The Myth of Using Military Action as a Last Resort
A popular and particularly dangerous fallacy has gone largely unchallenged in American political discourse since the debate on invading Iraq began in late 2002. It goes something like this: "Military action should only be used by the US government as a last resort when dealing with hostile nations. All other avenues of conflict resolution, especially diplomacy, must be tried and fail before America should use its military might to attack an enemy."
This argument is faulty because it conflates two completely separate ideas: 1) the desirability of using military means to resolve international conflicts, and 2) the optimal time to use military means to resolve international conflicts.
Few would seriously argue that war is a "desirable" option. The vast majority of Americans hate war as almost no other peoples in history have. Most Americans realize that waging war is a horrifying, risky, and expensive undertaking, which is almost certain to result in the tragic deaths of thousands of people, both American and non-American. It goes without saying that diplomacy is preferable to war in dissuading a foreign power from pursuing goals at odds with American self-interest.
However, the desirability of using military force in general is a completely different question from when and under what circumstances the United States should employ military force in order to maximize its chances of defending the national self-interest in any given conflict. Specifically, when a foreign government is known to be hostile to American self-interest, to initiate violence against its own citizens (and those of other nations) as a means of spreading its theocratic or fascist ideology, it would be irrational and immoral for the U.S. government to offer to talk with, or compromise with, such a criminal gang, if there is a reasonable chance that the nation in question might directly or indirectly attack the United States.
In such a situation, there could be absolutely no justification for the United States to follow some arbitrary, formulaic set of rules, such as: first, offer to talk with the hostile nation; second, impose economic sanctions; third, convince the U.N. Security Council to pass a toothless resolution or two; forth, wait 60 days for a formal written reply; fifth, give a final warning; sixth, give a "real serious" final warning; seventh, have an endless debate with the American left before finally, eighth, sending a limited expeditionary force to attack the specific officials within foreign government who threatened the United States, and then offer a full, open trial by jury if we do not actually catch them in the act of ordering an attack on American citizens.
Such an approach is obviously ludicrous. Yet, this is in effect what those who hold the "military as last resort" doctrine have been advocating as the proper, moral, and practical approach to U.S. foreign policy in dealing with countries such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Bashar Al-Assad’s Syria, and Khamenei’s and Ahmadinejad’s Iran. Such regimes are known to initiate violence against their own citizens and other nations as a means to eliminate dissent and impose their ideologies on others. These governments are known to be state sponsors of terrorism. Most importantly, these regimes are known, by their words and actions, to be hostile to the United States.
To such nations, the only moral and practical approach the U.S. government can take is to tell them to cease and desist their anti-American activities and threats, their sponsorship of terrorism, their violence against their own citizens, and their interference in other country’s affairs, and or face prompt and utter destruction. Then, if those nations do not desist in their evil activities, America must follow through on its warning. In this regard, American military technology and might are second to none, and the destruction of such regimes is inevitable if the U.S. were to go all out and attack with everything it has got. The probable alternative is that these hostile regimes will rightly consider the United States as a "paper tiger" (which is the opinion they currently hold), and continue with their likely schemes of attacking the United States, its interests, and its allies.
So, next time you hear a politician or pundit claim that the U.S. must use its military "only as a last resort" in dealing with hostile foreign nations, tell them that the primary goal of American foreign policy is to protect America's self-interest in the world, not to avoid using military force.
Furthermore, if protecting and defending American self-interest most efficiently entails using military force as a first option, especially in dealing with hostile dictatorships, then not doing so while the threat of a potential enemy attack grows, would be self-destructive and foolish.
Let Americans reject the "military as last option" fallacy from now on in fighting the wider war against Islamic facism, especially against its leading state sponsors, Iran and Syria. Otherwise, we may be unlucky enough for this idea's advocates to intimidate our leaders into waiting until it is too late to use our military might to avert a terrorist attack more disasterous and deadly than that which occurred on 9/11/2001.
To put this point in simpler terms: if a known criminal begins waving a gun around in public and then, when the police show up, the criminal says that he means no harm and will go away if the police lower their weapons, would you blame the police for assuming that the criminal is likely to shoot? Would you tell the police to use force only as a last resort and only after trying three or five or ten alternatives? Of course not! Then, don’t accuse so-called "hawks" of being war-mongers for taking American security seriously. Don't blame them for not wanting to take the risk that criminal nations will act to attack America when they have proven time after time to be tyrants and aggressors.
