Kevin Drum writes an interesting post about Cold War lessons as he (and apparently Wes Clark) think that they ought to be applied to the War on Terror. He draws the wrong conclusions, but he is dealing with the right issues:
Clark’s point is a simple one: Neither Reagan nor any of the seven Cold War presidents before him ever attacked either the Soviet Union or one of its satellites directly. This wasn’t because of insufficient dedication to anticommunism, but because it wouldn’t have worked. In the end, they knew that democracy couldn’t come at the point of a gun; it had to come from within, from the citizens of the countries themselves.
Is this right? To argue otherwise is to suggest that our Cold War strategy was also wrong. Perhaps we should have rolled our tanks across the Iron Curtain after World War II, when the Soviet Union was exhausted and weary. Or attacked China instead of accepting a truce in the Korean War. Or sent NATO troops into Hungary in 1956.
Of course not. Even if we had “won,” we wouldn’t have won. In the end, the patient strategy of military containment and cultural engagement was the right call, and it’s the right call for the war on terror as well. Too bad George Bush doesn’t seem to get this.
It is important to look at the lessons of the Cold War, but this is wrong on a number of levels.
First, we did not immediately engage the Soviet Union because we were just finishing World War II. The nation was neither willing nor able to prosecute a serious war at that point. The Soviet Union wasn’t the only country that was weary. Later we had the problem of Russian nuclear weapons to contend with. We did not avoid a confrontation because, “In the end, they knew that democracy couldn’t come at the point of a gun; it had to come from within, from the citizens of the countries themselves.” First it is a ridiculous assertion. I offer Japan, Germany, and South Korea as only the most obvious counterexamples. All three had bumpy rides on the way to democracy, and the first two literally had it shoved down their throats by the U.S. South Korea was just strongly encouraged down that direction. The path it could have taken can be clearly seen by North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia. We didn’t avoid a direct confrontation because successful democratic systems cannot be forced on a country. We avoided it because we were not super-thrilled with the idea of nuclear annihilation.
We settled on containment because it was the least evil choice, not because it was a great idea. We settled on it because we had to choose between nuclear annihilation, containment, and the spread of the Communist empires through conquest and genocide. When those are your only three choices, you go with containment.
Since Kevin misidentifies the centrality of nuclear weapons to the problem of containment, he gets the lesson of detterence wrong: “In the end, the patient strategy of military containment and cultural engagement was the right call, and it’s the right call for the war on terror as well.” The key here is ‘patient’. In the Cold War you could afford to be patient because the Soviet Union knew that a Soviet attack in the United States would lead to a nuclear exchange. The terrorists know no such threat is viable. Perhaps if we said that any further attacks on America would trigger a nuclear attack on Mecca and Medina we could set up a similar situation. But that would really turn the war into a war against Muslims instead of a war against Islamists, so it isn’t available as an option.
I think there is another thing wrong with his containment lesson, but it is sufficiently controversial that I had better save it for another post, or it will drown out my other points.
Arghh! Where does reason stop and rationalization begin? The “fight against Islamists” somehow morphed into a fight against Stalin-inspired baathist/socialists.
Did or did not Eastern Europe fall in a particularly appealing way? Would you rather have fought another war, even a conventional war, on the scale of WWII?
There are something like 20 “Islamic” non-democratic regimes in the Middle East and environs. Are you really proposing to go on like we’ve started? If so, give me fair warning so I can move to New Zealand. Canada just ain’t far enough anymore.
And if not, why the hell is Iraq the special case?
“Stalin-inspired baathist/socialists.”
The Baath Party in Iraq had pre-origins in the German Nazi regime which installed regimes in Iraq on April 1st, 1941. See here. Note that Stalin had nothing to do with it.
It’s perfectly true that Baath ideology, such as it was, had various Socialist notions. It’s full name was/is “Arab Socialist Baath Party.”
But the Party was created in Syria, had a rather torturous history in coming to some power, losing it, and regaining it in Iraq. Here’s one quick summary. Stalin, however, had nothing to do with it. He personally only comes into the mix insofar as Saddam Hussein, not a founder of the Baath Party, admired him.
Or sent NATO troops into Hungary in 1956.
