Welcome to the World Artie
Interesting opinion piece this week from Arthur Schlesinger, a historian and former presidential advisor to President Kennedy. Whenever a “historian” ventures outside the confines of the ivory tower and utilizes historical analysis to comment on contemporary affairs for any medium, I’m always interested in what they have to say. In my opinion, the historical profession has been plagued in recent years by an ever-increasing lack of influence in government positions. This has occurred for many reasons, one of the main ones being that some historians view current events in past paradigms, a sort of if-it-worked-in-the-past-it-should-work-now mentality. This analytical shortcoming was glaringly evident in The Washington Post on Monday.
So here we have a little article by Schlesinger, which seems to parallel his book War and the American Presidency on the concept of preventive war throughout American history and the dangers of unilateralism. This kind of analysis is the reason why no one cares what historians have to say. Throughout the article, Schlesinger lists several historical events, his favorite of course being the Cuban Missile Crisis, where U.S. presidents refused to initiate preventive war. That’s fine, he’s essentially correct but he completely fails to demonstrate historical relevancy as he goes on:
Hello! (bangs on Schlesinger’s apparently empty skull) wake-up buddy...(Schlesinger’s eyes slowly open)...(in soothing tone) hey how are you bud....you must have been asleep for awhile now...CAUSE THE FUCKING COLD WAR IS OVER!!! Jesus man, wake up! Containment and deterrence were engineered by Kennan to discourage aggression by the Soviet Union, it is not a trump card formula that will govern international relations until the end of time. It was constructed with a specific enemy in mind, an enemy that possessed its own unique social, political, and economic behavior which influenced how it conducted relations with the outside world. Engineering a grand strategy based on these same Cold War assumptions is dangerous because it encourages analysts to search for an enemy that does not exist, this is exactly why many in the Pentagon view China as a likely enemy. Furthermore, containment focuses on a nation state opponent that fortunately does not exist. Islamic extremism, our current enemy, possesses no national border or allegiance. Sticking to deterrence, as the H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations did, created an environment conducive to the growth of terrorism. Al Qaeda destroyed our marine barracks in Beirut, and we did nothing; they bombed the World Trade Center, and we did nothing; they bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and we lobbed a few missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan; they attacked the USS Cole, and we did nothing, then, you guessed it...9/11.
Islamic extremism is a force that must be actively confronted or it will spread. People within these areas are seduced into terrorist networks because they have no real economic options. They live in poverty and have no way out. Logically they look for someone to blame for their circumstances and the U.S. and its allies become convenient target’s thanks to a healthy dose of encouragement from their local misguided Imam. If these same individuals are provided with an economic stake in society that gives them other options, then they are less likely to turn to a life of violence. Authoritarian regimes do not provide these incentives, which is why they have to be taken out. And since no other military possesses the flexibility that is needed to take down these regimes, it has to be us.
Containing the problem to the Middle East and the rest of the Third World will only breed further instability and cause a much greater problem down the line. Throughout the Cold War these areas were neglected and dictators encouraged, now we’re dealing with the results of that neglect: a bunch of pissed-off people with plenty of time and AK-47s on their hands just looking for a fight. Are we at fault here? You bet you’re ass we are but instead of pursuing an isolationist policy, pulling out and leaving these areas to their own fates, we’ve got to confront the problem. This is the price we pay for winning the Cold War.
Schlesinger, you’re just wrong. Events change, situations and relationships change, and instead of poking at the problem with the same old solution you’ve got to roll with the punches and adapt. New enemies call for new strategies and no one should know this better than a historian. His analysis is an insult to the profession and is exactly why no one cares what historians have to say anymore. Just because you’re a historian and study the past, doesn’t mean you have to live there.
So here we have a little article by Schlesinger, which seems to parallel his book War and the American Presidency on the concept of preventive war throughout American history and the dangers of unilateralism. This kind of analysis is the reason why no one cares what historians have to say. Throughout the article, Schlesinger lists several historical events, his favorite of course being the Cuban Missile Crisis, where U.S. presidents refused to initiate preventive war. That’s fine, he’s essentially correct but he completely fails to demonstrate historical relevancy as he goes on:
[O]ur Cold War presidents kept to the Kennan formula of containment plus deterrence, and we won the Cold War without escalating it into a nuclear war. Enter George W. Bush as the great exponent of preventive war. In 2003, owing to the collapse of the Democratic opposition, Bush shifted the base of American foreign policy from containment-deterrence to presidential preventive war: Be silent; I see it, if you don't.
Hello! (bangs on Schlesinger’s apparently empty skull) wake-up buddy...(Schlesinger’s eyes slowly open)...(in soothing tone) hey how are you bud....you must have been asleep for awhile now...CAUSE THE FUCKING COLD WAR IS OVER!!! Jesus man, wake up! Containment and deterrence were engineered by Kennan to discourage aggression by the Soviet Union, it is not a trump card formula that will govern international relations until the end of time. It was constructed with a specific enemy in mind, an enemy that possessed its own unique social, political, and economic behavior which influenced how it conducted relations with the outside world. Engineering a grand strategy based on these same Cold War assumptions is dangerous because it encourages analysts to search for an enemy that does not exist, this is exactly why many in the Pentagon view China as a likely enemy. Furthermore, containment focuses on a nation state opponent that fortunately does not exist. Islamic extremism, our current enemy, possesses no national border or allegiance. Sticking to deterrence, as the H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations did, created an environment conducive to the growth of terrorism. Al Qaeda destroyed our marine barracks in Beirut, and we did nothing; they bombed the World Trade Center, and we did nothing; they bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and we lobbed a few missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan; they attacked the USS Cole, and we did nothing, then, you guessed it...9/11.
Islamic extremism is a force that must be actively confronted or it will spread. People within these areas are seduced into terrorist networks because they have no real economic options. They live in poverty and have no way out. Logically they look for someone to blame for their circumstances and the U.S. and its allies become convenient target’s thanks to a healthy dose of encouragement from their local misguided Imam. If these same individuals are provided with an economic stake in society that gives them other options, then they are less likely to turn to a life of violence. Authoritarian regimes do not provide these incentives, which is why they have to be taken out. And since no other military possesses the flexibility that is needed to take down these regimes, it has to be us.
Containing the problem to the Middle East and the rest of the Third World will only breed further instability and cause a much greater problem down the line. Throughout the Cold War these areas were neglected and dictators encouraged, now we’re dealing with the results of that neglect: a bunch of pissed-off people with plenty of time and AK-47s on their hands just looking for a fight. Are we at fault here? You bet you’re ass we are but instead of pursuing an isolationist policy, pulling out and leaving these areas to their own fates, we’ve got to confront the problem. This is the price we pay for winning the Cold War.
Schlesinger, you’re just wrong. Events change, situations and relationships change, and instead of poking at the problem with the same old solution you’ve got to roll with the punches and adapt. New enemies call for new strategies and no one should know this better than a historian. His analysis is an insult to the profession and is exactly why no one cares what historians have to say anymore. Just because you’re a historian and study the past, doesn’t mean you have to live there.
posted by Will at 4:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home