I second their hope for a continued diavlog. But I'm not optimistic that David will like the results anymore the second go-round. He was comfortable discussing competing details with Joe Klein that accepted the same basic premise: We are in mortal danger and we must use deadly force to instill/install freedom. Conversely, Andrew's paradigm had David slinking so far in his chair that he nearly left the frame. While Andrew didn't have the time to say it, his posture implies that the threat posed to the U.S. as a result of the struggle within the Af-Pak (and beyond) world as it contends with Modernity entails accepting risk. There is no prescription for immediate or complete immunity from blowback or peripheral threat to our hoped for safety. It's all about facing the fear. The Freedom Project has failed and yet David is inclined to continue based on his perceived impression that not addressing the threat, even with a failed strategy is better than any possible alternative. Old habits die hard... His rationale for creeping Democracy in Iran is (or must be) attributable to our Iraqi war efforts. Which ties

David said he didn't really get what Andrew proposes that we do. I think it can be summed up as "less". Andrew thinks that the costs of military intervention exceed the benefits (if there are in fact any). So we turn to other options, and if they aren't completely effective in preventing terrorism, that's just something we have to accept. I for one would argue that the terrorist threat is overblown and that many security measures are either ineffective "security theater" or more costly than the attacks they prevent (because those measures are applied universally they hit an enormous number of people, so a small cost applied to each can exceed severe costs applying to a smaller number of people). We could probably save more lives at lower costs by focusing on car accidents. I would be less inclined than Bacevich to rely on students visiting, rather I would clamp down on entry as by far the most cost-effective way of stopping terrorists. Leaving other countries the hell alone might also help them forget we even exist so they can get to venting their frustration at

I always find the dismissive attitude towards force as a tool to achieve an end interesting. After all, why not just let people sort things out themselves. Who are we to barge in and FORCE democracy/tolerance upon them.
The irony is that the liberals are making this case today. That was not the kind of argument made about slavery, or the jim crow south. Were those liberals wrong to FORCE their notions of equality upon racist whites? Perhaps the North should have let the south succeed? Better that than resort to force to dictate to others how they should behave. Why sanction the civil war at all? Better to allow the institution of slavery to continue on for decades more than to resort to HARD power to end it.
Of course the petty creature will bring up the pathetic retort about being the same nation. Thanks, thanks for forfeiting the notion of human rights, the only ones worth defending are intra national, live a millimeter across border line, and all notions of human rights go out the window. How very tribal of you. Proud liberals. Expand the circle when it comes to soft power, contract

Oh, man. Great to hear Andrew again. He said more sensible things in this diavlog than has been said in just about all other Afghanistan-related diavlogs added together. It's been way too long since he's been on, and I hope we will not have to wait months for a third visit. And if I could be granted a wish, he would also get the opportunity to sit down with President Obama for a few hours, too. Glad to see graz and TGGP expressing a view I share: that at some point, we just have to accept some risks if we're going to live in the kind of society we want, in this modern world. I would ask David, who is a good interlocutor, to ramp it down just a bit. As time went on, the frequent interruptions began to sound like defensiveness more than anything else. I'm not sure if it's guilt over being one of the architects of the current mess we're in, or a slowly dawning but still hard-to-accept realization that his instincts on how to deal with "the jihadist threat" are wrong, or what, but this sort of badgering does not make him look

Andrew started to say something about the downsides of worst-case reasoning in this diavlog. Here is a good post from B'head Robert Farley on that very topic.

Amen. The 150th anniversary of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry just passed a couple of weeks ago too. Great reminder of how violence is sometimes the only solution. The Civil War has got to be the one war Wonderment couldn't have said no to.

I wish Obama himself would listen to Andres Bacevich. I have no doubt our President could re-articulate these ideas just as persuasively to the American people, and that a majority would welcome them. Of course Republicans would scream their heads off, calling him a chicken, a softy, and traitor to our military. As Prof. Bacevich remarks, it would take courage to stand up to those kinds of charges, a great deal of courage, of the sort that was lacking when Lyndon Johnson took us into Vietnam.

Quoting Lyle: ... The 150th anniversary of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry just passed a couple of weeks ago too. Great reminder of how violence is sometimes the only solution. ...

I will now reduce my desk to toothpicks, with my forehead.

How would you have freed the slaves sir?

