But I was a little disturbed. First up, from Aaron Blake’s analysis of the Tuesday Democratic Presidential candidates debate in WaPo:
With tensions with Iran and controversy over President Trump’s decision to kill Qasem Soleimani big in the news, Democrats had a chance to define their party on the issue. And the debate began on that subject, with the candidates talking at some length. What we got instead was a lot of general talk about taking out combat troops but leaving in other troops who would be tasked with other missions. They criticized Trump as not having authorization to attack Iran. It seemed like a moment in which the Democratic Party could define itself on this issue, but there wasn’t much of that on Tuesday night. Instead, it was a lot of Goldilocks-ing of troop numbers — each one assuring that he or she would keep just the right number in the Middle East.
Second up is Andrew Yang’s appearance on The Late Show last night , where, when it came to foreign invasions, he wanted a definite timeline for withdrawal (@ 3:50).
Look, if it’s necessary to send troops on a military mission, they’re being sent for a reason, to accomplish a goal. A timeline – which must be published in this context, because this is all about the public – may be of very poor service to the goal of the mission. As I know Republican pundits have pointed out, if you tell some dude, such as Saddam Hussein, that we’re going to come to your country and kill you, but we’re leaving after a year regardless of whether you’re dead or not, what’s the dude’s strategy going to be?
That’s right. He’ll do his best not to get killed, confident that survival until the one year mark will mark him as victorious over the hated Americans. This is a very different, and potentially harmful long-term strategy, than if he knows he’ll be hunted until found and killed. Just as an example.
Similarly, the “just the right number” remark is a sham remark, because it assumes we should be staying. In some circumstances, it makes sense to stay. We’ve been in Europe for decades, trying to keep the Russians and their predecessors, the Soviets, at bay, while also suffocating the national rivalries of Europe. Better to meet the Russians in Europe than at Niagara Falls, one might say.
But such missions should be reviewed from bottom up by each incoming Administration, if not more often! Such missions are a drain on resources and the national psyche. Each mission should have a clearly defined military goal, and metrics indicating when the mission is finished – such as your target is dead, come home now.
And, no: Until we understand it better, as much as it hurts liberals and neo-cons everywhere, Nation-building is not a military mission. Both sides of the American political spectrum have tried it (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq appears to be shaky at best) and failed. I think it’s clear we have no idea how to do it, and in fact I doubt we’ve even seriously asked Is it possible?
Personally, I think the population of the nation in question has to be in a very specific set of states as pertain to economics, morality, ethics, and no doubt a few others, before democracy can really take hold. Don’t ask me to identify the states of those areas, either.
Now, I have no idea if this is what occupies the minds of the electorate, or if timelines and numbers are really good enough to placate them. But they don’t placate me; instead, they worry me.
- Don’t go if you don’t have to.
- Don’t overstay your welcome.
- Bloody well accomplish the mission.
- And, most importantly, make sure the mission is appropriate and within the military’s competency.