Presumably Mr. Drum knows no Magyars. Every Hungarian I know thinks that’s exactly what should have happened.
And South Korea doesn’t belong in your set of nations where democracy came at the point of a gun. We didn’t invade them, we freed them from the Japanese invasion. And later did our best to save them from the North Korean/Chines invasion. The Koreans made their own democracy over a number of decades, precisely according to Drum’s model.
For that matter both Germany and Japan had democratic institutions befor WWII, although in both cases they had been subverted. Iraq has never had real democratic institutions.
“For that matter both Germany and Japan had democratic institutions befor WWII….”
This statement holds only a limited amount of truth. Yes, there were “democratic institutions,” but of highly limited power.
The Weimar system was immensely unstable, fractured, and ineffective, as well as being of extremely short duration; the “democratic institutions” under the Kaiser had about as much power as the Jordanian ones presently do.
Japan was ruled by Emperor-worship. Enough said.
I think there is another thing wrong with his containment lesson, but it is sufficiently controversial that I had better save it for another post, or it will drown out my other points.
Shoulda gone ahead and posted it now — as is, this post is so uncontroversial that it’s not going to generate much discussion. Obviously Kevin wasn’t thinking clearly.
Actually, I think we could very well have taken the Soviets at that point. But you’re really picking at a nit here, rather than rebutting Clark.
Clark’s main point is that Eastern Europe had to be primed for democracy and pro-US in order for it to work. I’d say that Iran is getting near that point; Iraq was not, nor are a lot of countries. I think we should focus liberalization in those countries that are promising — the non-Saudi Gulf states, Iran, Jordan, Egpyt!, the ‘stans, Turkey, etc. Tell the Arab League to go f*ck itself, and pick them off one by one.
Sebastian – with regards to your comment about “democracy at the point of a gun” –
Japan, Germany, and South Korea weren’t forced democracy at the point of a gun. They got democracy after US reconstruction efforts following wars commenced by Germany, Japan, and North Korea. It is beyond absurd to compare the reconstruction of a defeated foe’s nation and government with the project of preventively invading and occupying a country in order to set up a democracy.
Had nukes never been an issue, invading and occupying Soviet satellites would have proved just as ill-conceived and fruitless a notion as our current war in Iraq.
There are preferable ways to solving problems than war. I have no idea why you are no enamered by it. War is expensive, leads to alot of death, injury and disease and is just bad all around. It’s a no brainer to use war as a last resort if you are attacked. And counter productive to just go charging in with high expectations that are bound to be disappointed.
Everytime the warmongering right and left opens their mouth I become convince that the Chinese are going to swallow us – like the one Chinese brother did the sea. They say our weakness is our impatience – and I am convinced they are right. We have power, money, will and morals so all we have to do is continue selling our way. We will prevail unless we extend our power too far (as we are doing in Iraq), expend our money too much (as we are doing in Iraq), try to will the unnecessary (as we are doing in Iraq), and lose our moral bearings (as we are doing in Iraq).
You militarists would have us all eating black soup and training daily on the Campus Marsius. You will kill or cripple our youth and expend our national treasure for adventures you can’t know how will turn out. Is Iraq going as you would have it go? Haven’t you been telling us how swimmingly it would proceed and what great benefits would flow? You were wrong about that Sebastian. And you’re wrong about containment. America can last a thousand years. Alot of the problems that seem big to us now will vanish in the mist of time. Patience.
I know you will build a straw man out of this advice. Patience isn’t apathy and its not inactivity. It is countless talks and meetings and treaties. And its sanctions, psy-ops, espionage and, if absolutely necessary as in Afganistan, war. We have gone amazingly far in the 60 years since WWII. Think of how far we can go in another 60.
Militarist ruined Germany and it ruined Japan. They are better countries today because oblivian turned their heads away from militancy. I suspect nothing short will convince you either.
America is strong but not omnipotant. Its ten times stronger when it commands the high moral ground and the rest of the world is with us. All this rejection of international agreements and international bodies is hubris and its going to be our downfall. I blame you and the rest of the militarists, right and left, for what may be the beginning of the American decline.
Actually, we did settle on containment because it was a great idea. Perhaps you need to brush up on your George Kennan.
Damn, asdf. I don’t know why I go on long screeds when you can shrug off this nonsense in two sentances. Well said.