I think where Andrew Bacevich fails, and Frum wins, is that Bacevich hasn't totally thought through the consequences of his policy choice. One of the chief complaints about the Bush administration was his abuse of power, i.e, his flaunting of the Constitution. America is now a police state they screamed. Yet, some of these same people (not necessarily Bacevich) want to only deal with the problem through domestic policing efforts, combined with international policing efforts. The only way that will work is if borders are made more secure (more tedious international travel, profiling, etc.) and domestic police powers get expanded, i.e., the Patriot Act remains in place and gets added to. If we don't want to involve ourselves in the countries where these guys with their whack ideas come from, we are going to have to hole ourselves up for a while and that is going to mean less domestic freedom, i.e. civil liberties. You can't have both, no war and lots of freedom, when their are lots of angry jihadists running around. 9/11 happened before Iraq and Afghanistan, not after.

Wait, so what you're saying is that there are two ways to stop terrorism: either, kicking the terrorists out of their training camps and spider holes abroad, or just preventing them from getting into the country in the first place, and that if we don't do number one (war), we'll have to do number two (bolstering security) and that necessarily means that we'll be stepping on someone's civil liberties? I think that's a false dichotomy.

Lyle, why are you such a coward? you refuse to face any risks as the price we pay for freedom? willing to trade away your freedom for security? absolutely disgusting, lyle - and it clearly shows you deserve neither. why don't some of you on the right grow a backbone and stop acting like scared little kids desperately afraid of the boogie man under your bed.

Frum pressed Bacevich for what he would do to protect our security going forward. Bacevich gave his answer quite early in the diavlog: He'd advise the president to seek wiser counsel and to frame the central issue on what is our strategy, not what should we do about Afghanistan. Bacevich's contribution is that simple piece of advice. Asking him to be more specific about what he himself would do shouldn't obscure the clear, good sense of his basic recommendation.

Quoting bjkeefe: I would ask David, who is a good interlocutor, to ramp it down just a bit. As time went on, the frequent interruptions began to sound like defensiveness more than anything else.

I was struck by David's accommodation during the first portion of the diavlog, allowing Andrew much time to lay out his views coherently. There was no badgering during that portion, only a few questions intended to help Andrew flesh out or clarify his position.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Of course Republicans would scream their heads off, calling him a chicken, a softy, and traitor to our military. As Prof. Bacevich remarks, it would take courage to stand up to those kinds of charges, a great deal of courage, of the sort that was lacking when Lyndon Johnson took us into Vietnam.

I disagree with this strongly! Although the oft-heard title "most powerful man in the world" is very over-used and misleading, when it comes to directing the US armed forces in conflict, we Americans cede an enormous amount of authority to the President. This is a good thing, for while we may dither forever about domestic issues, the US can act in a forceful and unified way abroad. Everyone answers to the President. It's his job to do the right thing. He won the election. I can't think of any higher office to which he would aspire. Explain to me why he should cower to the whining rhetoric of the losing party? As a former Bush voter, I can affirm that Obama inherited a mess. Now he's in charge. And with a sympathetic Congress, no less! History will judge him on the efficacy of his actions without regard for the

Quoting Simon Willard: I was struck by David's accommodation during the first portion of the diavlog, allowing Andrew much time to lay out his views coherently. There was no badgering during that portion, only a few questions intended to help Andrew flesh out or clarify his position.

Good point. He did start off well, then got antsy.

Quoting Simon Willard: ...
Make no mistake: If Obama ramps up the troop levels, this becomes Obama's War. From that time forward, it can't be blamed on evil warmongering Republicans.
...

That's almost fair, I think. The fact that he finds it in a significantly bad state, and has to make that strategic decision means that, while he certainly is taking ownership, it's clear that he's cleaning up someone else's mess - in this case "someone else" is the definitive "war-mongering Republican."

Outstanding diavlog. Interesting all the way through and civil despite the chasm in points of view. One of the best in some time.

Like it or not he took owner ship in February when he originally ordered the switch from a counter terrorism strategy to a counterinsurgency strategy, changed theater commanders early and increased the troop levels by 17,000.

Quoting piscivorous: Like it or not he took owner ship in February when he originally ordered the switch from a counter terrorism strategy to a counterinsurgency strategy, changed theater commanders early and increased the troop levels by 17,000.

