Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
Henry Kissinger -- something of an authority on these things -- once defined the three necessary components of the ability to deter an adversary as:
1. Clarity -- Your intent to defeat or resist an enemy must be unambigious.
2. Capability -- You must have the resources necessary to defeat or resist the enemy.
3. Credibility -- It must be plausible that you will actually follow through on the threat. I.E., you must have the necessary will to act.
Deterrence shorn of any one of these three components is no deterrence at all. Which is why President Obama, David Cameron, and Nicolas Sarkozy need to either put up or shut up in Libya. The trio takes to the pages of tomorrow's New York Times to write:
Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power.
And you won't find stronger language anywhere in the piece.
I've been dubious about our Libyan adventure from the start. But if we are there, we should be defining our goals as clearly as possible. And if one of those goals is deposing Qaddafi, we make a mockery of western might by touting our desired ends for all the world to see while forswearing the means necessary to achieve them.
This trio should keep quiet until the day when they're willing to be more forceful in Tripoli than they are on the Times' op-ed pages.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
Why does this pic remind me of the 3 stooges?
We have 2 (if the US is engaged - the Typhoon is a great aircraft, but there are only about 10 of them, and most of the RAF pilots have been relieved of duties, due to budget cuts).
1 and 3 are nowhere in sight.
Jun '10
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
"It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power."
At Fort Donelson, when the Confederates sought to negotiate, General Grant wrote back: "no terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works." Lincoln endorsed Grant’s approach.
After the Munich sell-out of Czechoslovakia by Chamberlain and Daladier, Churchill told the Commons, "England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war." As PM, Churchill was clear on British policy, "I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all terrors. Victory, however long and hard the road may be . . . .”
Our Libyan adventure bears little resemblance to WWII. But if Churchill, standing alone, could utter the word “victory,” why can’t Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron utter the word? Why? Because they are modern-day versions of Daladier and Chamberlain. No Grant, no Lincoln, no Churchill in that bunch. Instead, they wait for a miracle to remove Qadaffi.
Why are we there?
Edited on Apr 14, 2011 at 10:24pmJun '10
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
I agree, Troy. How can this end well? Such incompetence!
Kissinger's necessary three components are based solidly in common sense. Why is common sense in such short supply with Obama and the left? Is it because they are pretending to have the same goals as us?
tabula rasa: I love the quote from Grant. Have you read the biography by Jean Edward Smith? Great book.
Jan '11
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
Our enemies see us occupied by three conflicts. The president told the country that he was going to make cuts at the Pentagon, without having mentioned this to the Pentagon. They don't have to be conservative capitalists to reckon that the United States is in no position to fund a major offensive against anyone.
If Russia wanted to take back former republics, like the move in Georgia, now would be the time. If Chavez wanted to move against anyone, now would be the time. Every African tribe that eyed a neighboring territory is now willing to take a second look. Pakistan is demanding that the US stop the drone attacks, which will allow al-Qaeda back in the ballgame.
Now is the danger time. Now is the time to anticipate and prepare for an attack. After 9/11, some criticized Clinton for not having prepared for it. Criticism after the attack won't help. You have to anticipate the attacks before they come. Now is a ripe time for someone to make a move.
Edited on Apr 15, 2011 at 12:04amRe: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
Troy, while I agree that our policy is lacking clarity (to say the least), I'm not sure those are necessarily the key elements of deterrence. Ambiguity plays a huge role. We can all come up with examples, I'm sure. Much of diplomacy consists of the artful use of ambiguity--the reason NATO rejects NFU is not really because we'd do it, is it.
I'm not arguing with your conclusions, but with the path you're using to get there. Kissinger, of course, was a master of diplomatic ambiguity, and indeed gave us the phrase "constructive ambiguity."
Jan '11
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
With respect, Claire, I disagree. In other situations, ambiguity is a useful device. But when it comes to deterrence, ambiguity is not. Ambiguity invites attack, rather than deters it.
The practical method of deterring someone is to change their expected payoff. In plain language, you make it not worth their while. If your opponent is 100% convinced that you will respond, he has to take it into account whether it's worth trying to pursue it. But if he's only 50% convinced, he'll discount your deterrence by that percentage.
