By Dave Anderson:
At the highest level, war is a political decision. It is a decision to use the resources of the state to achieve certain (desirable) objectives.
The decision to use the resources of the state is not an absolute decision, it is a continuous decision. For instance, the United States decided to commit the entire resources of the nation to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War Two because the American political elite made the decision that the stakes were high enough to justify those costs. Those resources included full war-time mobilization of the economy and population as well as developping and using nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the United States government made the decision to not use nuclear weapons or embark on a full-scale mobilization of all resources for US interventions/small wars in Lebanon in 1983 or Kosovo in 1999. The stakes were not high enough for those costs.
The decision to invade Iraq was a political decision. The decision to use a light-foot print force and believe the utopian predictions that Shock and Awe would deprive all Iraqis of agency and agendas so that the light force could go in, install a pliant exile leaer and get in time for a victory brigade in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade was also a political decision. The American leadership and elites believed (correctly) that they could get popular support for a short, cheap or slightly profitable, victorious war while they could not get popular support for a war that would have the direct costs of over a trillion dollars, indirect costs of several trillion dollars, several thousand American dead, hundreds of thousands of dead or displaced Iraqis and more expensive oil. The decision to embark upon a Surge strategy that failed in its stated objectives was also a political decision.
War is a political decision and resource allocation at the strategic level is a political decision. Adding more resources, including time is a political decision. Limiting resources is also a political decision.
John McCain is an idiot if he does not realize this, as he ran his campaign for the Presidency based on his political support for more war:
Sen. John McCain blasted President Barack Obama's stated goal of beginning troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011, saying Obama made a "political decision" not based on military strategy.
Committing another trillion or two dollars in Afghanistan is a political decision. Commiting half a trillion dollars and getting out before the heat death of the universe is also a political decision. All decisions at the strategic level of war are in part political decisions.
The only question is why would anyone still listen to that senile grumpy old man. As much as he's on the TV you would think he won in 2008 instead of getting trounced.
ReplyDeleteI saw a clip of McCain this morning and shuddered.
ReplyDeleteWhatever disappointments may come from Barack Obama, the McCain-Palin alternative would have been catastrophically worse.
What we need to hope is that Obama does not pursue the campaign in Afghanistan in the way Johnson pursued the campagign in Vietnam - not enough to win, but enough to keep the right wing at bay - with the result that we don't "win" the war, but thousands die needlessly.
ReplyDeleteMcCain was obviously absent the day they did Clausewitz at Annapolis.
ReplyDeleteRegards, Steve
I may still be looking through rose-colored glasses, but my feeling during the campaign was that Obama's saber rattling was exactly what you suggest, something to keep the right wing at bay. Somehow, though, his attempts at war-mongering rhetoric never rang true for me. It seemed (and still does) so contrary to the rest of his persona.
ReplyDeleteWhen an economic collapse occurred just weeks before he was to take office, and the specter of protracted unemployment and economic instability loomed like a Category 4 Gulf hurricane, the notion of messing with the Defense Department mission and budget became unthinkable.
From the outset of this travesty we call a volunteer military I have considered it more a national employment scheme more than any real defense requirement. Why else would Congress insist on larding the budget when the Pentagon itself says they don't need so much stuff?
When and if the economy passes the still possible double-dip recession stage then and only then do I expect anything defense related to come under review. If all those troops and ancillary civilian contractors (a real budget multiplier if ever there was one) were not on the clock, where would an already lame economy be then?
And they say spending and borrowing ain't good for "stimulus." Ha! Yeah, right.