So I get hit a lot as being a dove because I’m a proud Democrat, but occasionally I get hit as too hawkish from folks to the left of me. Here’s some quick thoughts on where I stand.
1. Attack America, get hit back. If you attack America or our aliies expect to get hit back just as hard. I don’t believe in turning the other cheek.
2. No bulls (or elephants) in the china shop. Military action is always the last option in diplomatic negotiations. If talking one-on-one with a bad guy will avert having to bomb people, do it – it’s not worth acting like a fake macho man with things this important.
3. Going to war? Do it right. I’m a big fan of the Powell Doctrine, which is – overload the enemy with superior firepower, have an achievable goal as your exit strategy. Hit hard, hit fast, get the hell out.
4. Don’t torture people. It doesn’t work, it’s immoral. Being “not as bad as Saddam” is not a reliable benchmark for America.
5. Collateral damage happens, try to avoid it and be sensitive about it. In war, innocent people will die. We should use all our power to avoid that and when it does happen try not to be cold assholes about it.
6. Don’t pretend we’re angels. No country is without skeletons in the closet, let alone a superpower like America. Go into diplomacy and battle with the knowledge of past mistakes and the mindset to not repeat them again.
7. America isn’t the Great Satan. On balance, America’s people want to do good in the world. The methods may or may have been sloppy and plodding but the intentions are more often than not pure. Take criticisms with the same grain of salt you take plaudits with.
8. War isn’t always the answer, but sometimes it is. You can’t take military options completely off the table, especially when our sovereignty is threatened. That said, it shouldn’t be the only or the first option in most situations. In case of war, the cause must be just and the reasoning without question – throwing stuff up against the wall and hoping something sticks is not a viable rationale.
Very well said. (Like I said- when you actually think things out, you’re very good.)
That’s about right.
This is really more war policy. Calling this “foreign policy” just plays into the Bush admin’s conflation of the two concepts.
I agree with just about everything.
the sticking point becomes the details like
“Military action is always the last option in diplomatic negotiations”
How do you know you have reached the end of diplomatic negotiation? I mean, the world “negotiated” with saddam for more than 13 years before the US “rushed” to war…
the world “negotiated” with saddam for more than 13 years
So why is 13 years of occupation any better?
We weren’t in constant negotiation with Hussein, he wasn’t a threat, he was contained.
As far as torture, yes, under unbelievably specific and life-threatening conditions I think going beyond the pale is required but 99.9999% of the time it’s just immoral.
Oliver, while I like your clear outline of a Democrat’s view of military policy–and wish more of the higher-ups would adopt such a style–your comment on the use of torture still falls short. You talk about “specific and life-threatening conditions” under which you could sign off on torture but lose sight of why it is the torture would be occurring–ostensibly, to get information.
Since you have no way of determining that the information you get is accurate regardless of the circumstances under which you decide to torture, then why place limits at all?
If a bomb is going to go off in two hours, for example, maybe you say “let’s waterboard this person.” But how are you so sure that the information you receive will be at all different if the bomb is meant to go off in two weeks?
“…I note earlier you indicated that under certain extreme conditions you would use torture…”
I noticed that too. But while I was glad you seem to have reconsidered your opinion on it, Dugger seems dissapointed.
I guess torturers love company.
“…under unbelievably specific and life-threatening conditions I think going beyond the pale is required but 99.9999% of the time it’s just immoral.”
Sigh.
And the pro-torture morons like Jay and Dugger will beat you with that .00001% until you give them 99%, then 98% and so on.
Lets keep getting Ollie in trouble.
I agree also (although, I note earlier you indicated that under certain extreme conditions you would use torture).
I would add a few more rules.
11) If an adversary or enemy celebrates prior attacks against us and has deliberately violated prior agreements–don’t treat a diplomatic solution in and of itself as a victory. Our interests should not be measured in the commitments of despots, but rather their intention and record in meeting their diplomatic obligations.
12) We are no more or less culpable for torture if we send terrorists to authoritarian allies that do it for us. IF we think torture doesn’t work, then we need to also end rendition.
Your first point:
“1. Attack America, get hit back. If you attack America or our aliies expect to get hit back just as hard. I don’t believe in turning the other cheek.”
It seems, to me, you are suggesting Iraq (maybe Afghanistan too) attacked America and that we were right not to turn the other cheek. What other conflict(s)could be relevant to your statement?
And yet, Iraq did not attack us. No one has attacked us, and there is no sign at all that any nation has the will or the weaponry to attack the U.S. Your position seems fuzzy to me. I’d say this: We should never attack a nation simply because some of its citizens have carried out terrorist attacks against us (a principle we actually upheld in regards Saudi Arabia.)
If I’m over-reacting, and misreading you, please set me straight.
Leroy -
Afghanistan’s ruling government aided and abetted the organization responsible for 9/11. They refused to cut ties with said organization when we stood at their doorstep yelling “send the culprits out and we won’t firebomb the building.”
An attack on Afghanistan was justified. The execution and resolution of the attack has thus far been another Rumsfeldian nightmare, but we were within our rights to hit back at the Taliban.
Iraq remains another story.
Yes, you’re overreacting. Iraq never attacked us. Afghanistan harbored a terrorist organization that attacked us and refused to turn them over when we requested it. That was crystal clear justification for Afghanistan’s invasion.
An attack on Saudi Arabia wouldn’t have been out of the question either, since most of the hijackers were from there, but….
Oliver, here’s a question for you:
When do you think it’s justified to make war on a whole nation, not just it’s government, but it’s people too?
That’s how we did it in WWII, and I’m pretty sure that’s why WWII was our last decisive victory.
My own opinion is that when a nation state attacks you and it’s fairly clear it’s population is supportive of the government, unrestricted warfare is justified.