Why Liberals Need Military History
As my "current reading" space hopefully now indicates, I’m delving into Thomas Ricks’ Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq. Once I’ve finished, I intend to write a double review on both Fiasco and Not a Good Day to Die, which I actually completed several months ago but never got around to reviewing. Both works are very well done and go a long way toward explaining how and why vital mistakes were made in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I’m getting a head of myself.
Yesterday my Fiasco reading focused on the run-up to war where Ricks really lets Congress, and particularly the Dems, have it for not exercising more oversight over the decision to go to war and failing to challenge the strategic arguments and rationales upon which Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was based. Ricks argues fairly persuasively that this occurred because most of the Congressmen who had led the Democratic party on defense issues during the Cold War had moved on and hadn’t been replaced. Lacking an informed voice on military affairs, the left side of the aisle failed to make a credible argument and got steamrolled as a result.
These facts illustrate why Democrats need to be better educated in military history and national security affairs.
Liberals do not like to talk or think about military issues. Blame it on New Left-post-Vietnam discontent or any number of things, but let's face it, many of the Dems just don’t think military force can serve a valuable purpose and most believe the defense budget should be radically trimmed. Throughout their presidential debates for example, the Democratic candidates castigate defense spending as an unnecessary Goliath and claim the money could be better spent on education and health-care. Well, this is all well and good but it is an incomplete answer. Such an answer may be red meat for the far left but it’s not going to convince moderates. The defense budget may need trimming but in order to convince me that you’re right, you’ve got to ground your argument in a strategic or operational context. For example, don’t just tell me we should cut the budget in order to hire more teachers, explain the other side of the coin and tell me how DOD wastes billions on amphibious assault vehicles for the Marine Corps, which have not been used since Inchon during the Korean War, and probably will never be used in the current operational environment. Don’t just tell me we should pull out of Iraq, explain how the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that an effective counterinsurgency campaign cannot be mounted because it is impossible to win back the confidence of the Iraqi people, the key to a successful counterinsurgency campaign.
Simply put, in order to effectively challenge Republicans on these security issues, you’ve got to be educated in those issues to mount a credible response. Simply stating that war is bad is not enough. That makes me think you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and I’ll turn you off faster than a news report on Paris Hilton. However, if you explain yourself and tell me that military conflicts tend to create more problems than they fix and cite some examples from history to support this assertion, I’m not going to be as dismissive and am more willing to engage in debate. You start quoting Clausewitz instead of Michael Moore and liberals stand to achieve much more success in a national security debate but, you’ve got to know Clausewitz before you can quote him.
The Dems would do well to educate themselves.
Yesterday my Fiasco reading focused on the run-up to war where Ricks really lets Congress, and particularly the Dems, have it for not exercising more oversight over the decision to go to war and failing to challenge the strategic arguments and rationales upon which Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was based. Ricks argues fairly persuasively that this occurred because most of the Congressmen who had led the Democratic party on defense issues during the Cold War had moved on and hadn’t been replaced. Lacking an informed voice on military affairs, the left side of the aisle failed to make a credible argument and got steamrolled as a result.
These facts illustrate why Democrats need to be better educated in military history and national security affairs.
Liberals do not like to talk or think about military issues. Blame it on New Left-post-Vietnam discontent or any number of things, but let's face it, many of the Dems just don’t think military force can serve a valuable purpose and most believe the defense budget should be radically trimmed. Throughout their presidential debates for example, the Democratic candidates castigate defense spending as an unnecessary Goliath and claim the money could be better spent on education and health-care. Well, this is all well and good but it is an incomplete answer. Such an answer may be red meat for the far left but it’s not going to convince moderates. The defense budget may need trimming but in order to convince me that you’re right, you’ve got to ground your argument in a strategic or operational context. For example, don’t just tell me we should cut the budget in order to hire more teachers, explain the other side of the coin and tell me how DOD wastes billions on amphibious assault vehicles for the Marine Corps, which have not been used since Inchon during the Korean War, and probably will never be used in the current operational environment. Don’t just tell me we should pull out of Iraq, explain how the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that an effective counterinsurgency campaign cannot be mounted because it is impossible to win back the confidence of the Iraqi people, the key to a successful counterinsurgency campaign.
Simply put, in order to effectively challenge Republicans on these security issues, you’ve got to be educated in those issues to mount a credible response. Simply stating that war is bad is not enough. That makes me think you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and I’ll turn you off faster than a news report on Paris Hilton. However, if you explain yourself and tell me that military conflicts tend to create more problems than they fix and cite some examples from history to support this assertion, I’m not going to be as dismissive and am more willing to engage in debate. You start quoting Clausewitz instead of Michael Moore and liberals stand to achieve much more success in a national security debate but, you’ve got to know Clausewitz before you can quote him.
The Dems would do well to educate themselves.
posted by Will at 8:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home