Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:31:56 PM
I was responding to comments when I ran across an argument I have heard many times. This is the argument that war should be "the last recourse" of our nation. It has been used by many different political positions, from the "rush to war" crowd on the left, to "not until they take Duluth" Ron Paul crowd. It sounds like a good argument, at least if you don't adopt some sort of militarism (the sort many disguise as "pragmatism" or "realism") that argues for aggressively taking over the rest oft he world. So long as you have some desire to live peacefully with other nations, clearly you have to imagine there is some solution to problems short of warfare. But,. I would argue that declaring war the absolute last resort is a bad idea.
Before I start, let me give my take on warfare, from my political point of view. As a supporter or minimal, federalist government and an absolutely free market, I believe war should be used solely to defend the rights of the citizens of the nation. That does not mean I support a Ron Paul sort of isolationism, as will be made clear shortly. On the other hand, I do not endorse war unless it defends the rights of citizens. Of course this could mean anything from striking against a nation which has attempted to invade our sovereign territory to taking out a state which quietly supports terrorists to intervening in a nation which does nothing to protect our citizens from bandits to striking to take back property form a country which nationalized assets owned by US citizens. There is a wide range of actions which could conceivably be described as defending the rights of citizens.
Whatever the justification, my main argument is that we should act, we should declare war, when it makes the most sense, when it is proper from our perspective, and not only after exhausting all other options.
Why not? Why should we not try to negotiate again and again? Why should we not grab on to every peace offer extended to us? Exhaust every opportunity to settle it without bloodshed?
The answer is simple. Think of Iran. I know many think Iran gave up on nuclear weapon research (though I disagree), so let us imagine a nation which is pursuing such weapons, like Iran. Let us call it Nari. Let us say they are five years away from success. We know that the moment Nari gets such weapons they will use them to bully neighboring nations into an anti-US coalition, as well as provide terrorists with weapons. Let us suppose we have the ability to stage an attack from a neighbor of Nari, let's call it Learsi. We could strike at this moment from Learsi and take out Nari's weapons program. Or we could infiltrate Nari, arm the local dissidents and possibly overthrow the nation.
But we are dedicated to using war as the final option only, so instead we try to negotiate with Nari. And Nari, aware of our policy, agrees. They don't stop research, they just begin negotiating. And negotiating, and negotiating. Every time we make a demand, they delay, then refuse. Every time talks appear to break down, they let us quit, let us threaten war, and then offer to negotiate again. And thus they stretch out such talks to five years, only ending such negotiations when their own new nuclear arsenal makes them no longer useful.
And that is the reason it is a bad idea to make a hard rule of viewing war as the last resort. Once you do so, you give your enemies an incredible advantage. They know they can simply hold out an olive branch, no matter how insincere, and they can continue with their plans without fear of interference. It gives them an easy way to take you out of the picture without cost to themselves. Once you declare you will always negotiate it means you can be manipulated by every rival.
I suppose this could have been much shorter. I could have just said "Munich" and left it at that. But I think perhaps my description is a bit better. Either way, hopefully I have managed to demonstrate the pitfalls of allowing a high-sounding principle to give every advantage to your enemies.
POSTSCRIPT
The many posts I made on Iran's nuclear program and the reasons I disbelieve their claims, and the NIE claims, that they are pursuing only civilian nuclear applications can be found in "
I Don't Get It" and the list of articles linked in "
Some Questions for Obama". I also discussed the proper uses of war in "
Foreign Policy". My theory of government can be found in "
My Vision of Government", "
My Vision of Government Part II", "
Why I Am Not A Libertarian" and "
The Benefits of Federalism".