This short essay began as a critique of the conclusions of a far more in-depth and nuanced historical piece in Quillette, entitled Bitter Lessons from Afghanistan.
A great essay, providing much needed depth into the background of American policy making. But I don’t think that the author draws the right conclusions in the last three paragraphs. For a start, we have the example of the French intervention in Mali- the defence of a sovereign power and its people- in this case, the alternative of standing by and doing nothing would have been worse. Deciding to stay, however, is undoubtedly a bad habit the French picked up from America. In addition, we need to recognise that no matter how odious we in the West may find the behaviour of some Sovereign States, their continued stability is often infinitely preferable to the instability, mayhem and humanitarian disaster which often ensues from intervention and misguided nation building.
Although many cite the lucrative system of procurement and expenditure which follows any American deployment as an incentive for war, I think this is an unduly cynical take on the motivations of Washington Power Elites. Rather, I think that they are simply incapable of acknowledging the axiomatic truth of the just war fallacy, and instead seem congenitally prone to attempting to seize some post hoc justification for war and conflict, in the form of jus post bellum nation building and democratisation at the point of a gun.
There is so such thing as Just War, and all theories to that effect are just plain wrong. War is wrong, but sometimes the alternative is worse and this crucial understanding should negate even the suggestion of jus post bellum as contingent on a philosophically bankrupt framework. Failing that- loan the defeated your credit card, not your ‘help’ paired with occupation and continuing provocation. Attempts to snatch post hoc justifications for war are tantamount to polishing a turd- it’s not likely to accomplish much, but it will get your sleeve dirty. The only valid justifications for war are to be found prior to its declaration in “the responsibility to protect”, not least one’s own citizens and Allies- not in some imagined goal following its cessation. This can include swift moves to intervene against genocides, but not at the expense of global stability and potentially catastrophic wars.
In attempting to create post hoc justifications for war, the American establishment can be likened to the image of Narcissus staring at his own image in a pool. In this case it is American self-image of itself as a nation which is at fault, and the desperate desire to believe oneself a ‘force for good’ in the world. America is good, at least in its intentions- one only has to examine the ungodly amounts of money America spends on its weapons in order to minimise civilian casualties to see the truth of it, when one considers that other nations arm themselves with less discriminating, equally effective weapons which are far less costly in budgetary terms.
In trying to create post hoc justifications for war, lies the true synthesis of American decline. American wars are always swift and invariably successful, accomplished with a minimum of civilian casualties. If they wax brutal it is by the necessity of war. But occupations in the name of democracy and nation building on America’s part, have always snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Local populations are quickly going to turn unfriendly towards well-meaning foreigners telling them how to arrange their affairs.
This is where the real damage to America’s reputation stems from. It’s not the wars, it’s the open-ended commitments to occupations. To Allies their example represents a potential future liability- if currently unengaged, they may have dodged a bullet- but who knows the next time, if the opposition in is power? To the neutral they can seem like folly and a disruption to the more important business of peaceful trade and mutual enrichment. To adversaries, they encourage fourth and fifth generational warfare as a means of weakening a perennial threat.
It’s basic Machiavelli, after all “People should either be caressed or crushed. If you do them minor damage they will get their revenge; but if you cripple them there is nothing they can do. If you need to injure someone, do it in such a way that you do not have to fear their vengeance.”, with the proviso that in the modern age, it is far easier to caress almost every national player in one way or another- whether the rewards come in the form of mutually beneficial trade, development bribes, personal prestige or acknowledging the essential dignity of their people.
War should be brutal. It should also be swift and accomplished with as few casualties as the reality on the ground permits. Our leaders should acknowledge this truth, at least to themselves. If we acknowledge that war is inherently wrong, but caveat that it can be less wrong than the alternative, the cost-benefit analysis should also include the degree to which the war is unnecessarily protracted in the name of some supposed good which unfailingly fails to materialise. In this light, we can see jus post bellum occupations in the name of nation building as a bellicose variety of communism, always failing in their promise and never done right.
