September 29, 2002
PRUNING THE SAVAGE GARDEN:
Everthing You Think You Know About the American Way of War Is Wrong (Max Boot, September 12, 2002, Foreign Policy Research Institute)The president's hostility to "peacekeeping" is based on the widespread belief that U.S. troops have not traditionally undertaken this kind of mission, and are not particularly good at it. This view, like many other common myths about the "American Way of War," has little basis in historical fact. For more than 200 years, the U.S. military has routinely violated every tenet of the Powell Doctrine --and done so with great success. To be specific, there is absolutely nothing novel about (1) wars without a "vital national interest," (2) wars without significant popular support, (3) wars without declarations of war, (4) wars without exit strategies, and (5) wars that force US troops to act as "social workers." All these great taboos of the 1990s are actually very common in American history. [...]If there is one theme that emerges throughout my book it is that, though the reasons have changed over the years, the United States has always found itself being drawn into "the savage wars of peace." Economists describe this as a yield curve -- when cost is low, demand is high. For America the relative cost of intervening anywhere around the world is fairly low; therefore we're likely to intervene even when the cause might appear marginal in a realpolitik interpretation of our national interests. America's strategic situation today presents more opportunities than ever before for such entanglements. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, America has stood head and shoulders (and also probably torso) above all other nations, possessor of the world's richest economy and its most potent military.
In many ways the chaotic post-Cold War environment resembles that of the post-Napoleonic world, with the U.S. thrust willy nilly into Britain's old role as globocop. Of course, unlike 19th century Britain, 21st century America does not preside over a formal empire. Its "empire" consists not of far-flung territorial possessions but of a family of democratic, capitalist nations that eagerly seek shelter under Uncle Sam's umbrella. The inner core of the American empire -- North America, Western Europe, Northeast Asia -- remains for the most part stable and prosperous, but violence and unrest lap at the periphery -- in Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, Central Asia, and other regions teeming with failed states, criminal states or simply a state of nature. This is where America has found itself getting involved in its recent small wars, and no doubt will again in the future. If history is any guide, and I believe it is, we have a lot more savage wars in our future.
One of the more depressing things about the fight over whether to overthrow Saddam is that this is one of the easier cases to make. What are the Democrats going to be like when it comes to forcibly democratizing a place like Syria, which most of them have never given a moment's thought to? Posted by Orrin Judd at September 29, 2002 1:39 PM
Not much point to overthrowing {name
country here} if it has no coherence, no
party capable of -- or in many cases, even
interested in -- self-government. Zimbabwe
this week comes to mind.
Neither the ability nor the desire to govern yourself
is inborn. It has to be learned and it's
the most difficult lesson humans have ever
been faced with.
Just 150 years ago, few people in Europe
identified themselves as members of a
national state, and probably most did not
even recognize that they were part of a
national culture. It was the work of
nationalists (like the Grimms) to create
national feeling.
We might wish they had done a worse job
in Germany than they did, but, nevertheless,
national states work only with national
consensus. That's why the Chinese government
is so terrified of Falun Gong. They have not
forgotten Tai-ping.
OJ;
It's unlikely to be worse. As far as I can tell the surrenderists are pulling out all the stops. Just like voucher opponents, what they most fear is that the other side is objectively right and that allowing them to go forward will show that to the "unwashed masses".
My point is not to surrender but to stop
expecting civilized, modern behavior from
uncivilized, premodern people. It is not
western oppression that prevents Mohammedans
from enjoying the benefits of modern
society.
Their current state is not significantly
different from what it was 200 years ago,
when none of them had ever heard of the
United States, and when they had had more
than a thousand years to adjust their status
any way they wanted.
We must presume that what they achieved
as of, say 1700, was what they liked.
They could have changed their minds since
then, but where is the evidence that they
have?
I foresee one, two, many Omdurmans.
I was not thinking especially of Syria, just
premodern areas in general. But, AOG, a
replacement regime in Syria might indeed be
worse. After all, the current regime is the
moderate (in Syrian terms) faction that replaced the radicals
in 1954 when they were discredited by
getting whoop-assed by the Israelis.
Hard to say what might happen in Syria, by
all odds the Mohammedan country with the
best infrastructure for moving out of the dark
ages and into modernity -- at least, did have up to
the mid-20th century.
Harry:
When have they been given a choice of something different. I agree they should rebel if they want change, but we never hold it against the Eastern Europeans that they allowed themselves to be held in bondage by communist governments.
Why do we think that, given a choice, they would choose anything different from what they've got now?
The Mohammedans are so fond of retelling the story -- it's a true story -- about how they were the biggest, most advanced, most powerful polity on Earth for nearly a thousand years. So they were. Nobody was pushing them around then. And they chose -- Bernard Lewis even can give the exact date -- to be ignorant, to be ruled by phony aristocrats, to resist change, to hate Dar al-Harb. All the stuff they embrace today.
The last thing Arabs want to do is govern themselves. It just isn't on their wish list.