Sometimes when you go in for the starting quarterback, down 7-0 with 1 minute left in the fourth quarter.... you gotta go long. Especially when the last guy sent most of the team off to play a different game. Sorry, I'm all into sports metaphors today, thanks for playing.

I delivered it simplistically, but if we wholly take regional or national interventions off the table, we're guaranteeing a more rigid domestic security situation. My guess is we'll continue to have some of both (military conflict abroad and rigid domestic security) in the long run because jihadism doesn't appear to be abating. So I agree with you and don't mean to say that there is a clear cut dichotomy, but those that want to focus on policing terrorism first and foremost can't also reasonably advocate a return to an ante Patriot Act state of affairs. Our government will have to have the tools to properly police radical Muslims.

How am I afraid? I'm talking about what is going to happen politically, if we primarily focus on policing radical Muslims, and what that will mean domestically. Personally, I'm for open borders, Muslim radicals or no Muslim radicals. That's not a practicable position though for a number of reasons, and our government has to set a more sensible course, and respond to the politics and its citizens fears (which aren't necessarily mine). Not very many serious politicians are going to be able to take a position of "lets just turn the other cheek when it comes to radical Muslims".

I agree with both of you. I thought this pairing was a necessary, brilliant idea. But, Bacevich seemed groggy in the beginning and much less articulate than during his first diavlog and when I've seen him on TV. At this point, though, Frum veered off into topics he shouldn't have touched. It's ballsy, I guess, to float a revisionist history of the Vietnam debacle with a Vietnam vet, although Bacevich sounded close to losing his composure too.. I'm beside myself with rage, though, that perhaps the single-most contentious discussion of East Asian and the PRC has to come unmarked at the end of a diavlog about another topic and, on top of it, not be very compelling. Next time: Bacevich v. Ackerman, or Bacevich v. Preble. bhTV needs more of Bacevich.

Like it or not he took owner ship in February when he originally ordered the switch from a counter terrorism strategy to a counterinsurgency strategy, changed theater commanders early and increased the troop levels by 17,000.

Shades of JFK taking the reins from Eisenhower in Vietnam?

I disagree. Frum blithely ignores the domestic consequences of militarizing American foreign policy that - and not singlehandedly - the second Bush administration exacerbated. Bacevich was much more articulate about these consequences in his book, The New American Militarism. I wish he had summarized those arguments, especially since Frum was so accommodating in the first part of diavlog. I agree there's a false dichotomy between choosing between treating this issue as a legal or military matter. It's a matter of balancing the two tools. A 50-50 mix at this point would be prudent, but I would like to see about 70-30, in favor of legal means. But, I trust legal systems much more than DoD dependents obviously, It's ironic to me, that conservatives - and Bacevich is more representative of this than Frum - first objected to characterizing al-Qaeda as a military threat, if for no other reason than not legitimating it. Then came the uncritical embrace of Huntington's thesis - which is simplistic - and the scholarly popularity of non-state actors, neo-feudal critiques of the Westphalian sovereignty, and elegies for globalization. I think it was all very self-serving for the defense establishment to give itself the lead in comvatting anarchy as it interpreted

I don't understand why teleological optimists, like Frum, even need people in the world. Frum makes it sound as if freedom will triumph regardless of the leaders making the decisions and the people voting them into office - as he came close to describing Iran. If something goes wrong, it's a hiccup on the road; an election suffices to proclaim victory.

I have to object to Frum's bizarre notions of the Korean War. The best account is The Korean War: An International History by William Stueck (there's also a shorter version, Rethinking the Korean War, which addresses historiographical problems in a pithier form.) MacArthur's War by Stanley Weintraub also addresses that commander's errors. Firstly, the North's invasion of the ROK is one of the CIA's most horrendous errors, and the failure to come forward about Chinese deployments its second. General MacArthur had advocated deploying Taiwanese troops as a rearguard force against the PRC, to which Beijing responded with a military buildup in Manchuria. Declassified documents reveal, that Moscow had conditioned its assent to KIm Il-sung's invasion of the ROK, only if Beijing halted its planned invasion of Taiwan and assisted the North Koreans. Not only did Chinese military leaders publish commentary publicly concerning its appraisals of military action in Korea and of US forces, but US officials were aware of them. MacArthur's own staff was aware of PRC troops concentrations in Manchuria, as well as their commanders' analyses of how to engage US forces. Lee Syng-man, ROK president, also lobbied for an invasion, and harried MacArthur and diplomatic staff for

There is some truth in that.