Yeah, but it’s going to make Sebastian really mad. Just watch.
“Actually, we did settle on containment because it was a great idea. Perhaps you need to brush up on your George Kennan.”
It was a great idea compared to nuclear war or allowing the Soviet Union to spread by conventional war and genocide. I already covered that.
You may note the significantly lower numbers of Soviet attacks on the U.S. mainland when compared to the Islamists? Do you believe that the Cold War would not have become hot if the Soviet Union or one of its proxies had destroyed the World Trade Center? Or do you believe that would have just been shrugged off as part of the cost of containment?
The idea that containment can be attempted against a foe who has expressed willingness to use nuclear weapons against us as soon as they get them is just silly especially when they have already attacked us on our mainland.
Did you just skip happily over the section about why containment was even possible with the Soviet Union? I addressed the issue even before you raised it.
Oh, I thought we were talking about containment we employed successfully against Saddam. I don’t want to contain the terrorist except in prison. And if we can encourage other governments to thus contain their terrorists then we’ll start to have a handle on this whole thing. Course, when somebody like the Taliban don’t control their terrorist, and are, in fact, a terrorist government, then we might have to take them out. If this is the extent of your argument then I hardily agree. I sense, though, you are attempting to justify the foolish Iraqi adventure and any future shoot now and pray for good results endeavors the war party may have in mind.
Now I appeal to asdf to improve on my point but in two sentances or less.
What am I missing here?
Is this discussion and above post based on an assumption that Saddam’s regime was involved with the al Queda terrorists?
Containment makes very good sense to me when it is concerning a weaker state.
Obviously it’s not so good with an amorphous terrorist organizations.
What am I missing here?
Is this discussion and above post based on an assumption that Saddam’s regime was involved with the al Queda terrorists?
Containment makes very good sense to me when it is concerning a weaker state.
Obviously it’s not so good with amorphous terrorist organizations.
What am I missing here?
Is this discussion and above post based on an assumption that Saddam’s regime was involved with the al Queda terrorists?
Containment makes very good sense to me when it is concerning a weaker state.
Obviously it’s not so good with amorphous terrorist organizations.
You cannot contain terrorists. However, you can contain rogue states. And while doing so, you can appeal to the basic aspirations of their people and lay the groundwork for revolution or moderation. You can contain the phenomenon of terrorism by not creating more terrorists than you can kill.
Case in point: Iran.
We can raise the level of hostility and empower the mullahs and radicalize the populace. Conversely, we can engage, offer Iran a chance to join the community of nations and show that we are aligning ourselves with the people. We can do this in a clumsy manner by calling Iran evil, making threats, and saying you’re with us or against us, or we can do it the smart way by forming commercial ties, engaging in a Palestinian peace process, appealing to Iranian national pride, and making a case that Iran’s patriotic interests are best served by peaceful relations with the world and happiness and freedom for its people.
Vintage George Kennan.
To asdf: If you bother reading reports of people in Iran almost the precise opposite of what the Iranian people actually say.
Except for the Israel thing because everyone likes to hate Israel.
“Is this discussion and above post based on an assumption that Saddam’s regime was involved with the al Queda terrorists”
Take out the word al Qaeda, and the answer is yes. But the idea that there is some sharp division between amorphous terrorist groups such that Saddam was able to support all sorts of terrorists groups but of course not al Qaeda, is not clear thinking anyway.
asdf
Is Holsclaw a believer that Saddam and Osama are one and the same?
Otherwise the whole argument doesn’t seem to make sense the way he’s presented it.
“But the idea that there is some sharp division between amorphous terrorist groups such that Saddam was able to support all sorts of terrorists groups but of course not al Qaeda, is not clear thinking anyway.”
You mean the reported ‘reward’ Saddam was offering to the families of dead Hamas suicide bombers counts as supporting “all sorts of terrorists groups”?
Even the administration isn’t purporting that.
You got any respectable links to refute my unclear thinking?
Well, there are some links, like providing an old age home for Abu Nidal, and then there’s Abu Abbas, and so forth. But there doesn’t appear to be any solid evidence showing that Saddam sponsored terrorism against the U.S. after ’93.
