Superpower (new book on US foreign policy)

I'll take Moneyball for $2000 Alex.

Money Ball seems the most pragmatic. Indispensable might have us exporting our "exceptionalism" to the rest of the world. More foreign adventures. I might be a mix of MoneyBall and Independent. I wonder if defending American interests means intervening on behalf of banana growers a la Smedley Butler? Hope not.

Madeleine Albright ("There is not a problem in the world that USAF bombing won't solve.")

Click to expand...

WOW. Did Albright actually say that? Bombing alone can solve very little.

I agree with the two of you, yes you too seebell. Moderation is best in most instances. Each case must be analyzed according to the risk/benefit and the savagery involved in a situation of genocide. Sad, I know, to analyze the number killed and the manner but it is necessary when deciding to risk the lives of our countrymen.
Throwing money at problems only seems to put off the eventual hard choices rather than making a real difference. The corrupt and evil profit and live to kill another day.
If we must bomb or fight it should be done with a clear objective without consideration to political correctness. This has been lacking for decades in our foreign conflicts and it has cost many more lives and much money that would have been saved in the long run if we fought with the best of our ability and kept the media out. Appeasement is a fools game when dealing with despots and terrorists.

Thanks Gr8hope.

The Powell Doctrine seems like a good idea to me.

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[SUP][2][/SUP]

As Powell said in an April 1, 2009 interview on The Rachel Maddow Show, the Doctrine denotes the exhausting of all "political, economic, and diplomatic means", which, only if those means prove to be futile, should a nation resort to military force. Powell has expanded upon the Doctrine, asserting that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing U.S. casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate.[SUP][3][/SUP] This is in line with Western military strategy dating at least from Carl von Clausewitz's On War.[SUP][citation needed]

Or the Weinburger Doctrine if you will.

[/SUP]
he "lessons" of the Vietnam War and Beirut loomed large in November of 1984, when Reagans Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger gave an influential speech embracing many of the military's concerns. The "Weinberger doctrine" contained six points sharply limiting the use of combat forces:

• Either the United States' or its close allies' vital national interests had to be at risk;
• The war had to be fought "wholeheartedly, with the clear intention of winning";
• We should employ decisive force in the pursuit of clearly defined political and military objectives;
• We must constantly reassess whether the use of force is necessary and appropriate;
• There must be a "reasonable assurance" of Congressional and public support;
• Force should be used only as a last resort.

Would we have invaded and or stayed in Iraq if these doctrines had been considered? Should we have sent more troops into Iraq to begin with. Say 400,000?

seebell said:

...

The Powell Doctrine seems like a good idea to me.

Click to expand...

For the most part I agree.

There are times though that attempts to use diplomatic means only delay the inevitable and allow digging in and hardening of the targets. Hindsight makes these examples obvious, but there are cases where they were obvious from the beginning.

There are also times when the threat is so significant an obvious exit strategy is unknowable, but still has to be addressed. I don't believe that Iraq, Syria, Iran or whatever you want to call ISIS falls into that category for me. IMO this is an existential threat.

seebell said:

..

Would we have invaded and or stayed in Iraq if these doctrines had been considered? Should we have sent more troops into Iraq to begin with. Say 400,000?

Click to expand...

I believe we would have invaded. There was a great deal of support internally. We were just around a year after 911. Whatever Powell feels now getting the U.N. on board and a coalition of the willing IMO was a move just to prove we tried. People tend to obviously focus on the WMD charges (rightly so because of the focus), but the breaks in commitments by Iraq after Kuwait were multiple and continual. Here is Bush's full speech to the U.N. making his case on Iraq. He listed several counts before getting to WMDs:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?167220-2/president-bush-speech-united-nations

I do not believe we needed more troops to begin with. It was an overwhelming victory.

Whether or not larger numbers of occupying troops or a longer stay would have turned Iraq into a stable friendly democracy will never be known and will be constantly debated. IMO If we could have achieved what Jordan has it would be a huge success. We obviously ran out of patience.

Thanks Mittman.

I do not believe we needed more troops to begin with. It was an overwhelming victory.

Click to expand...

Yep we beat the whey out of them in short order. But did we have enough troops to win the peace?

No question Iraq had not lived up to it's treaty obligations. Congress did vote for action. But the UN weapons inspectors had asked for more time. But I guess we probably shouldn't re-open that Pandora's Box.

Votes for the Iraqi War Resolution-- Wikipedia
United States House of Representatives[edit]

United States Senate[edit]

Hardly Unanimous.

Keep this up TW and we'll make you an honorary SDS member! I remember that some doddering old retired general was the first Iraqi reconstruction czar. I saw him on TV. Couple of months later the general had faded into obscurity and Paul Bremmer had taken over. That wasn't a good sign to me. We went from being hailed as liberators to IED victims.

The average Iraqi at least had food, water and electricity under Saddam. And some semblance of order.

Back to Superpower. If we're going to use force to fight evil around the world, the battle will be never ending.

Saw a TV show last night. Think it's called The Fighting Season. Afghan documentary series. Kabul could be a scary place. Congested as heck.

seebell said:

Thanks Mittman.

Yep we beat the whey out of them in short order. But did we have enough troops to win the peace?

No question Iraq had not lived up to it's treaty obligations. Congress did vote for action. But the UN weapons inspectors had asked for more time. But I guess we probably shouldn't re-open that Pandora's Box.

Votes for the Iraqi War Resolution-- Wikipedia
United States House of Representatives[edit]

Party	Yeas	Nays	Not Voting
Republican	215	6	2
Democratic	82	126	1
Independent		1
TOTALS	297	133	3

United States Senate[edit]

Party	Yeas	Nays
Republican	48	1
Democratic	29	21
Independent		1
TOTALS	77	23

Hardly Unanimous.

Click to expand...

No doubt there was a plenty of opposition, a great deal of it. I just believe there was plenty of support to go in. U.N. or not. Like TW said we did not have the plan, support, or patience once we did.

U.N. inspectors continually prove they will ask for time in perpetuity. Anytime they are used to be the decision making factor must have a hard timeline and specifics set. If there is a hint of lack of cooperation from the party being monitored they are no longer effective. The Bush administration really did not handle that situation well at all, but they did use the reports directly from the inspectors to make assessments that later proved to be false. What is happening in Iran now is very familiar.

What I am getting at is that there is no doctrine that is going to neatly fit all situations. Well maybe Teddy Roosevelt's.

I think I will wait on one of you guys to post back when you have read the book before taking the time to read it myself.

seebell said:

...
Back to Superpower. If we're going to use force to fight evil around the world, the battle will be never ending.
...

Click to expand...

Yup. If we are not the battle will continue without us. At some point it finds it's way to our doorstep either way.