Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
Derek Simmons ·
Apr 6, 2011 at 8:54pm
The subject matter and Stephen Walt's piece itself are surely worthy of a ricochet or two around this site of worthies. You can read it here.
What do you think? How many additional reasons could you add to his? How many of his reasons for our addiction--he answers his own question "YES"--do you find faulty?
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
I think he's right on target.
I don't often agree with Charlie Rangel, but if we went back to the military draft, a lot of the types of military adventures we so carelessly engage in would come to a screeching halt.
And that would be a good thing.
Mar '11
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
Kenneth: I think he's right on target.
I don't often agree with Charlie Rangel, but if we went back to the military draft, a lot of the types of military adventures we so carelessly engage in would come to a screeching halt.
And that would be a good thing. · Apr 6 at 12:00pm
Kenneth:
Years and years and years ago in law school on the GI Bill after Vietnam, I supported the draft. Still do. Can you spell pariah? Because we do not have "the draft", 100% of our "national sacrifice" is borne by those in uniform and our Chinese bond-holders who pay for it. Is this any way to run a country? A "CR", its consequences intended and un-intended, should be the least of our worries yet the question--Will there be a shutdown?--consumes virtually all the ink and bytes available. How did we wind up defining deviancy down to this level so far beneath the bar set for us by our Founders?
Jan '11
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
"Are we addicted to war?"
It certainly looks like it when even our anti-war, Nobel Peace Prize-accepting citizens involve themselves in at least three kinetic military actions at once.
Feb '11
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
I think the problem is much, much deeper. The US views itself as altruistic with a universal ideology (we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, etc.), thus making it necessary for everyone else to buy into that ideology at least to American policy makers. Much of that ideology is embedded within the UN Charter. Many countries don't buy that ideology and those that do not buy the ideology come into various degrees of conflict with the US as a result.
The really strange contradiction at least to me is that America thinks it is both exceptional and has a universal ideology. I've never been able to square that one. Either it is exceptional or it has a universal ideology.
May '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
I would support a draft system like Sweden's (mandatory two years of service following school) if some of Ricochet's soldiers hadn't noted in the past that our military is more efficient with volunteers. Certainly, a military is more effective when it's soldiers are experienced and devoted. I'm willing to be persuaded. On the other hand, we're better prepared for invasion with a draft.
Hang On is right that altruism is the crux of our inclination for military interventions. We have the power and the desire to protect foreign peoples.
Like police, we will always be better at reaction than prevention. And we will never be able to protect all fellow human beings from mass slaughter and oppression.
Our foreign policy mirrors our domestic policy. Emphasis on authority encourages individuals to become reliant. As long as the U.S. funds and protects so many nations as it does, those nations will demand such aid from us and fail to invest heavily in their own defense.
I don't have concrete views on foreign policy, but I'm inclined to think we do too much.
Nov '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
While the author goes off the rails on that last bit of point four, I think he's mostly right about the reasons.
Feb '11
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
I think this article is BS.
Americans aren't addicted to war- but those making decisions for the nation are globalists, and they treat the US as combination piggy bank and arsenal.
So thus we see Federal Reserve bailout money going to foreign banks, and the American military going to war with Libya to ensure Libyan oil continues to flow to Europe.
I note the Fed tried to keep the foreign bailouts secret, and the Libyan adventure is not especially popular. Those aren't indications of any addictions the American people have to war, or bailouts.
Jun '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
No draft, gentlemen. I respect you all, but no. Never again.
Mar '11
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
You're putting the cart before the horse on this. America believes that it is the New Jerusalem and that its truths are universal because they are divinely revealed. Thus it is exceptional because it has been favored by God with THE universal ideology.
That, anyway, is the beating heart of American Exceptionalism as taught for centuries from the Puritans onward. Not taught so much now, but still very much believed, and implied. You'd be hard pressed to get many people today to articulate it, they just believe it without knowing the "why" of it.
The really strange contradiction at least to me is that America thinks it is both exceptional and has a universal ideology. I've never been able to square that one. Either it is exceptional or it has a universal ideology. · Apr 6 at 2:24pm
Jul '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
I actually agree with you, Casey. But my point about Rangel and the draft was that, though I don't want a draft for multifarious reasons, it would dampen enthusiasm for ill-considered military adventures.
Mar '11
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
Much to think about - I think he's close, but veers off the mark a bit.
Xennedy sums it best: "Americans aren't addicted to war- but those making decisions for the nation are globalists, and they treat the US as combination piggy bank and arsenal."
On the article itself:
Point 1 "Because We Can" We're there because we can, but we can because ever since WWII we've been the only ones who Would. We have this whole co-dependence mess esp. with Europe.
Point 2 - lack of major enemies. The point is true that we have few major power contenders at the moment, not a cause so much as a lack of a restraint.
Don't think the draft would really limit Barry or Bush - they're both crusaders for different sides.
He loses me at #4. I always flinch at "Neocon" because it's too much like "Nazi" - a word with so many meanings as to have none left. He's right in the sense that our elites do use our soldiers to achieve social goals on foreign lands - and this is abhorrent. We need an Eisenhower to fix this.
Point 5, Congress has emasculated itself.
Sep '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
Stephen Walt makes some good points, and I agree with most of what he says, but I disagree with him on these thoughts:
He says, "In other words, Americans became convinced that it was wrong to spend tax revenues on things that would help their fellow citizens (like good schools, health care, roads, and bridges, high-speed rail, etc.), but it was perfectly OK to tax Americans (though of course not the richest Americans) and spend the money on foreign wars."
Since when does the government provide "good schools"? Since when is high-speed rail on balance a "helpful" service"? Straw man alert!