That means that ambiguity can only take away from your ability to deter. It never improves it.
Jan '11
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
Troy, why don't you apply the 3 Kissingerian principles to the Republicans in the "battle of the budget?"
Here's why:
Many conservatives are afraid to do the right thing, even though they spend hours proclaiming how dire and calamitous our current path is, and spend hours claiming that we must change our ways.
Do you think our fecklessness in the sphere of foreign affairs is distinct from our fecklessness in the sphere of domestic policy?
No, they are two sides of the same coin, iron pyrite currency minted in the 1960s.
Dec '10
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
Tabula rasa makes an excellent point regarding victory. A post modern phrase I have come to loath is "exit strategy" which sounds more like "How the hell can we get out of this mess as fast as possible regardless of the outcome?"
Unfortunately, the word "victory" is relegated to the 20th century. MacArthur consistently stated to his dying day that "In war there is no substitute for victory." What I find particularily concerning is the lack of clarity or strategy. What is the end result we want here?
"It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power." -- it total double speak ! If we cannot come together to define the war's strategy, there will be others who will be more than happy to do it for us and it will not be in our favor. Three stooges is right..!
Jan '11
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
I'm (sort of) with Claire on this one. Whenever I told my kids to do something "or else," they wanted to know exactly what the "else" was going to be so they could figure out the cost/benefit ratio. "I'm not going to tell you, but it'll be something you will really, really hate," was a more effective threat than anything specific.
What needs to be unambiguous, though, is that something extremely unpleasant is definitely going to follow non-compliance. Unfortunately this administration has lost all credibility on that score. They're like the finger-wagging parent who says, "I've told you 146 times not to do that, and this time I really mean it!"
May '10
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
The President once said that he was a better campaign manager than his campaign manager, a better speechwriter than his speech writer, and even put himself forward to take over the Chief of Staff role ere being dissuaded.
He writes his own speeches, so his words are empty, shallow and vain (in both senses).
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
Claire,
I agree with you about the virtues of ambiguity when we're talking strictly about diplomacy. It's the old Nixon "Madman Theory" (which in turn was derived from Machiavelli). If you play your hand right, the other side is too scared to test you, regardless of what you would really do.
That breaks down, I think, in what the administration would call "kinetic activities". Once the fight is joined, you want clarity for exactly the reasons that KC Mulville cites in the comment below yours.
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: Troy, while I agree that our policy is lacking clarity (to say the least), I'm not sure those are necessarily the key elements of deterrence. Ambiguity plays a huge role. We can all come up with examples, I'm sure. Much of diplomacy consists of the artful use of ambiguity--the reason NATO rejects NFU is not really because we'd do it, is it.
I'm not arguing with your conclusions, but with the path you're using to get there. Kissinger, of course, was a master of diplomatic ambiguity, and indeed gave us the phrase "constructive ambiguity." · Apr 15 at 3:36am
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
Also, let's keep in mind the game theory component here. It matters whether this is an example in a vacuum or a repeated game. If countries can watch our behavior over a prolonged period of time, they'll judge our potential future actions in light of our observed past ones.
I think this especially important in the case of Libya, where Qaddafi may well be looking at the example of the first Gulf War -- another instance of the coalition determining the mission instead of vice versa -- and trying to reach an outcome similar to the one that kept Saddam in power.
Jan '11
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
I'm lovin' it ... I'm lovin' it ... the game theory thinking, I mean. But you're right about Qaddafi, I suspect. He may be playing the game well, and figures he'll wind up holding onto his country, or the western half of it, anyway. The longer this coalition goes without actually attacking him, the less likely he needs to worry about any threats or ultimatums. As long as he doesn't make any sudden moves, he'll survive.
Mar '11
Re: Stop or I'll Shoot Blanks!
I am absolutely sure China and Russia abstained on U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 on the very sensible principle that you don't interfere with an opponent when he's doing something stupid.
I can't imagine feckless meddling in Libya achieving anything good.
When people who want to kill you are too busy killing each other, the only reasonable thing to do is to keep a safe distance.