To asdf: If you bother reading reports of people in Iran almost the precise opposite of what the Iranian people actually say.
Uh… what? I can’t even begin to parse that one.
He was trying to say “To asdf: If you bother reading reports of what people in Iran are saying, they are saying they desire almost the precise opposite of what you purport is a sound policy.”
Of course, that’s a very selective reading of what “people in Iran are saying”; certainly I see no indications that the majority want to invite a military attack by the US, nor do they approve of US attempts to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. What I read is that the majority actually want something much closer to what asdf is suggesting: peaceful moral support for regime change. (With nukes included, however.)
Nope, what I’m reading is a lot closer to why can’t you do for us what you do in Iraq.
cite?
“Nope, what I’m reading is a lot closer to why can’t you do for us what you do in Iraq.”
Yes, there’s no doubt people can be found saying that. It’s a large country.
Do you have any evidence that this is representative of majority opinion? Rather than being representative of your opinion?
If we just want anecdotes, here is one.
Fine we won’t trade anecdotes then because I certainly don’t have access to useful polls from Iran. And frankly I don’t give a rat’s ass if Iranians want nuclear weapons. We should do whatever we can to make sure that we don’t end up with an Agreed Framework series of treaties which end with them having nuclear weapons in the hands of people every bit as crazy as Kim.
Care to respond to the actual contentions of my post about containment and why the Cold War model (and especially the faulty one that Kevin proposes) doesn’t apply very well? Soviets put off by our nuclear weapons. Terrorists not worried about it because they have deniability when it comes to state action. Democracy in Germany and Japan both seem to be doing fine. They aren’t colonies, etc….
Furthermore doesn’t anyone find it just a little bit odd that the American left feels the need to play down Reagan’s part in the end of the Cold War while people who actually were involved like Vacav Havel, Lech Walesa and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn say the opposite? I guess they really wouldn’t know.
While I’ve yet to hear back from General Clark, I’d be interested to know where supporters of his article feel we are on a “fall of communism” timeline. Are we at 1988, 1958 or 1974; where are we?
“Care to respond to the actual contentions of my post about containment and why the Cold War model (and especially the faulty one that Kevin proposes) doesn’t apply very well?”
I thought you had some good points. But I feel no obligation to respond to every post and point on this blog. Thank #DIETY.
“Furthermore doesn’t anyone find it just a little bit odd that the American left feels the need to play down Reagan’s part in the end of the Cold War while people who actually were involved like Vacav Havel, Lech Walesa and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn say the opposite? I guess they really wouldn’t know.”
I’m quite sure that I don’t speak for “the American left.”
More importantly, I don’t think anyone does.
Such generalizations as flow from “the left says,” and “the right says” tend to be wrong because of the diversity of said lumps.
It pays to single out specific organizations and individuals, unless you believe in vast collective responsibility between everyone who shares a single opinion, for every other opinion everyone involved holds.
Re: “The left says”
If I said the left is pro-Communist you would have an excellent point, because clearly not all of it is.
If I said the left is pro-choice I would have an excellent point, because though clearly not every single member is pro-choice it is a generalized characteristic of that political leaning.
Now honestly, is an assertion that the left has a vocal desire to minimize Reagan’s part in the end of the Soviet Union’s Communist Empire closer to the first or the second?
“If I said the left is pro-choice I would have an excellent point”
Not really. As I’m a counter-example, I’d take more umbrage than most, but regardless the broad brushes are unnecessary and detract from the merits of the discussion. Your final question amounts to ‘Am I being very inaccurate, or just some inaccurate?’, which begs the question. . why not shoot for not-inaccurate?
I love this line:
“Fine we won’t trade anecdotes then because I certainly don’t have access to useful polls from Iran. And frankly I don’t give a rat’s ass if Iranians want nuclear weapons…”
I read your comment as: “I was makin’ crap up and when you challenge me on it I’m takin’ my ball and going home.”
Very funny.
No I have anecdotes of my own. Do a search on opinion journal for Iran for instance, or read RogerLSimon.
