War Advocates Need a Good Dose of Humility

NY Newsday ^ | January 27, 2004 | Michael Sherry

[presidio9]

Richard Perle and David Frum are taking some heat for their new book, "An End to Evil," with its sweeping demands to ratchet up the war on terrorism and take on any regime the United States finds offensive. "It is victory or holocaust. This book is a manual for victory."

Who are these armchair strategists, who never served in the military and never knew battle, to pronounce so cavalierly on war's merits? It is an understandable complaint, with a tangled history behind it.

Neither the uniform nor civilian clothes confers special wisdom, skill or stances regarding war. Our greatest modern wartime president, Franklin Roosevelt, never served in uniform. Two presidents who strenuously and successfully avoided war graduated from military academies, Jimmy Carter and Dwight Eisenhower - Ike, of course, a career officer. Nor does serving in war always induce caution: Douglas MacArthur and George Patton were prone to reckless statements about American military action. To complicate matters more, many in uniform never see combat; many who never wear a uniform, such as refugees here from the world's battlefields, know war's brutalities acutely.

In recent years, civilian leaders have pushed for war more than uniformed commanders. Before the Gulf War, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf criticized the rush to battle: "'Let's get on with it and kill a whole bunch of people.' That's crazy." George W. Bush complained to CBS before the Iraq War, "There's a lot of 'Nervous Nellies' in the Pentagon." Military leaders' reluctance can be a ploy - a way to assure the build-up of coalitions and forces that guarantee victory. Defeat, or a muddled outcome, is understandably their nightmare, since their lives, budgets and reputations are at stake. But whatever the politics, when civilian leaders lead the nation into war, the military often follows reluctantly.

[Puppage]

In recent years, civilian leaders have pushed for war more than uniformed commanders

Falls under the heading of Freedom of Speech, no?

[The Old Hoosier]

The title is correct, especially about these Frum-Perle types who want us to invade Iran, Syria, and then 10 other nations to boot.

But this writer fails to make the important point--that it just isn't our job to do this. Instead he belabors this comparison between military and civilian attitudes toward war, as though that could determine which wars are right and which are wrong.

[presidio9]

BTW, last time I checked the Commander-In-Chief had no official uniform, and Frum was his former head speech writer.

[KellyAdmirer]

Soldiers do not "own" decisions regarding wars, any more than economists "own" the economy. The author is making distinctions without merit. Whether or not you are a soldier has no bearing on whether you can have an informed opinion about the advisability or necessity of military action.

I personally believe all Newsday political articles should automatically include a "barf" alert, btw.

[optimistically_conservative]

... whether you can have an informed opinion about the advisability or necessity of military action.

I would couch that in two ways. I think the military advisors to the civilian leadership MUST have an informed opinion about the advisability of military action and ZERO opinion on the necessity of military action.

Where we often go wrong is in the biases we bring to the table on the advisability on certain courses of military action and politics over the necessity of military action.

[KellyAdmirer]

That's a good way of putting it. I think they should have an informed opinion on strategy and probable outcomes, not be no more important than anyone else on whether it is "the right thing to do."

[KellyAdmirer]

I meant "not be ANY more important than anyone else"

[Rudder]

Two presidents who strenuously and successfully avoided war graduated from military academies, Jimmy Carter and Dwight Eisenhower...

Like, Ike never went to war? What is this nonsense?!

[1Old Pro]

Two presidents who strenuously and successfully avoided war graduated from military academies, Jimmy Carter and

It's easier to "acoid" war than to tackle it when necessary. Klintoon let the cancer of terrorism spread because he was not up to the job. Bush and our military are properly tackling terrorism before we lose another 3,000 or 30,000 on our shores.

[Dilbert56]

War Advocates Need a Good Dose of Humility

Talk about the pot calling the kettle. The people who wanted to keep Saddam in place told us there would be 250,000 civilian deaths, millions of refugees, huge casualties when Saddam lauched his chem/bio weapons, instability in the Middle East (as if that isn't redundant), that the invasion would trigger terrorist attacks on us at home, and so on.

Then those same idiots accuse the President of exaggerating, distorting, and relying on bad intelligence. They wouldn't recognize humility if it punched them in the face.

[optimistically_conservative]

... whether it is "the right thing to do."

I agree. The right thing to do is fraught with complexities that have little to do with military sucess, although I would concede that military defeat would be a condition making it the wrong thing to do.

[thoughtomator]

Crawling out of the World Trade Center with smoke-filled lungs gave me enough humility to demand the total destruction of Islam as it exists today. Even my far-left friends have figured out by now that Islam is the problem, and it's up to us to solve it, whether we like it or not.

Hubris, on the other hand, would lead us to believe we are exempt from the Islamic conquerors' plans.

[nuconvert]

"both appear guilty of hypocrisy"

Really, how?

"victory or holocaust," as Frum and Perle assert? It is possible to have both, or neither."

This guy's an idiot. NO, it ISN'T possible to have "neither". With terrorism, you're either victorious against it, or you pay a terrible price. And to have both? Well, duh...yeah, you can have holocaust first (if you want) and then victory. Is that what he's advocating?
The day this guy get's an IQ equal to 1/2 Perle's or Frum's let me know.

[The Old Hoosier]

We don't have to invade all those countries to destroy Islam. We just have to figure out a way to stop using oil and funding Islam.

[Quix]

TRUE,

In all the war game smulations,it's the politicos etc. who want to bomb, nuke, fight first and foremost.

It's the military leaders counseling them to hold back and find another way.

However, there is also truth that certain types of evil only respond as needed to overwhelming force.

This is true of Al Qaeda.

Denial will not suffice.

[presidio9]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all t0 Christianity." -Ann Coulter 09/13/01

[WOSG]

"The title is correct, especially about these Frum-Perle types who want us to invade Iran, Syria, and then 10 other nations to boot"

That's a strawman you are repeating... If you have a *quote* from them and not a echo-chamber of liberal/left criticisms, that might mean something. The essay is *not* correct.

AS I see, this guy is chock full of errors - Lincoln, not FDR was the greatest wartime President - Carter didnt avoid military action, he incompetently lost Iran and other countries to violence and revolution. Desert One anyone? etc. etc.

Frum-Perle want to win the war on terror. Great! How do we win??? They say how. If one wants to critique that, debate the proposed strategy and actions. Ad hominem and strawmen arguments dont illuminate.

We must be humble in knowing the difficulty of the task.
But we must have courage to do the right and difficult things anyway, for our children's sake.
And one need not wear a uniform to know what is right for our country.