Quoting piscivorous: Like it or not he took owner ship in February when he originally ordered the switch from a counter terrorism strategy to a counterinsurgency strategy, changed theater commanders early and increased the troop levels by 17,000.

That's why I said it was "almost fair." If you take over a chess game from somebody who is down a rook and has a doubled pawn, your eventual game result will stand in that context. If it goes badly in Afganistan is will be on Obama and Bush. But if it goes well, to the extent that it looks as if his team blew it, Bush won't share as much in the credit as he would have the blame. And that's probably fair.

If we could just nab bin Laden we'd be outta there next week.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s...20a6b09470970b Concerns about its nuclear weapons add to these suspicions. Existing as it does in a dangerous part of the world, Pakistan considers its nuclear capability the lynchpin of its security, and there is great sensitivity about any threat to it, especially within the military. The concern expressed by the US over the last few years regarding the “security” of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons has created a great deal of suspicion as to its real motives. Many, including within the military, believe that the US is deliberately trying to destabilize Pakistan so as to take over its nuclear weapons. Such suspicions, and the strained relations for many years prior to 2001, deeply colour Pakistani attitudes towards the USA. It is no surprise that, in a recent poll released by a US polling organization, all of two percent of Pakistanis thought the US had good relations with Pakistan. Since the commencement of the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan has been seen by the US mainly through the prism of that war ‒ as a necessary auxiliary whose role was to clean out the Taliban and al-Qaeda bases in its tribal areas. Pakistan’s limited attempts at compliance did not

Another hair cut for David.

Quoting AemJeff: That's why I said it was "almost fair." If you take over a chess game from somebody who is down a rook and has a doubled pawn, your eventual game result will stand in that context. If it goes badly in Afganistan is will be on Obama and Bush. But if it goes well, to the extent that it looks as if his team blew it, Bush won't share as much in the credit as he would have the blame. And that's probably fair.

Yeah.

How would I free the slaves? Possibly with compensated emancipation, as the Brits carried out. I certainly wouldn't have gone to war with the Confederates, but of course that wasn't why the war was fought. We certainly didn't invade Brazil afterward to abolish slavery there. Lincoln said if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves, he would. He endorsed a constitutional amendment that would have protected slavery because he thought it might accomplish that. The American civil war is best understood in the context of the 19th century enthusiasm for nationalism and the unifications of Italy and Germany (Garibaldi even volunteered the help the Union, as did many German 48'ers). I am not a nationalist (I wouldn't terribly object to being called a neo-feudalist) and hold that war in a low regard similar to WW1. I would have endorsed the north seceding (as some, like Garrison endorsed, when the Fugitive Slave act was being debated), but I'm in favor of secession any time, any place for any reason. That's not to say I think it's worth fighting a war though, so I don't endorse the American war of independence. I don't oppose killing in all circumstances, but

Of course one could argue that Bush's sacrifice in material was worth the positioning.

Right, but it came down to a War because all the talking and politics didn't work in the end. Edit: And arguably the Civil War was about slavery since there would have never been a Civil War but for slavery. States Rights had to do with being able to extend slavery into new States. If this was no longer going to be legal, the slave states wouldn't be able to remain slave states for much longer when outvoted in Congress... hence the rational for succession.

Quoting JonIrenicus: I always find the dismissive attitude towards force as a tool to achieve an end interesting.

I think you are overgeneralizing -- the idea that force is always a bad way to achieve an end is hardly a common enough view to justify a lengthy screed, especially one filled with so many other generalizations. At least, unless in a specific debate with a pacifist. I mean, I think Wonderment is a great voice to have here and his positions are interesting and worth taking seriously, but you seem here to be trying to set up a dichotomy in which "liberals" are supposedly basically pacifists that has no relationship to reality in the US. If you want to respond to specific things Bacevich said, that might be interesting, but you go way beyond that.

After all, why not just let people sort things out themselves. Who are we to barge in and FORCE democracy/tolerance upon them.

To start with, you pose this as if it describes the basic argument with regard to recent foreign policy, namely with Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet, for the most part, no one has argued for the war in Afghanistan on the basis

Wow. Impressive dismantling.