I’ll leave it to Augustine of Hippo to defend the idea of Just War. Machiavelli was a wise man and should be heeded. Shakespeare spent a great deal of ink on the problem of hubris and its cost in blood and treasure. Too bad no one reads Shakespeare any more.
The West has grown bored with liberty and too lazy to think deeply about much of anything. The East has not arrived at that point yet.
If you fight a war and declare victory, mission accomplished and attempt to occupy the land BEFORE you received a unilateral surrender, you are deluded. Just look at nearly all American wars since the last time it declared one (WWII) and fought until they received a surrender.
“ Although many cite the lucrative system of procurement and expenditure which follows any American deployment as an incentive for war, I think this is an unduly cynical take on the motivations of Washington Power Elites.”
Absolutely. The people who claim that the Afghan war (or Iraq for that matter) were just part of a scheme to enrich defense contractors are not just cynical and wrong, they fundamentally don’t know what they’re talking about. The defense-industrial complex, for good or ill, does not need a war in the Middle East to make money. Far more is spent on procurement completely unrelated to anything used in Afghanistan. Nobody is going to lose their job because the withdrawal means their work is obsolete - they’ll just be shifted to a different system or weapon etc. The bigger problem in procurement is the vast amount spent on “science fair projects.” Even dumber is claiming some foreign policy elites will lose their jobs. Yeah right. They can pivot to a new area or get a different job in less time than we spent getting out of Afghanistan.
“ one only has to examine the ungodly amounts of money America spends on its weapons in order to minimise civilian casualties to see the truth of it, when one considers that other nations arm themselves with less discriminating, equally effective weapons which are far less costly in budgetary terms.”
Thank you for pointing this out. You’re absolutely correct and most people seem not to understand this. The amount of money, time, work, effort, and ingenuity that goes into designing systems and weapons and platforms in ways to avoid civilian casualties and friendly fire is enormous. Accidents are usually the result of poor intelligence or human error.
I’ll leave it to Augustine of Hippo to defend the idea of Just War. Machiavelli was a wise man and should be heeded. Shakespeare spent a great deal of ink on the problem of hubris and its cost in blood and treasure. Too bad no one reads Shakespeare any more.
The West has grown bored with liberty and too lazy to think deeply about much of anything. The East has not arrived at that point yet.
If you fight a war and declare victory, mission accomplished and attempt to occupy the land BEFORE you received a unilateral surrender, you are deluded. Just look at nearly all American wars since the last time it declared one (WWII) and fought until they received a surrender.
“ Although many cite the lucrative system of procurement and expenditure which follows any American deployment as an incentive for war, I think this is an unduly cynical take on the motivations of Washington Power Elites.”
Absolutely. The people who claim that the Afghan war (or Iraq for that matter) were just part of a scheme to enrich defense contractors are not just cynical and wrong, they fundamentally don’t know what they’re talking about. The defense-industrial complex, for good or ill, does not need a war in the Middle East to make money. Far more is spent on procurement completely unrelated to anything used in Afghanistan. Nobody is going to lose their job because the withdrawal means their work is obsolete - they’ll just be shifted to a different system or weapon etc. The bigger problem in procurement is the vast amount spent on “science fair projects.” Even dumber is claiming some foreign policy elites will lose their jobs. Yeah right. They can pivot to a new area or get a different job in less time than we spent getting out of Afghanistan.
“ one only has to examine the ungodly amounts of money America spends on its weapons in order to minimise civilian casualties to see the truth of it, when one considers that other nations arm themselves with less discriminating, equally effective weapons which are far less costly in budgetary terms.”
Thank you for pointing this out. You’re absolutely correct and most people seem not to understand this. The amount of money, time, work, effort, and ingenuity that goes into designing systems and weapons and platforms in ways to avoid civilian casualties and friendly fire is enormous. Accidents are usually the result of poor intelligence or human error.