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.
Drums In The Deep
War drums are rumbling in ways strangely reminiscent of the world a century past. Nations with chips on their shoulders and something to prove have engaged in foreign adventurism. Would a second Clinton presidency succeed in quelling those drums, or have eight years of flailing foreign policy made us stumble towards some greater conflagration?
The 9/11 Attacks happened on George W. Bush’s watch, but it is clear the attack was planned and orchestrated in the years prior, during the presidency of Bill Clinton. One of my own first thoughts upon seeing the burning remains of the World Trade Center on TV was “Well, it finally happened.” After eight years of Clinton’s hamfisted foreign interventions, poor responses to repeated violations by Iraq and attacks on US troops and facilities (the USS Cole being the most prominent in my memory), I was expecting (at least) a serious bloody nose in some form from the Middle East. We had endured eight years of weakness in victory with a president who was overeager to spend a “peace dividend” he did not earn, and we have paid for that since with 15 years of war and misery (and the poor souls who inhabit Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan are paying a still higher price). A strong response to Iraq or to Islamic terrorism in 1996, or a strong spine even in 1994 might have spared us much.
Set aside for a moment the problems in Iraq from 2005-2007, prior to the Surge (during which time I would argue we returned to a weak response form), our initial reaction to 9/11, followed by our toppling of Saddam Hussein, was swift and powerful, determined and grim, and almost of the form delivered by Exeter to the French King in Henry V, “Bloody Constraint:”
Bloody constraint indeed. American military might, delivered with efficiency and rapidity, against a nation (Iraq) and a tribal melange (Afghanistan) who had directly threatened our interests.
Looking to today, though, the US has again fallen back on weak responses, even to the point of paying blackmail to return our troops captured in an act of war by Iran. Mind you, I’m not suggesting that we engage in a hot war with Iran, but Reagan at least shelled the Iranians from time to time, and this was enough to keep them wary. That we have avoided worse today is in no small part a legacy of George W Bush, who afforded a luxury of time to Obama and Hillary that they squandered much as Bill Clinton did 20 years ago.
And so we come to the possibility of another Clinton presidency. A consistent refrain from Clinton’s supporters is that she has foreign policy experience, and that Trump has none. We know she has experience, but of what sort? As secretary of state, she presided over a series of disasters, from Libya to Syria, from Iraq to Ukraine (Kerry has merely had the misfortune of inheriting a situation set up before him). What might we expect? Much as I understand the criticism that Trump’s bloviating an ineptitude might back us into war through an unforced error, I have a far greater fear of Clinton actually stumbling into a war.
Otto von Bismark predicted “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” The chains of alliances, coupled with weak-minded and foolish statesmen, did indeed ripple into The Great War over what should have been a regional conflict. In our own time, the early 21st century, we have any number of “damned foolish things” that could trigger a general war, again because of chains of alliances.
Hillary Clinton has lodged us into a strange situation in Syria, one that has put us out as a target for Russian adventurism in a way that could blunder us into a real war. 2009 saw the now laughable “Reset” with Russia, a direct repudiation of the policies of Bush — policies that at least kept Putin’s aggressions limited to small forays like Georgia (whom he attacked only when Bush was on his way out). Since that risible Reset, Putin has invaded Ukraine and there is no end of talk about whether he’ll try for the Baltic republics next. Is Clinton up for the challenge of restraining Putin, or will she talk tough while trying soft power, or will her response be an inchoate flailing that trips us into a war we do not expect or want Given her history, I fear the latter is the most likely scenario.
The war drums are rumbling. A strong leader might be able to silence them, but a weak leader will not heed them until it is too late. I cannot say that a Trump foreign policy would be sound and strong, but I need only look at Bill Clinton’s, Barak Obama’s, or Hillary Clinton’s to know that hers is weak and ill-conceived.
Published in Foreign Policy
And also has an important Russian port that gives them options in the Eastern Mediterranean.
About those allies like Estonia: Russia has a plausible case to make (or a plausible way to interpret history) that NATO agreed not to expand into the Baltic states and reneged on the agreement. The US got really hinky when the Russians put offensive weapons systems less than 100 miles away. Half a century later, here we are doing just that to the Russians.
Our containment of the USSR was predicated on our NATO allies agreeing that not only an invasion the USSR proper, but an invasion of the USSR’s buffer zone of satellites was off the table. In exchange for the US footing most of the bill, NATO agreed that if the Russians jumped off we’d fight in Germany and then go nuclear.
The buffer zone is gone, much of it now part of NATO’s military. For a while, there wasn’t much Russia could do about that. Now there is. We’re acting shocked when Russia construes massive NATO maneuvers on Russia’s borders and NATO stationing artillery in the Baltic states (guns that put St. Petersburg well within range) as aggressive or threatening. I don’t think we’re planning to attack Russia, but Russia would be foolish not to plan and prepare for such and attack; Putin’s not that kind of fool.
China tends to construct its overseas facilities to make their rapid conversion to military use simple.
I take your point, but would frame it slightly differently.
People are, naturally, sick of war. Sick of pointless war. Sick of sending men and women to die in countries where the major battles seem to be fought over piles of rubble and not much else. And, after our people have fought and died in some far off place, sick of seeing corrupt and incompetent politicians (not necessarily the same thing) abandon it all, for what? Nothing, it seems, because ISIS, or someone, shows up and moves in, and then, it’s like Groundhog Day all over again. I’m sick of it, too.