This argument is faulty because it conflates two completely separate ideas: 1) the desirability of using military means to resolve international conflicts, and 2) the optimal time to use military means to resolve international conflicts.
Few would seriously argue that war is a "desirable" option. The vast majority of Americans hate war as almost no other peoples in history have. Most Americans realize that waging war is a horrifying, risky, and expensive undertaking, which is almost certain to result in the tragic deaths of thousands of people, both American and non-American. It goes without saying that diplomacy is preferable to war in dissuading a foreign power from pursuing goals at odds with American self-interest.
However, the desirability of using military force in general is a completely different question from when and under what circumstances the United States should employ military force in order to maximize its chances of defending the national self-interest in any given conflict. Specifically, when a foreign government is known to be hostile to American self-interest, to initiate violence against its own citizens (and those of other nations) as a means of spreading its theocratic or fascist ideology, it would be irrational and immoral for the U.S. government to offer to talk with, or compromise with, such a criminal gang, if there is a reasonable chance that the nation in question might directly or indirectly attack the United States.
In such a situation, there could be absolutely no justification for the United States to follow some arbitrary, formulaic set of rules, such as: first, offer to talk with the hostile nation; second, impose economic sanctions; third, convince the U.N. Security Council to pass a toothless resolution or two; forth, wait 60 days for a formal written reply; fifth, give a final warning; sixth, give a "real serious" final warning; seventh, have an endless debate with the American left before finally, eighth, sending a limited expeditionary force to attack the specific officials within foreign government who threatened the United States, and then offer a full, open trial by jury if we do not actually catch them in the act of ordering an attack on American citizens.
Such an approach is obviously ludicrous. Yet, this is in effect what those who hold the "military as last resort" doctrine have been advocating as the proper, moral, and practical approach to U.S. foreign policy in dealing with countries such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Bashar Al-Assad’s Syria, and Khamenei’s and Ahmadinejad’s Iran. Such regimes are known to initiate violence against their own citizens and other nations as a means to eliminate dissent and impose their ideologies on others. These governments are known to be state sponsors of terrorism. Most importantly, these regimes are known, by their words and actions, to be hostile to the United States.
To such nations, the only moral and practical approach the U.S. government can take is to tell them to cease and desist their anti-American activities and threats, their sponsorship of terrorism, their violence against their own citizens, and their interference in other country’s affairs, and or face prompt and utter destruction. Then, if those nations do not desist in their evil activities, America must follow through on its warning. In this regard, American military technology and might are second to none, and the destruction of such regimes is inevitable if the U.S. were to go all out and attack with everything it has got. The probable alternative is that these hostile regimes will rightly consider the United States as a "paper tiger" (which is the opinion they currently hold), and continue with their likely schemes of attacking the United States, its interests, and its allies.
So, next time you hear a politician or pundit claim that the U.S. must use its military "only as a last resort" in dealing with hostile foreign nations, tell them that the primary goal of American foreign policy is to protect America's self-interest in the world, not to avoid using military force.
Furthermore, if protecting and defending American self-interest most efficiently entails using military force as a first option, especially in dealing with hostile dictatorships, then not doing so while the threat of a potential enemy attack grows, would be self-destructive and foolish.
Let Americans reject the "military as last option" fallacy from now on in fighting the wider war against Islamic facism, especially against its leading state sponsors, Iran and Syria. Otherwise, we may be unlucky enough for this idea's advocates to intimidate our leaders into waiting until it is too late to use our military might to avert a terrorist attack more disasterous and deadly than that which occurred on 9/11/2001.
To put this point in simpler terms: if a known criminal begins waving a gun around in public and then, when the police show up, the criminal says that he means no harm and will go away if the police lower their weapons, would you blame the police for assuming that the criminal is likely to shoot? Would you tell the police to use force only as a last resort and only after trying three or five or ten alternatives? Of course not! Then, don’t accuse so-called "hawks" of being war-mongers for taking American security seriously. Don't blame them for not wanting to take the risk that criminal nations will act to attack America when they have proven time after time to be tyrants and aggressors.
posted by Mike at
12:32 AM
|
0 Comments
