It seems that many people believe the same reasons justify Israel’s actions against Gaza. Do you think this applies in the same way to this other conflict?
My impression is the current Gaza war has been more about the direct effect of destroying Hamas (or depopulating Gaza altogether, which seemed to be a war aim at some points) and not the indirect effect of establishing deterrence.
A great article. I appreciated your choice to steelman the interventionist position. Empathy is definitely the best way to win hearts and minds -- not bombs.
The Trumpian tendency toward violent dick-measuring cannot do anything good besides give the worst populists a chub. Taking Greenland or Panama only emboldens Russia to take Ukraine, and it emboldens China to take Taiwan. Not defensible outside of the Freudian self-esteem dynamics you describe, and once you can see that, it becomes pathetic, petty, and disgusting.
My view is that it is important for the United States to regularly use its military assets, but this should be done to fight criminals within states, not the states themselves. Theoretically, it would have been wiser to ally with the Taliban in order to fight Al-Qaeda. I'm not sure if this was ever proposed.
Mexico is currently engaged in a war with the cartels -- why can't we help them? If we could kill Saddam, it seems much easier to strongarm Mexico into receiving help. The most important distinction here is the perception of the international community. Foreign states are much less threatened by bilateral cooperation (even derived forcefully) than full-scale invasions.
Iraq and Afghanistan have both done extreme damage to America's reputation in terms of their length, senselessness, ambiguity, anarchy, and purposelessness. Why were we there for so long? Why did we invade a country without a clear and sufficient objective?
I'm still not convinced that defending Ukraine is equivalent with invading Iraq. I think in the case of Ukraine, it is defensible, because it is about funding the Ukrainians to be able to defend themselves against aggression. There's an argument to be made that, without Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia would never have been so bold as to invade Ukraine. Blowback indeed.
I prefer the American approach in Syria as well, which was to partner with Turkey and native rebels (even Jihadists) to undermine Assad, rather than a full-scale invasion. If that approach was taken in Afghanistan by allying with the Taliban against Al-Qaeda, it would have been a much more legitimate operation. Similarly, in Iraq, if America hadn't insistent on imposing democratic norms, I'm sure there was some Saudi-allied Sheik who was willing to take over the country. Instead, we got "democracy," which means increasing Iranian influence.
The 'experts' in the prior Trump administration were the ones arguing in favor of more dumb wars and pulling out of Afghanistan and Syria. We all could use a lot less of them.
It's not clear how maintaining international norms or the good feelings of European and Canadian liberals relates to defending Taiwan, a country in the Pacific Ocean. Even Obama was trying to move US forces out of those regions, towards Asia.
You should tag all the big names you mention in your articles — Caplan, Yglesias, etc. They might find your blog and promote it!
The Brookings Institution has deposited $600 into your account
It seems that many people believe the same reasons justify Israel’s actions against Gaza. Do you think this applies in the same way to this other conflict?
My impression is the current Gaza war has been more about the direct effect of destroying Hamas (or depopulating Gaza altogether, which seemed to be a war aim at some points) and not the indirect effect of establishing deterrence.
A great article. I appreciated your choice to steelman the interventionist position. Empathy is definitely the best way to win hearts and minds -- not bombs.
The Trumpian tendency toward violent dick-measuring cannot do anything good besides give the worst populists a chub. Taking Greenland or Panama only emboldens Russia to take Ukraine, and it emboldens China to take Taiwan. Not defensible outside of the Freudian self-esteem dynamics you describe, and once you can see that, it becomes pathetic, petty, and disgusting.
My view is that it is important for the United States to regularly use its military assets, but this should be done to fight criminals within states, not the states themselves. Theoretically, it would have been wiser to ally with the Taliban in order to fight Al-Qaeda. I'm not sure if this was ever proposed.
Mexico is currently engaged in a war with the cartels -- why can't we help them? If we could kill Saddam, it seems much easier to strongarm Mexico into receiving help. The most important distinction here is the perception of the international community. Foreign states are much less threatened by bilateral cooperation (even derived forcefully) than full-scale invasions.
Iraq and Afghanistan have both done extreme damage to America's reputation in terms of their length, senselessness, ambiguity, anarchy, and purposelessness. Why were we there for so long? Why did we invade a country without a clear and sufficient objective?
I'm still not convinced that defending Ukraine is equivalent with invading Iraq. I think in the case of Ukraine, it is defensible, because it is about funding the Ukrainians to be able to defend themselves against aggression. There's an argument to be made that, without Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia would never have been so bold as to invade Ukraine. Blowback indeed.
I prefer the American approach in Syria as well, which was to partner with Turkey and native rebels (even Jihadists) to undermine Assad, rather than a full-scale invasion. If that approach was taken in Afghanistan by allying with the Taliban against Al-Qaeda, it would have been a much more legitimate operation. Similarly, in Iraq, if America hadn't insistent on imposing democratic norms, I'm sure there was some Saudi-allied Sheik who was willing to take over the country. Instead, we got "democracy," which means increasing Iranian influence.
The 'experts' in the prior Trump administration were the ones arguing in favor of more dumb wars and pulling out of Afghanistan and Syria. We all could use a lot less of them.
It's not clear how maintaining international norms or the good feelings of European and Canadian liberals relates to defending Taiwan, a country in the Pacific Ocean. Even Obama was trying to move US forces out of those regions, towards Asia.