Regarding David Frum, I think back to the Bush "Axis of Evil" speech and cannot help but wonder if David Frum might be directly responsible for much of the mess the United States is now in. David wrote that speech, and has, since then, made a visibly successful career in the Washington political establishment representing "conservative" ideas. I also continue to wonder exactly whose interests he is representing in his work. As a Canadian citizen, Mr. Frum is surely entitled to his opinion, but ultimately, he can go back to Canada if what he espouses truly turns south on us. Canada itself has many issues to work through and it does occur to me that he might prefer to use his talents in his home country.

She dismantled a strawman. Haha.

What domestic consequences are you talking about?

Quoting Ms New England: I also continue to wonder exactly whose interests he is representing in his work. As a Canadian citizen, Mr. Frum is surely entitled to his opinion, but ultimately, he can go back to Canada if what he espouses truly turns south on us. Canada itself has many issues to work through and it does occur to me that he might prefer to use his talents in his home country.

An eminently sensible suggestion. But who would listen to him in a country that is more "liberal," in every sense of the word, than the US? That said, I thought he did a fairly good job in this dialogue of establishing that Bacevich knows more than he does.

Quoting stephanie: I think you are overgeneralizing -- the idea that force is always a bad way to achieve an end is hardly a common enough view to justify a lengthy screed, especially one filled with so many other generalizations. At least, unless in a specific debate with a pacifist. I mean, I think Wonderment is a great voice to have here and his positions are interesting and worth taking seriously, but you seem here to be trying to set up a dichotomy in which "liberals" are supposedly basically pacifists that has no relationship to reality in the US.

If you want to respond to specific things Bacevich said, that might be interesting, but you go way beyond that.

I do go beyond that, and yes it is very general. On the pacifistic strain, I think it exists within all people on a sort of sliding scale. I am trying to isolate why some people are opposed to the use of force for more aesthetic reasons as opposed to tactical ones. I see the rationales of many people as being more than being against force for purely tactical rationales. I think alot of the people against its use

Couple of problems with this, at least. First, despite your dismissal below, it's hardly only a liberal idea to distinguish between the concern that one has for laws in one's own state vs. those in other countries. For example, Congress and the SC took actions that made segregation in this country illegal and in some cases the power of the state was used to enforce those actions, against the will of particular localities. However, you certainly didn't see anyone -- liberal or conservative -- claiming that the US had the right to use military power to end apartheid in South Africa. We stuck to non-violent actions (those who thought we should do anything at all, mainly liberals). Similarly, I doubt many people, liberal or conservative, thought that other countries would have had the right to invade the US to get rid of segregation.

Also, of course, we didn't fight a war to end segregation or slavery (and under just war theory such a war by part of the country against another, given the availability of other means to achieve the goals, would likely not be justified). We ended segregation through such means. We were also using such means, off and

Quoting JonIrenicus: I do go beyond that, and yes it is very general. On the pacifistic strain, I think it exists within all people on a sort of sliding scale. I am trying to isolate why some people are opposed to the use of force for more aesthetic reasons as opposed to tactical ones.

I'm just not sure who you think you are arguing with. You go on about "liberals", of whom I am one, but I'm certainly not a pacifist. I respect pacificism, but don't think it is common.

I see the rationales of many people as being more than being against force for purely tactical rationales. I think alot of the people against its use need a higher bar or threshold to cross before they would tolerate it.

Sure, but doesn't this apply to just war theory? I'd argue that Iraq didn't meet the just war requirements, but I'm unclear whether you'd simply argue that all just war proponents are "liberals" and therefore irrelevant (so much for you, Pope Benedict!).

Had the US not been further along the use of force is tolerable line, how much longer would Milosevic have been left unchecked by Europe, who by and large

Shorter Frum: "If we do it your way there won't be anybody to invade!!!" This was weird. Frum just couldn't get his head around a policy that didn't involve an occupation or bombing.

Vietnam impacted the thinking of a fresh cadre of U.S. National Security and Military intellectuals tasked not just with damage repair, but reimagining the framework in which American 'Hard Force' might henceforth be exerted. The emphasis on coalition-building advanced by Gen. Brent Scrowcroft , and the conservative principles enshrined in what came to be known as the Powell Doctrine, served presidents of both political parties, and the nation, well in the first Gulf War and the Balkans. Frum and his allies, working over many years, energetically dissented. Their legacy, like Vietnam, will take years to repair. Dr Bacevich did rather well in teasing out Frum's allegiance to the policies and worldview of Robert McNamara. The tragedy is that in order for America to recall McNamara, six years of Rumsfeld were necessary.