But I reserve the term ‘war-weary’ for those who, on a daily basis, feel the effects of war, either on the front lines or on the home front, which, in this day and age doesn’t include the vast majority of people in the modern Western democracies who fight them. I’m sure there are millions of decent people in Syria who are war-weary. And in Iraq. Huge swaths of the population, in fact. But here, most people’s interactions with “war” these days are sporadic and superficial. And in between those interactions, they don’t think about “war” much at all. I think most people who are asked, say that they are “war weary” because they’re told they are supposed to be. When they remember to be, and it doesn’t interfere with their lives. I don’t think they’ve got a clue what “war-weary” actually means. Or why it is sometimes necessary to be “war-weary” for the betterment of humanity.
The population of United States citizens who actually are weary of these wars, every day of their lives, are those that are charged with carrying them out, and their families and friends, who see their efforts, and those of their loved ones, diminished and reversed at every turn by the ignorami in Washington DC who are supposed to be running things, and who have lied to them over and over again.
I do expect “reticence” as you describe it, that the US will get involved in future wars. And the potential tragedy of that is that I’m not sure I agree with you that they will be limited to regional conflicts.
One day, it is conceivable, there may be a war that’s worth fighting, and which should be fought.
And, if that happens, while it may still be possible to rally the troops, I’m afraid that rallying the population to the fight may be near to impossible.
I think once Trump is in office, you’ll see a whole different side of him–calm, thoughtful and decisive.
R2P meant kill or depose
QadaffiAssad. But who were our allies there? Assad’s an Iranian client; Iran’s still our enemy. IS is our enemy. [CoC] you and your photo op, McCain, al Nusra is al Qaeda: enemy. With no real allies, it was either: hands off or invade with a big enough army.Edward Luttwak says this of Syria today:
Agreed. Reagan did that “accidental open mike” thing, “The bombing will begin in 5 minutes,” on purpose we now know. Trump has been negotiating with others for decades and made millions doing so. Clinton surrounds herself with toadies.
Lots of Trump support in the military, mostly the career military who fight the wars.
A difficulty to be sure. The argument over Bush’s decisions have been undercut by the constant bleating of the left and the hard right about “he lied us into war” and the arguments about “failure” of one type or another. Success has a thousand fathers, as one could see amply demonstrated at the fall of Baghdad. Failure is an orphan, as was demonstrated every year after that.
I’m perfectly willing to discuss the pros and cons of action and Bush’s choices. I’m not going to spend the next 20 years defending what he did in light of the result. Being conservative doesn’t require us to conserve Bush’s legacy.
They will still be at the end of a multi thousand mile supply chain. Corregidor, Wake Island, Singapore etc.
Awaay we go. Says Instapundit: “The 1980s called, and….”
Trump does not worry me in this context of the Middle East. He is a strong negotiator, and he backs up his talk. The generals and diplomats will support him in getting context.
Trump does worry me around trade negotiations. His populist message reminds me of Herbert Hoover, and I could see him bullying the Congress to pass Smoot-Hawley type anti-trade agreements.
Lowering corporate taxes so that manufacturing jobs are not exported overseas once a company becomes profitable is a good policy. I just worry about Trump getting pressured into a trade-war.
Or in the case of China, failing to leverage our actual trade there, getting into a trade war that ticks them off, and then getting into a hot war with them.
The thing that kills me is how people tend to think our potential adversaries won’t work together.
“We can beat China easily!” “We can beat Russia easily!” “We can beat the Islamists in the Mideast easily!”
“Can we beat all of them at once, with current forces and deployments?”
“Umm… let me get back to you…”
Like this?:
Ain’t it da truth.
Now, now. Hillary has always been one of the toughest rats in the sewer.
Damning with faint praise there.
Yes. I wasn’t implying otherwise. He’s not the one who’s been lying to them for decades.
A group of explorers are charting the deepest, darkest parts of the jungle. One morning while they’re out with their native guide, they begin to notice drumming off in the distance, the likes of which they’ve never heard. Obviously curious, the leader of the party asks the guide “What do the drums mean.” The native guide simply looks to the distance and says “Drums play, good. Drums stop, bad.”
The exploration continues for several more miles with the drums only growing in intensity. The members of the party are getting increasingly nervous at the incessant drumming. Unable to stand it, the party leader addresses the native guide asking “Please, we’re very distracted by all this drumming, could you please tell me what the drumming means?” Again, the native guide merely states, “Drums play, good. Drums stop. bad.”
It’s many miles later. The drums have reached a feverish pitch and the members of the exploration party are beside themselves with fear. Completely losing his composure, the leader of the explorers grabs the native guide by the shoulders and screams “I DEMAND YOU TELL US WHAT THOSE DRUMS MEAN, AND I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ‘DRUMS PLAY, GOOD, DRUMS STOP BAD!!!!!”
Suddenly, the drums stop.
The native guide slumps defeated, stares at the ground and mumbles.
“Bass solo.”
The secretary of state was visiting an African country. At each stop the crowds responded to her offers of US friendship and solidarity with cries of “Ungawa-gawa”! Finally, the King took her to a farm to observe local agriculture. As they approached the cattle pen the King warned her, “Be careful not to step in the ungawa-gawa”.
Next you’ll be telling the ruuruu joke, and Tom will demote this post!
A man’s got to know his limitations.
The world would be a very different place if the Iraq War that started in 1991 and ended in 2003/2011 (if you count the ludicrous effort to bring democracy to the barbarians) was actually fought to the utter destruction of the Baathist regime, execution of Saddam Hussein by American Military Tribunal and the imposition of crippling war indemnity and the complete demilitarization allowing the various sects to determine their own territorial aspirations by low intensity warfare.
It would also have ended for the US in 90 days with no effort to civilize or invest in the region.
Oderint dum metuant.
Let them hate so long as they fear.