04 June 2008
Military Solution to Terror
In his Global View column in the June 3, 2008, Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens makes a false analogy of Iraq with Colombia and Sri Lanka. Whereas the sword may be an effective prelude to political reconciliation in countries that are united in opposition to terrorists, as long as it is taking in Colombia and Sri Lanka those nations have a settled identity and a generally recognized government to suppress their insurgencies. Iraqis, on the other hand, still do not agree on their own nationhood. They have always depended on a foreign power or a minority dictator to hold their country together.
That is not a role the U.S. is comfortable playing; nor is it consistent with our political principles. Terror is the tool chosen by certain Iraqi factions to resolve their prisoners’ dilemma; others have effectively chosen secession. The military solution that Mr. Stephens and, for example, John McCain say has been successful in reducing terror in Iraq only works because Americans have been willing to acquiesce in invading another country to establish order there. When its chaos and genocide directly threaten our own security, military intervention may be justified and consistent with our principles. Otherwise, except in the case of reaction to an attack by an organized and clearly identifiable foreign power, military tactics only succeed if we are willing to occupy or annex the territory we seek to pacify.
I thought we learned that lesson in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia. Apparently, we’ll have to add Iraq to the list.
In his Global View column in the June 3, 2008, Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens makes a false analogy of Iraq with Colombia and Sri Lanka. Whereas the sword may be an effective prelude to political reconciliation in countries that are united in opposition to terrorists, as long as it is taking in Colombia and Sri Lanka those nations have a settled identity and a generally recognized government to suppress their insurgencies. Iraqis, on the other hand, still do not agree on their own nationhood. They have always depended on a foreign power or a minority dictator to hold their country together.
That is not a role the U.S. is comfortable playing; nor is it consistent with our political principles. Terror is the tool chosen by certain Iraqi factions to resolve their prisoners’ dilemma; others have effectively chosen secession. The military solution that Mr. Stephens and, for example, John McCain say has been successful in reducing terror in Iraq only works because Americans have been willing to acquiesce in invading another country to establish order there. When its chaos and genocide directly threaten our own security, military intervention may be justified and consistent with our principles. Otherwise, except in the case of reaction to an attack by an organized and clearly identifiable foreign power, military tactics only succeed if we are willing to occupy or annex the territory we seek to pacify.
I thought we learned that lesson in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia. Apparently, we’ll have to add Iraq to the list.
Comments:
Post a Comment