Quoting stephanie: Sure, but doesn't this apply to just war theory? I'd argue that Iraq didn't meet the just war requirements, but I'm unclear whether you'd simply argue that all just war proponents are "liberals" and therefore irrelevant (so much for you, Pope Benedict!).

Just War theory can be defined in such a way as to rule out virtually any intervention, save blatant self defense. Which is why some people are so fond of it. In the end, interventions/changing the trajectory of nations needs to be argued about on their own merits. Some people would say my use of the word intervention was misplaced about Iraq for example. Many objected to the entire idea of looking at the response in Iraq as a wider battle against a broader "war on terror." Arguments arose about the fact that Iraq was not directly responsible for 911 (true), and in their view, the only tolerable cause for war is in response to direct aggression. That the war had a malevolent motivation (stealing oil), that the leadership deliberately lied about wmd to get involved (lied btw knowing they would find nothing... or at the very

Quoting JonIrenicus: ...we have no idea what the benefits or lack thereof will bring decades into the future...

That's a hell of a defense for spending a trillion dollars and slaughtering untold numbers of innocent women and children -- to say nothing of the thousands of American families destroyed by the war. If you're president someday, will you turn another country upside down and spill the blood of tens or hundreds of thousands on the promise that "decades into the future" "we have no idea what the benefits" will be? Eight years into the catastrophe and this is the best the right can offer.

Quoting TwinSwords: That's a hell of a defense for spending a trillion dollars and slaughtering untold numbers of innocent women and children -- to say nothing of the thousands of American families destroyed by the war.

Slaughtering innocents? Yes, that was the plan. Go out and slaughter innocents. That was not what we did. That you think it is shows your deranged view of both our intentions, and the reality. It would be more accurate if you said we created the conditions by which the Iraqis began slaughtering themselves, with a sloppy ill conceived post invasion. There are plenty of valid rebukes, and yet you cannot contain yourself from the excess of saying we just went in, targets aimed at women and children bent on the slaughtering them. Cause that must have been what it was all about. At least it is in your twisted, warped mind. Probably one of the ones who thought we went in to steal there oil as well. And on about the families whos lives were lost. Tell me, and please be honest. Would you have been for or against the war if less than 100 American families lost

Quoting JonIrenicus: Slaughtering innocents? Yes, that was the plan. Go out and slaughter innocents.

This is the first of several instances when you put these words in my mouth. I didn't say it was "the plan." It certainly did happen, though.

Quoting JonIrenicus: That was not what we did. That you think it is shows your deranged view of both our intentions, and the reality.

This is the second time when you put words in my mouth. I never said it was our "intention" to slaughter innocents. But it did happen, and while I can appreciate your insistence that it wasn't our intention, I'm stunned that you deny it actually happened once our intentions went awry.

Quoting JonIrenicus: It would be more accurate if you said we created the conditions by which the Iraqis began slaughtering themselves, with a sloppy ill conceived post invasion.

No. This would also be true, but it would not be "more accurate," because what I said is entirely accurate. If I say that 2+2=4, it is not "more accurate" to say 3+3=6, although the latter is definitely also true.

Quoting JonIrenicus: There are plenty of valid rebukes, and yet you cannot contain yourself from the excess of saying we just went in, targets aimed at women and

Quoting TwinSwords: This is the second time when you put words in my mouth. I never said it was our "intention" to slaughter innocents. But it did happen, and while I can appreciate your insistence that it wasn't our intention, I'm stunned that you deny it actually happened once our intentions went awry.

By your conception of "slaughter innocents," virtually every war, including "just wars" like Afghanistan is a case of slaughtering innocents. Innocent people die in war, why is the rhetoric of slaughtering innocents reserved, or at the very least so highlighted with Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan or WWII or the gulf war? It is an empty charge because it is a loaded description. There was no more targeting of innocent civilians here than anywhere else, as for the total deaths, most were not killed by American soldiers, not by a long shot, but I suppose the acts of a suicide bomber targeting civilians to disrupt the nation or death squads all gets chalked up to American slaughter in your view, no? A charge by the way strangely absent from wars with the same or more carnage you agree with.