He also says, "Although the Constitution could not be clearer on this point (my italics), modern presidents clearly feel no constraints about ordering U.S. forces to attack other countries, or even to fully inform Congress as to what we might be doing in secret."
As demonstrated aptly in a recent Ricochet post, the Constitution is far from clear on the point of Congress having the authority to declare war, especially following the War Powers Act and all the murkiness it has wrought.
Aug '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
Where does one start? First by noting that Walt,a co- author of "The Israel Lobby" makes no overt reference to that lobby having or exercising any role in this alleged "addiction". However, the use of a picture of Wolfowitz in the section which refers to neocons is probably intended to convey this idea covertly. Second, the use of the word "addiction" is outrageously hyperbolic (PS. I see a significant difference between "America" in the headline to Walt's piece and "we" - I should say "you"-Americans. Can a country have an addiction?What percentage of it's people have to suffer from it to render the country afflicted?)Thirdly, the article seems to tilt towards isolationism/ non-intervention but without any consideration of how that might have played out for humanity at large over the last century in particular- no point in confining that review to the last 60 years only.And I don't just mean military intervention but also the threat or fear of same. Fourthly, there seems to be no attempt to compare the US with historic holders of enormous military might- I suspect it may compare favourably with all others in terms of throwing it's weight around. Long live the Pax Americana!
Aug '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
I found the article to be very glib and un-serious. I stopped reading part-way through the final paragraph of the 4th point. It's ego-massaging for Mr. Walt in my view. I don't see anything in there that I don't hear from my Leftist friends when all they want to do is mock people they disagree with and feel better about their own views.
Edited on Apr 7, 2011 at 12:13amJun '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
Kenneth
I actually agree with you, Casey. But my point about Rangel and the draft was that, though I don't want a draft for multifarious reasons, it would dampen enthusiasm for ill-considered military adventures. · Apr 6 at 9:15pm
I know, but the case for individual primacy cannot ever be overstated.
We're always in this quandary in a free society, aren't we? The majority of those attracted to the military life are those most in need of a stable income and self-discipline (lower-income), with the rest more or less consciously sacrificing potential wealth and future civilian prosperity for the good of the country. There is, of course, some overlap, but that's the general make-up of our forces. Unfortunately, the Western life is one of relative leisure and extended, spoiled adolescence, so the volunteer system we have (the only one in the world!) ends up not reflecting the general class structure of broader society. I'm still of two minds on how damaging this is, so I don't know the answer.
Jan '11
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
If the premise is that we use war as a means to impose our policy on others, I reject the premise. If the premise is that we're driven to start wars from a complex psychosis, that's a load of crap.
For the vast majority of conflicts, we didn't start them. We didn't get into World War II until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor; until then, we had been trying to stay out of war. We didn't start the Gulf Wars. Saddam Hussein started the first one, and bin Laden started the second.
I think there's a segment that sees every problem through the lens of Vietnam. Was that war really necessary? Better historians than I can debate that, but it doesn't take a historian to see that not every war is Vietnam replayed. Was Iraq a necessary war? Is Afghanistan now, a necessary war? I'm willing to entertain debates about those two, but I'm not willing to extrapolate from there that every war is the result of an American psychosis.
Aug '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
I still have great difficulty with the hypocrisy of others being sent to do the bleeding for policy wonks (who far too often have zero experience of combat and war) who pontificate from behind the castle walls.
I don't like the idea that American citizens are being used as the little plastic pieces on somebody's Risk gameboard. Tally up how many countries host US troops today. In far too many cases we are 'helping' people who show very little interest in helping themselves. It's time for this exploitation of American benevolence to end.
Edited on Apr 7, 2011 at 3:39amDec '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
Americans "addicted" to war? Seriously? It's an O.K. article with a lot of gaping holes and cotradictions. On one hand he states we are addicted yet says we were Johnny-come-lately to the two largest conflicts in 20th century history. Why? BECAUSE AMERICANS DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO WAR THAT'S WHY. Take the time to read Barbara Tuchman's "The Zimmerman Telegram" or any book dealing with the America military policy between post-civil war up to World War II -- In particular " Forty miles a day on beans and hay" dealing with the Indian Wars between 1870-1890. I guarantee you'll think you're reading about our troops overseas now.
Don't use Vietnam and the draft as a sole measuring stick. Drafts were seldom used with the exception of post World War II to 1975 and that was because we maintained a large constabulary force overseas. As for "uneccessary wars" I say allow history to play itself out.
I agree with Nordman and others who assert our leaders are crapping out on the job when it comes to making sound decisions regarding our military. Too few know real service or sacrifice.
Jun '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
It's hard to respond in 200 words, especially when I partially agree with some of his points.
First, “WE” are not addicted to war, politicians and government bureaucracies are. “We,” the American people, aren't consulted and, as has been put forward some by some, should not even have the right to recall those who use the authority we have given them to do the opposite of what we desire.
The discussion of the Constitution's specific grant to Congress the right to declare war is disingenuous because the president believes and is told he has the legal right to order military action without a declaration. Since none of the branches of government have cared enough to do anything decisive about the situation, I can't believe they care all that much about what is basically a political tool for them.
Jun '10
Re: Stephen Walt: "Are We Addicted to War?"
Second, we do have serious enemies, we just don't have serious leaders to deal with them.
We are a world leader and a superpower only in our own minds. To the rest of the world we are a lumbering, out of control giant, who can be steered one way or another with a little thoughtful effort.
As for the return of the draft...*sigh* I am in favor of two years of mandatory public service, paid at the same rate as our bottom three enlisted grades and with the same benefits. Public service would be mandatory, military service as one's public service would be optional.
Seriously, we teach and extol the rights of Americans constantly, but say nothing of our responsibilities. Requiring public service to this, to OUR nation, would change our country to its core.