For the last few weeks I've been doing something I don't normally do, be current. The reason that's unusual for me is because one of my goals with this blog is to offer analysis that is trans-historical. As in I want my analysis to apply to more than just some particular current event, no matter how important that event may be.
It's a test of sorts for me. If an analysis only works for a current event then it's probably flawed. For if I can't take the same line of reasoning and easily apply it to some past or future context then I'm probably just spinning things to fit a cause.
Take the current situation about Syria and for example compare it to the lead ups to the Iraq war or the Balkans intervention by NATO, or the Vietnam War.
The United States presidents involved in each respectively were Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Johnson. I'm speaking of the decisions to commit significant military resources in each case.
My analysis of the current Syria situation has been essentially that the United States would be wise to not get involved for the following reasons, mostly.
-- Both sides of the Syrian civil war are hostile to United States interests in the region and both have committed atrocities against civilians. So there are no "good guys".
-- The proposed military action seems likely to be indecisive. This can be concluded both because of a lack of clear goals and to odd assurances from the administration that the strike will be minimal.
-- The current president's integrity is virtually shot and thus both the American people and the international community are disinclined to follow him into such an action.
Now let's see how this applies to Iraq, the Balkans, and Vietnam.
-- "Good guys"? -- There were some significant groups of "good guys" in Iraq, the Balkans, and Vietnam to work with. Whether we always did a good job of picking them out and working with them in each case could be a subject of another analysis, but none the less there were "good guys" to work with.
-- Decisive military plans? -- Military actions in Vietnam and the Balkans were poorly defined in terms of goals and thus were generally ineffective. The only reason there seemed to be progress in the Balkans was because of political transitions in Serbia that could have just as easily have happened without us blowing up trains or embassies or any of the other applications of our military force there. Both Vietnam and the Balkans were actions I would not have advised for good reason. Military actions need clear achievable goals to be effective. And even then those goals need to be things that will be effective once achieved.
-- Presidential integrity? -- Johnson, Clinton, and Bush were all able to put together significant coalitions. In Clinton's case it was ready made in the form of NATO, but he probably could have put one together if he had to at the time. Obama can't do that. The only major potential ally is France who is less than totally inspired to go.
So what does this test of mine show? Two things I think. One is that I am being consistent with my analysis and philosophy when I oppose this action. The second is that this action has even less going for it than did two actions I have previously ranked amongst the least well advised use of American military force, the Balkans and Vietnam.
Now that Putin has offered Obama a way out of his embarrassing corner I can only hope he takes it. Even if the spin that will follow to try and make it look like Obama did something good here will be sickening and difficult to endure.
It's a test of sorts for me. If an analysis only works for a current event then it's probably flawed. For if I can't take the same line of reasoning and easily apply it to some past or future context then I'm probably just spinning things to fit a cause.
Take the current situation about Syria and for example compare it to the lead ups to the Iraq war or the Balkans intervention by NATO, or the Vietnam War.
The United States presidents involved in each respectively were Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Johnson. I'm speaking of the decisions to commit significant military resources in each case.
My analysis of the current Syria situation has been essentially that the United States would be wise to not get involved for the following reasons, mostly.
-- Both sides of the Syrian civil war are hostile to United States interests in the region and both have committed atrocities against civilians. So there are no "good guys".
-- The proposed military action seems likely to be indecisive. This can be concluded both because of a lack of clear goals and to odd assurances from the administration that the strike will be minimal.
-- The current president's integrity is virtually shot and thus both the American people and the international community are disinclined to follow him into such an action.
Now let's see how this applies to Iraq, the Balkans, and Vietnam.
-- "Good guys"? -- There were some significant groups of "good guys" in Iraq, the Balkans, and Vietnam to work with. Whether we always did a good job of picking them out and working with them in each case could be a subject of another analysis, but none the less there were "good guys" to work with.
-- Decisive military plans? -- Military actions in Vietnam and the Balkans were poorly defined in terms of goals and thus were generally ineffective. The only reason there seemed to be progress in the Balkans was because of political transitions in Serbia that could have just as easily have happened without us blowing up trains or embassies or any of the other applications of our military force there. Both Vietnam and the Balkans were actions I would not have advised for good reason. Military actions need clear achievable goals to be effective. And even then those goals need to be things that will be effective once achieved.
-- Presidential integrity? -- Johnson, Clinton, and Bush were all able to put together significant coalitions. In Clinton's case it was ready made in the form of NATO, but he probably could have put one together if he had to at the time. Obama can't do that. The only major potential ally is France who is less than totally inspired to go.
So what does this test of mine show? Two things I think. One is that I am being consistent with my analysis and philosophy when I oppose this action. The second is that this action has even less going for it than did two actions I have previously ranked amongst the least well advised use of American military force, the Balkans and Vietnam.
Now that Putin has offered Obama a way out of his embarrassing corner I can only hope he takes it. Even if the spin that will follow to try and make it look like Obama did something good here will be sickening and difficult to endure.
No comments:
Post a Comment