So How Do We Choose?

[scoober78]

I was reading this pre-digested news bite this morning...and it got the brain spinning.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/01/world/meast/syria-hama-neighborhood/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

As an study-er of government and economics, and a member of the military, I've always been interested in how it is we make the decision to commit troops to a conflict/war/police action. Pick your euphemism. Of course there are "preset" triggers that commit our forces such as an attack on a NATO member, clear direct attack on the United States by a known nation actor (Pearl Harbor) etc...but that's not what I'm interested in. What I am getting at are the grey areas. Why for instance do we choose to intervene in Somalia but not Darfur? Why Libya and not Syria?

Of course, I understand that these are complicated decisions that aren't made in isolation to many variables. The overall state of the economy, recent successful or unsuccessful interventions, strategic geo-location or resource allocation all can tip the scales one way or another...but here's the question.

If you were given the opportunity, what policy of military intervention would you create? What examples recently would you send or not send troops to? Should we have been in Libya? Should we be in Syria?

 

[squorch2]

There's a debate over the role of the US and how much intervention it - and the rest of the international community - should take on. Obviously we bring logistics and capabilities that no one else has, making our presence a requirement for hostile and probably even semi-permissive environments that aren't geographically close to Europe. The triggers for intervention have varied since the end of the Cold War, but IR scholars generally point to Kosovo as the tipping point where human rights violations (genocide, etc.) began to trump sovereignty concerns, leading directly to the Responsibility to Protect paradigm. (That wikipedia article is wrong on one big point - ICISS was established in response to the Security Council's lack of action wrt Kosovo and the subsequent NATO action - but is otherwise a good intro to the subject.)

R2P - which, btw, is the current policy of the UN, as set forth in UNSCR 1674 - justifies intervention in both Libya and Syria, where states have failed to protect their citizenry. The major difference in the two conflicts is the presence of a great power (Russia) propping up the Syrian state apparatus and paralyzing the Security Council through veto threats. Whereas in Kosovo Russia was in no shape to oppose NATO action, as it was very much dependent on Western aid, things are different now, and few people wish to see a flare-up between Russia and the West over what is, to date, a rather confined conflict, albeit not without atrocities.

All that pretty much is window dressing for "it's easy when it's easy - it's really hard when it's hard." International balance of power politics are a huge constraint on the international system in its current incarnation, and circumstances are unlikely to go back to the hegemonic days of the immediate post-Cold-War period anytime soon.

 

[squorch2]

Other constraints on intervention:

- Domestic political realities
- External factors (tough to intervene when you're fighting two wars, for example)
- International pressure
- States acting in bad faith under the shield of sovereignty

 

[squorch2]

Also, to put it in Clausewitzian terms, "It is the mind of the commander in chief... that has always been America's center of gravity, not the will of the public."

 

[Brett327]

Also, to put it in Clausewitzian terms, "It is the mind of the commander in chief... that has always been America's center of gravity, not the will of the public."

I would concur with that today as the threshold for initiating hostilities (not the case with WWII where FDR wanted to enter but lacked public support), but the opposite is often true for war termination (like Vietnam and possibly OEF).

 

[scoober78]

Also, to put it in Clausewitzian terms, "It is the mind of the commander in chief... that has always been America's center of gravity, not the will of the public."

More to come from me later here...but...I think the above quote is a gross simplification of the dynamic interplay of factors in the decision to use military force. To argue that the Commander in Chief makes military decisions to any extent, free from public influence, is absurd. The simple fact is, that in today's media saturated environment, will of the people has moved substantially closer to the "mind of the Commander in Chief..." Politicians, of which the President is assuredly one, do not "weigh gains and losses" in isolation as they are the most avid consumers of the will of the people. While I'd like to believe that the President, whoever he may be, values his own mind and its assessment of the situation, I'd be naive in the extreme if I didn't also believe that he values Gallup's, Roper's, CNN's and the New York Times as well.

 

[squorch2]

So we went to war in Vietnam and Iraq due to an outcry from the people?

 

[scoober78]

So we went to war in Vietnam and Iraq due to an outcry from the people?

No. No single factor is ever causal. However, to neglect the public calls for intervention in Bosnia, Somalia etc...is naive. A President who may not necessarily be initially in favor of intervention, can be compelled to that position by public calls for it. Consider McKinley's response to the sinking of the Maine...initially calculated and non-interventionist....and then came

 

[Fog]

Remember the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident"? There was no "there" there. This was LBJ's pretext to get us involved in an air war in NVN.

 

[Renegade One]

For those of you great Americans serving (or again to serve) on the flight lines and in the Ready Rooms: This is a very good discussion...I'm impressed. Army Lieutenants U.S. Grant and R. E. Lee wouldn't have even known what you were talking about. It says a lot about the quality of today's cadre. Uh...that's YOU.

In the final analysis, just remember the salient points of your oath: "...I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and ... I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."


In the foreseeable future, none of you will ever be asked if you think [fill in the blank] is "worth doing". You'll just sail off and do it...without any mental reservations. I sleep better at night KNOWING that you will ALL "well and faithfully" discharge your duties.

Surviving that, some of you may yet have a say, or influence, in the "what are we fighting for" discourse. Live for that day. Any of you would have my vote.

 

[Brett327]

I see absolutely zero conflict between discharging my sworn duties and having a thorough understanding of the decision-making process that goes into why or why not wars start and teminate. To the contrary, to the extent that my expertise may one day inform that decision-making process, I consider that duty to be of equal merit.

 

[wlawr005]

I'm not smart enough to know what it takes to make the decision to commit our forces on a larger scale, or what the historic reprecussions might be. I do know that wars are different these days. Even though America has the capability to utterly destroy any other country in the world, rather quickly, we have been fighting Muslim hillbillies for over 10 years. Any metric designed by me would include the understanding that force commitment would be my last resort, but once committed my focus would be on destruction as quickly as possible with immediate withdrawal. No more nation building or occupation. Kill the bad dudes and get the hell home. If more bad dudes pop up in there place, kill them too.

Nobody is scared of America anymore...that's a bad thing.

 

[squorch2]

Hard questions: How sustainable is keeping the rest of the world scared of the US? Who are the bad dudes? How do you balance respect for states with the need/desire to intervene? What if bad dudes pop up and then fade away into the population?

 

[Renegade One]

I see absolutely zero conflict between discharging my sworn duties and having a thorough understanding of the decision-making process that goes into why or why not wars start and teminate. To the contrary, to the extent that my expertise may one day inform that decision-making process, I consider that duty to be of equal merit.

Shack.

 

[Renegade One]

Nobody is scared of America anymore...that's a bad thing.

Some are scared...too many others are "reliant". Neither is particularly good.