Could it be that Barack Obama has proven to be a better at handling foreign wars than at domestic politics? As a war president he has racked up a string of successes that can only be considered as remarkable.
He has ended one of America's longest and most disastrous foreign adventures. Now that it has concluded, can anyone really remember what it was that was so threatening to our national interests that it caused us to spend a trillion dollars and cost is the lives of over 5000 Americans as well as the lives of untold numbers of Iraqis and others? Was it, weapons of mass destruction, regime change, oil, punishment, retribution or something else?
One thing we can be sure of, the Bush administration fell into the trap Bin Laden set for us; to bankrupt us by squandering the nations treasure on fruitless foreign adventures.
Obama has ended this sad chapter in American adventurism not as a defeat like in Vietnam or a stalemate as in Korea but arguably with American honor relatively intact despite the insane mismanagement by the prior administration that got us into it in the first place.
In Afghanistan, where the pursuit of those who destroyed the World Trade Center provided some conceivable rational for invasion, he has acted with firmness and a certain amount of political courage to try to salvage the nation from the blunders and criminal mismanagement of another war he had inherited and is now bringing that war to its close.
While grappling with this inherited mess, he has managed to begin the destruction of America's perceived enemies by eliminating Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and yes even Moammar Gaddafi while encouraging the demands for freedom among the people of the Near and Middle-east.
True, this going around killing people here and there leaves me feeling somewhat uncomfortable. But think if we could have sent in a drone to kill Hitler in 1939 how many lives could have been saved. Yes, I understand, Bin Laden is not Hitler and the Taliban is not the Nazi party (although some may disagree). Nonetheless, people (including Americans) have always resorted to war, murder and mayhem to impose their will on others. The conflict between a nation's reasonable defense preparedness and those who profit from war is never ending.
Recently, I read conservative commentators criticizing the President because they believed that killing someone by drone, by proxy or by Americas trained for surgical operations like the Bin Laden raid were not manly enough.
Now, while I certainly have qualms about government sanctioned killing in any form, that is just silly. I suspect the people who say that believed that bombing innocent villagers from B-52's was manly and that the chicken hawks of the Bush administration who never found a war they themselves would be willing to fight in, were models of American manhood. Frankly, I personally believe no one should be able to authorize national warfare unless he or she has actually served on the front lines.
What I see possibly emerging is what can be labeled the "Obama Doctrine." It appears to be something like this: We will not put troops on the ground or expend massive amounts of treasure unless a significant attack by the armies of a foreign power is imminent. Nevertheless, where we believe our fundamental interests, or the inalienable rights of others are threatened, we reserve the right to intervene by first seeking international commitment in money and material, and only then supporting those with like goals followed if needed by the minimum force necessary. (Our involvement in the Libyan situation seems to exemplify this policy.)
It should have always been clear that any major power who, unless directly attacked by equivalent might, uses their military force to insert armies into lands beyond their border engender unacceptable risks to the nations power and treasure unless, it has 1. a specific achievable goal and duration (and cost); 2. all other options have been explored or exhausted 3. victory is a certitude (not confidence but practical certitude) and 4. it can be demonstrated that it can be paid for from current income (tax revenue).
As for #4, I am reasonably confident that if we were required to raise taxes to fight a war we would involve ourselves in far fewer on them. I trust the wealthy, who would be forced to contribute to pay for it, to hire those who can make the case for why military intervention is ill advised.
Great Powers who disregarded these rule have often fallen not because of any defeat on the battlefield but because of economic exhaustion and social turmoil at home.
We violated these rules in Vietnam and Iraq and have paid the price. A heavy price that has us teetering on the brink of losing our undisputed economic and military leadership in the world.
(This has been adapted from a post in Trenz Pruca's Journal.)
______________
Today's quote:
"He who makes a profit from war or the things of war can never be considered a patriot."
Trenz Pruca