And I don’t feel bad at painting broadly accurate pictures of the left or any other group. It is absolutely impossible to have a useful discussion of less than 100,000 words per topic if you can’t make generalizations. If you believe that the portrait is generally inaccurate speak up. Otherwise you are just nitpicking. That is why I use the abortion example. I know full well that there are some on the left who are pro-life regarding abortion. But if you want to have a useful general discussion of political viewpoints and abortion saying that ‘the left is pro-choice’ is totally fine. Saying that the left is pro-Communist is not as accurate, and therefore not as useful unless you are trying to just attack rather than discuss. My original statement was “Furthermore doesn’t anyone find it just a little bit odd that the American left feels the need to play down Reagan’s part in the end of the Cold War while people who actually were involved like Vacav Havel, Lech Walesa and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn say the opposite?”
Now if you want to usefully attack that as being an unfair portrait of the American left all you have to do is make a statement like “That is not accurate because you have not picked a view which is broadly representative of the American left.” You don’t do that because I picked a view which is broadly representative of the American left. Instead you have to make general statements about generalizations. That is a great way to score points in a college debate. But it does almost nothing to further discussion.
“Do a search on opinion journal for Iran for instance, or read RogerLSimon.”
I’m already quite familiar with their opinions.
What you’re saying, effectively — and this is certainly not an unusual way of reasoning — is “people who share my pre-established preferences for what I want to believe, also believe as I do.”
All of us do that to some degree or other, of course. We are all victims of the information we have, which is necessarily limited, and which comes from a limited number of sources.
Which is a good reason to always seek out opposing views, opposing information sources, to try to find facts that contradict our preferences, and see what we can make of the clash. I expect you make an effort in that regard.
But on this issue, for instance, I’m well familiar with the filters through which Roger, and OpinionJournal, seek out information, and which they choose to validate and promote, and which they do not, just as I am those of Nicholas Kristoff.
Which is why my conclusion is to suspect that more Iranians than not want their government changed, but not by way of massive killing of Iranians.
Not when most Iranians, by all reports, are both quite unhappy with the strictures of their mullah-run government, but also are politically apathetic.
Not when the grievances of most Iranians are that the government enforces socially limiting laws, which are incredibly annoying and limiting. This is quite a different set of grievances from those against Saddam, which was living in silence and fear of being picked up and tortured.
It’s one thing to have a bunch of your relatives killed, to fear being dropped into a wood-chipper, and it’s not surprising that people might be willing to put up with being bombed to get rid of that.
It’s another thing to be annoyed because the government won’t let you hold hands with a member of the opposite sex in public, and wants to mandate what you should show under your scarf.
The latter is oppressive, but not in a way that most people are inclined to desire to risk dying for.
Added to which is considerable Iranian nationalistic pride, which no one, even anecdotally, has claimed is not thoroughly widespread. I’m sure, Sebastian, you are entirely familiar with the notion that one can hate one’s government and love one’s country, and desire to change that government, but not by way of an outside power — that would be, at best, thoroughly humiliating — and not by way of massive war and death. (For all the divisions in our country, bitter as they are, we don’t see many people on any side calling for military civil war, let alone for an outside power to engage in the military overthrow of our government, do we? Funny, that.)
If you get all your info on Iran from people who share your preferences for what you want to believe, you’re listening only to an echo chamber. And echo chambers amplify small voices into deafening, and misleading, volume.
“Instead you have to make general statements about generalizations.”
Actually, I made specific statements about generalization. Regardless, this is the topic I was interested in commenting on. You seem to suggest I’m discussing it as some way of dodging the main issue. But you failed to realize I have no interest in discussing the main issue.
As to the difficulty of avoiding generalizations, in general you’re right, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a worthy effort and in this case the solution is pretty simple. s/The left is/Many on the left are/. Now, you no doubt will believe that this is tedious nitpicking, but I believe it is not a difference in degree but a difference in kind. On the one hand you are treating people as individuals, and on the other you are treating them as a faceless crowd or nameless abstraction. That sort of dehumanization, while subtle, has profound effects on the nature of discourse. And if you were on the other end (‘The right is xenophobic’), I’m sure you would agree.
This has turned into a straw man argument/discussion.
The point was: containment of Iraq and Saddan as originally discussed by Drum and Clark was not intended as a defense against or strategy concerning al Queda.
To lump the Saddam and al Queda together as “some on the right” like to do is thought of as a nifty trick by “some on left”. They just don’t buy it though.