INDCJournal: "Use of Force"

August 01, 2006

"Use of Force"

Posted by Bill

Kevin Drum and I agree on an "analytical framework," while also agreeing that our opinions probably diverge on the specifics of when to employ force as a lever for Democratic reform.

If I had to guess, I'd probably peg the differences here:

1. I believe that the use of force, even beyond a strictly defensive application, or its use to preempt "imminent" threats, is a critical component of any toolbox employed to spread Democracy. The entrenched regimes of brutal dictators presiding over police states can last lifetimes, despite softer external pressures (economic, informational) and the will of their people - and the extent to which said dictators threaten the world and destabilize regions should easily serve as both a specifically legitimate casus belli as well as a rational pretext for changing the autocratic paradigm of a country and/or region via "force," which can take many forms. This is a cornerstone of neoconservative philosophy, rejecting strict "it's not my problem" Realpolitik when pro-democratic and moral goals intersect with sufficiently practical foreign policy interest. In addition, with the increase of global interconnectedness and flattening technological hierarchies, Realpolitik's ultimate (and cynical) practicality has become impractical itself.

A corollary of my belief in intervention is the concept that the "it's none of our business for America to meddle" sentiment is a blatantly false morality, historically shared by nationalistic paleocons and those currently against the Bush Administration or violence as a means. Personally, I blame Gene Rodenberry's "Prime Directive." And I'd also note that my belief in the utility of force predates both September 11 and the Bush Adminstration; I was angry that Clinton enacted a delayed intervention and ultimately withheld ground forces despite the horror of "ethnic cleansing" repeating itself on European soil in Kosovo.

2. Via e-mail and in numerous posts, Drum has declared Iraq a "failure." Whether one makes the argument that Iraq is a failure from the standpoint of where it was predicted or preferred for the country to be in the formulative process of a stable Democracy by 2006, or subjectively asserts that the strategy will fail, the strategic assessment of whether American intervention in Iraq is ultimately a "failure" by definition can't take place for some time, in my opinion. That's going to sound like weasel language to a certain assertive breed of war opponent, but it's not - the ultimate narrative of successful Democracy in the Middle East is still under sail, and the incomplete Iraqi experiment is a major component of a political and cultural shift that could span a generation or more. A shift that very well may have never happened without the spark of a second Gulf War and its removal of a destabilizing regional force and perennial roadblock to reform.

The balls are still up in the air, and the preface and climax will probably outlast the tenure of the Bush Administration. We'll see.

Otherwise, be sure to check out Drum's response.

Posted by Bill at August 1, 2006 02:31 PM | TrackBack (0)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2681

Comments

The best Star Trek episodes generally had Kirk flouting the Prime Directive. A noble captain unilaterally disregards intergalactic law as set by the United Nati- ahem Federation of Planets. It's insidious neocon propaganda.

Posted by: dorkafork at August 1, 2006 04:02 PM

Heh. Heh. "Balls up in the air." Heh. Heh.

Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at August 1, 2006 05:28 PM

Drum keeps saying that "modern insurgencies" can't be won with overwhelming use of force...but the MAJOR fact which he is omitting is that Vietnam and Afghanistan were both proxy wars.

In the first case it was the US vs. the Soviet/Chinese proxy; in the second case it was the Soviets vs. the US proxy.

There is no doubt that the Soviets would have crushed the Afghans if the US hadn't been pouring support into the area.

This forces a complete reanalysis of Drum's position, as Afghanistan and Vietnam only mean that one superpower is not guaranteed of victory against another -- *NOT* that ultraviolence is necessarily ineffective to shutting down a local insurgency! Ultraviolence works, but the necessary level of ultraviolence in this case would have to have also been directed against the suppliers, namely Uncle Sam.

Posted by: faqename at August 1, 2006 07:23 PM

"Drum keeps saying that "modern insurgencies" can't be won with overwhelming use of force...but the MAJOR fact which he is omitting is that Vietnam and Afghanistan were both proxy wars."

Well the key issue here (which Drum ignores of course) concerns what is rhetorically allowed for under the rubric of "force". Force alone is NEVER enough to accomplish any worthwhile strategic goal, counterinsurgency or not.

Posted by: Jason at August 1, 2006 09:21 PM

viagra soft tabs .

Posted by: viagra soft tabs at November 14, 2006 09:15 AM

Nice resource, very interesting reading. http://s1u.net/inob

Posted by: Cellphone at April 11, 2007 10:59 PM

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...

Posted by: Cyrus Gilmore at April 16, 2007 07:22 AM

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...

Posted by: Cyrus Gilmore at April 16, 2007 07:24 AM

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...

Posted by: Cyrus Gilmore at April 16, 2007 07:24 AM

Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields...

Posted by: Carter Pinckney at April 16, 2007 04:45 PM

Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields...

Posted by: Carter Pinckney at April 16, 2007 04:45 PM