intervene.
I argue that we have a more immediate restriction, however. Strategy is the art of deciding what to do, based on what you expect others to do. That requires the ability to predict behavior. Last month has shown that we can't predict tomorrow's weather. As we see Qaddafi moving, we know that other actors are also moving, some Libyan and many foreign, none of whom care about sovereignty rights as we do. Our problem is, however, that we don't know who's playing and what their moves are. We can't even come to conclusion about whether the Muslim Brotherhood is good or bad.
We're more blind than weak.
Dec '10
Re: Helping Friends and Harming Enemies
Tristan Abbey: This all kinda depends on the mission in Libya. Choose from the following options:
Then the big question is: are we prepared to shed blood to succeed in whatever the mission is? Do we fight the tribes to hold Libya together? Do we squash a civil war if it breaks out after Qaddafi's gone?
Once we go in, we own the thing.
Well stated. Libya could become a tar-baby. Once involved, what's the "exit strategy"?
We tried doing hands on "humanitarian relief" in Somalia, got sucked in further, and left dead behind on the way out with our tail between our legs. We ended up maintaining no-fly zones over Iraq for many years, constantly playing games with Saddam's remaining air defenses.
I'd draw the line at dropping off humanitarian aid by air or in sea ports, and only when we know we won't get shot at.