I was against the war before it

Quoting Matignon33: Vietnam impacted the thinking of a fresh cadre of U.S. National Security and Military intellectuals tasked not just with damage repair, but reimagining the framework in which American 'Hard Force' might henceforth be exerted. The emphasis on coalition-building advanced by Gen. Brent Scrowcroft , and the conservative principles enshrined in what came to be known as the Powell Doctrine, served presidents of both political parties, and the nation, well in the first Gulf War and the Balkans. Frum and his allies, working over many years, energetically dissented. Their legacy, like Vietnam, will take years to repair. Dr Bacevich did rather well in teasing out Frum's allegiance to the policies and worldview of Robert McNamara. The tragedy is that in order for America to recall McNamara, six years of Rumsfeld were necessary.

I hate to quote the oft quoted Santayana, but it seems fitting here: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Of course Vietnam and Iraq were very different wars, but you are right that the key to understanding both of them lies in the mentality of men like McNamara and Rumsfeld--technocrats ignorant of history and convinced that American military

The problem in Afghanistan is the Pushtun. They are split up by the Durand Line, which they use to evade central authorities in Kabul and Islamabad, and which, along with their statelessness, has fostered a culture of lawlessness and banditry. Multi-cultural ideology aside, the most stable states are nation-states, which are united by kinship, language, land, and traditional arts and commerce. "Afghanistan" and "Pakistan" are entirely artificial stapled-together states, inherently unstable like the Hapsburg Empire due to their multi-national nature. As with many other Third World countries whose boundaries were drawn by faraway European colonial powers without regard to the ethno-national reality on the ground, nobody sees the central government as legitimate or worthy of respect. NOT because of democracy, but because that government is a battleground of ethnic interests, and is thus either an asset to be exploited or a foe to be feared. If one's central government is made up of one's co-ethnic kin, it is far more likely to command legitimacy and be better able to exert control and impose order. I doubt Tajikistan and Uzbekistan would object to annexing the relevant portions of Afghanistan. Pakistan would likely object to being dismantled, they could

Quoting bjkeefe: I would ask David, who is a good interlocutor, to ramp it down just a bit. As time went on, the frequent interruptions began to sound like defensiveness more than anything else. I'm not sure if it's guilt over being one of the architects of the current mess we're in, or a slowly dawning but still hard-to-accept realization that his instincts on how to deal with "the jihadist threat" are wrong, or what, but this sort of badgering does not make him look good and it's annoying to listen to.

Actually, I wish David had been far more forceful and assertive at getting a word in edgeways. Andrew's incredibly s-l-o-w, plodding speaking style not only hogged or even filibustered the discussion time, it clearly frustrated a nimble mind like David's, especially since Andrew chose to spend his time slogging through painfully cliched and familiar arguments and territory. For example, his smug dismissal of the domino theory carefully ignores the reality that it came true. Our loss of will to resist Communist aggression in Southeast Asia led directly to the loss of not only South Vietnam, but also of Laos and Cambodia, PRECISELY as

Quoting Carney: [...]

Noted. Sorry, but I don't often bother to engage with people who have views like yours on Vietnam, the Communist menace, etc. And, as you probably have already figured out from my earlier comments in this thread, I consider Andrew a lot more worthwhile a thinker on these matters than I do David. As someone once said, our views of reality do not sufficiently overlap.

Quoting Carney: Actually, I wish David had been far more forceful and assertive at getting a word in edgeways. Andrew's incredibly s-l-o-w, plodding speaking style not only hogged or even filibustered the discussion time, it clearly frustrated a nimble mind like David's, especially since Andrew chose to spend his time slogging through painfully cliched and familiar arguments and territory. For example, his smug dismissal of the domino theory carefully ignores the reality that it came true. Our loss of will to resist Communist aggression in Southeast Asia led directly to the loss of not only South Vietnam, but also of Laos and Cambodia, PRECISELY as the domino theory predicted. Furthermore the loss of Western will resulted in the Communists rolling up nation after nation throughout the late 1970s: Angola, Mozambique, Guinea, Rhodesia, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and Grenada.

