Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Churchill's advice

I'm been teaching about World War I this week, and came across some thoughts from Winston Churchill that seemed relevant to the enduring debate over where and how to use military force.
Churchill was no pacifist -- in fact, in the middle of World War I, he confessed:
I think a curse should rest on me -- because I love this war. I know it’s smashing & shattering the lives of thousands -- & yet -- I can't help it -- I enjoy every second of it."
Yet Churchill also understood that war was an unpredictable business. As Barack Obama strives to reposition U.S. foreign policy -- and especially our military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and as voices continue to demand that he do more in Pakistan, confront Iran, or clean up Darfur, Churchill's warnings about the uncertainties that surround the use of force ring true. Here's an excerpt from My Early Life:
Let us learn our lessons. Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on that strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The Statesman who yields to war must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War Offices, weak, incompetent or arrogant Commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations -- all take their seats at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war. Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think he also had a chance."
George W. Bush kept a bust of Churchill in his office, but it seems patently obvious that he never took Churchill's warning to heart. Barack Obama has had the bust removed, we're told, but I'd like to think that somebody might tell him about Sir Winston's advice.
The uncertainties that attend the use of force grow when war occurs on unfamiliar social and political terrain; that is, when we do not know very much about our adversaries or their motivations. They increase even more when success depends on what third parties decide to do -- will they support us, remain neutral, pretend to help but do nothing, or join the other side?
To take an obvious example, increasing our commitment in Afghanistan and Pakistan is risky because we still do not understand these societies very well and because success requires that we get effective help from the ruling authorities in each country, and it is hard to be confident that we will. Moreover, the main tools at our disposal -- Special Forces and air strikes against suspected militants -- may be tactically effective but a strategic misstep, if they kill civilians along with bad guys and thereby generate greater opposition over time.
So when his advisors, or American "allies" or assorted special interest groups come and whisper in Obama's ear about the need for military action, I hope somebody reminds him of Churchill's warning. And because the same logic applies to other countries who may think that war is the answer to their problems, it wouldn't be a bad thing if Churchill got read in a few other capitals too.
Photo: Wikipedia









Small Wars Journal and John Fishel
While I realize the gist of your post is, simply, beware of getting on the tiger's (lion's?) back because you don't know about the dismount, I thought an equally sagacious take was given by John T. Fishel on Small Wars Journal*, which I would summarize as, "Know what you don't know" (hats off to Rumsfeld; as Jervis pointed out, all mantras contain an element of truth). There are a lot of known unknowns about Afghanistan (and perhaps, true, Iraq still), and before formulating courses of action, it probably makes sense to gather that information.
* Do you read SWJ? Office of prurient curioity.
check if you are permitted...
before you go to war, check if you are permitted. If you are not permitted, forget it;->
If you are permitted and lose the war, it is not your fault that you started it, but if you go to war without permission, you are in deep trouble for it is no more war.
Of course the real question is:
Who permits the war?
War is something like you apply for a green-card and you are permitted - you are in war;->
no permission, no war, if you are in you are an illegal alien;->
Grand Sen~or
So when his advisors, or
so some devils whisper into your leadership's ear then you go to war??!
War is an important affair among human-beings, I don't think it is left that loose, you need permission to start a war;->
What I mean is "war" is not like "politics" which is related to "will", "war" is related to "permission".
on whose account? ugly, fat man;->
is that why Bush was keeping his bust?!
have you heard the news today:
back to the basics...
(also read my above response to anon_anon)
Grand Sen~or
Professor Walt wrote:
You are absolutely right, and what about the argument, that foreign troops and their activities in a 'country', which all Pashtuns regard as one-and-the-same and inseperable from Pakistan, artificially devided by the Durand-line*, are causing instability in Pakistan. Particularly the attacks with supersonic hellfire-missiles fired from drones, have caused uproar from Pakistan's people as well as its leadership, the latter have repeatedly warned, that they risc uniting** different 'Taliban' groupings, and in this way created more problems for Pakistan and for the foreign troops in Afghanistan.
_______________________
*)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durand_Line
**)
YAHOO NEWS, Sat, Feb 21
'Rival Taliban leaders unite as US widens Pakistan attacks'
http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090221/876/twl-rival-taliban-leaders-unite-as-us-wi.html
___________________________________________________________
Suggestion for new blog-post: The role of Neo-cons in prolonging The Cold War in the beginning of the 1970'ties
, when there was a thaw in relations between East and West. Apparently the motivating factor was the human rights-situation of Jews in the USSR. And for that reason the whole world was doomed for another spat - two decenniums at it turned out - of Cold War. Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz worked at that time as assistants to Henry 'Scoop' Jackson.*** What did this gambling with the security of the world cost in expences for armament? Remember the neo-cons were against Reagan making peace-ouvertures to the Soviets. But due to the involvement of millions of people in the peace-movements (at 'Greenham Common' for instance) - common sense prevailed, and the neocons were marginalised. Then they began writing scripts about a 'New American Century' - which after 9/11 led to pre-emptive strikes against what incidentially was Israels greatest strategic foes- first Iraq, but Iran was supposed to have been the end-goal,- something that the iraqi resistance-movement was able to prevent. Now the neo-cons are on the defensive again, and it is time to ask ourselves, what our acquintance with them have costed the world.
________________________
***)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoop_Jackson