Harping on the Communist schism as an excuse for allowing allies to be invaded and conquered ignores the reality that both rival strains were virulent and a threat, just as both Saudi and Iranian style Islamism are.

You know we won the cold war, right?

Quoting JonIrenicus: Just War theory can be defined in such a way as to rule out virtually any intervention, save blatant self defense. Which is why some people are so fond of it. In the end, interventions/changing the trajectory of nations needs to be argued about on their own merits.

Almost everyone (but pacifists) can work with Just War Theory, as it can both be used to rule out most (not all) interventions and to justify all. As I often say, humans can justify anything. However, given that just war theory is used by all from the Catholic Church to the military academies, to my knowledge, I think it argues against the idea that it's only "liberals" concerned about the particular distinctions it makes.

Some people would say my use of the word intervention was misplaced about Iraq for example. Many objected to the entire idea of looking at the response in Iraq as a wider battle against a broader "war on terror."

I'm not sure I see how these are related. Clearly Iraq was an intervention, but also clearly it was not directly related to the war on terror. Indirectly, was the argument in favor (other

Quoting JonIrenicus: I know many people have that take, but I remember hearing a person who poured over the letters of soldiers in the civil war that had survived.

Sure, and I'd distinguish between the motives of people who fought (varied) and the rationale of the government. I personally have a bunch of ancestors who fought based on hatred of slavery even though they were Quakers and in theory opposed to war (and most often got kicked out of their meetings due to fighting). However, I don't assume from that that the reason the US gov fought was slavery -- it's clear that the US gov fought to preserve the Union but that the South seceded because they were worried about slavery.

As to the issues of sovereignty, I think it is a harder case to argue invading a democratically elected nation is justifiable. However backwards their policies may be. On Apartheid in South Africa, I am glad no force was used in that case, it worked out better.

Precisely.

I am not making a policy argument here, making policy purely off what is justifiable or morally right, is insane.

Which explains how we conduct our foreign policy.

I think it is

No thanks to those like Bacevich.

Wait, so you only go onto forums seeking affirmation, not engagement? Interesting how that parallels Frum and Bacevich's conversation. Frum was curious about Bacevich's views, conceded flaws in the execution of his own agenda, etc. Meanwhile Bacevich simply smugly intoned from on high, never inquiring about Frum or even entertaining the possibility that he was anything other than metaphysically perfectly right. By all means, insulate yourself from other opinions. Like Bacevich, you'd fit perfectly into a typical American faculty lounge.

Quoting Carney: Wait, so you only go onto forums seeking affirmation, not engagement?

[...]

By all means, insulate yourself from other opinions. Like Bacevich, you'd fit perfectly into a typical American faculty lounge.

False dichotomy, Carney. There's a world of difference between only "seeking affirmation" and deciding that someone else's views are so ludicrous that it'd be a waste of time to engage. In fact, it is precisely because I'd rather spend my time in reasonable debate that I opt not to bother with people like you. Your snide aside about "a typical American faculty lounge" only confirms my assessment.

Incidentally there is a brilliant banner ad that sometimes plays on top of the root level list of discussions in response to this thread. The text is: "Ann Coulter-Free!" and there's a headshot. Is it just me, or is it designed to get both Coulter fans and Coulter-haters to click on it? The fans would see the ad as a way of getting Coulter content without having to pay. The antis would see the ad as a way of going somewhere online that is guaranteed to be free of Coulter.

A few brief comments: Bacevich is making the case for a realistic policy towards jihadism. How many trillion dollars wars can we afford (in response to al Qaeda's $500,000 initial investment)?
How long can we continue to send the same military personnel into war zones again and again in defense of our right to endlessly debate the issue?
I think everyone understands that removing our military from Afghanistan is not an ideal solution. Many Afghanis will pay a steep price, but from the day we invaded there was no longer a perfect solution. However, from our perspective a police approach is both affordable and manageable. I suppose everyone understands that a new war like this will entail bribery, kidnappings and targeted assassinations. It will be time consuming and frequently ugly. It is, however, an affordable option and a way forward. Of necessity this war will last at least a generation, regardless of how we choose to fight it. Look to Europe in the 60's and 70's as an example. One last thing: I don't believe anyone mentioned the one most obvious and significant thing - no matter how we conduct this war there will be

That is the nothing more than the counterterrorism strategy that it took President Obama three months to consider and reject.