War-Weariness As an Excuse

The Weekly Standard ^ | Mar 24, 2014 | William Kristol

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Are Americans today war-weary? Sure. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been frustrating and tiring. Are Americans today unusually war-weary? No. They were wearier after the much larger and even more frustrating conflicts in Korea and Vietnam. And even though the two world wars of the last century had more satisfactory outcomes, their magnitude was such that they couldn’t help but induce a significant sense of war-weariness. And history shows that they did.

So American war-weariness isn’t new. Using it as an excuse to avoid maintaining our defenses or shouldering our responsibilities isn’t new, either. But that doesn’t make it admirable.

The March 5 Wall Street Journal featured a letter from Heidi Szrom of Valparaiso, Indiana. She was responding to an earlier letter defending President Obama’s foreign policies against a powerful critique in the Journal by the historian Niall Ferguson (“America’s Global Retreat”). The first letter writer noted Ferguson’s statement that more people may have died violent deaths in the Greater Middle East in the Obama years than under Bush, but excused Obama:

True, but it is also equally certain that fewer Americans have died violent deaths in the Greater Middle East during this presidency than during the previous one, and this is what matters more now to a war-weary American public.

To which Ms. Szrom responded:

According to pundits, the president and letter writers, America is “war weary.” Every time I hear this, I wonder: Did you serve? Did you volunteer to fight oppression in foreign lands? Did your son or brother or husband? If so, then I understand and sympathize with your complaint .  .  . unlike most of those who utter this shopworn phrase.

Perhaps the country’s weariness stems from a reluctance to face unpleasant truths—one of which is that power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. .  .  . History tells us it will only be a temporary reprieve. Our current defense cuts ensure that we will be woefully unprepared to face the next test. We are so weary that we are falling asleep.

Well said. If only Republican elected officials were half as clear-minded and nearly as courageous as Ms. Szrom in taking on the claim that we all need to defer to, to bow down to, our own war-weariness. In fact, the idol of war-weariness can be challenged. A war-weary public can be awakened and rallied. Indeed, events are right now doing the awakening. All that’s needed is the rallying. And the turnaround can be fast. Only 5 years after the end of the Vietnam war, and 15 years after our involvement there began in a big way, Ronald Reagan ran against both Democratic dovishness and Republican détente. He proposed confronting the Soviet Union and rebuilding our military. It was said that the country was too war-weary, that it was too soon after Vietnam, for Reagan’s stern and challenging message. Yet Reagan won the election in 1980. And by 1990 an awakened America had won the Cold War.

The next president will be elected in 2016, 15 years after 9/11 and 5 years after our abandonment of Iraq and the beginning of the drawdown in Afghanistan. Pundits will say that it would be politically foolish to try to awaken Americans rather than cater to their alleged war-weariness. We can’t prove them wrong. Perhaps it would be easier for a Republican to win in 2016 running after the fashion of Warren Gamaliel Harding in 1920 rather than that of Ronald Wilson Reagan in 1980.

But what would such a victory be worth? The term “war-weary” (actually “war-wearied”) may have first appeared in Shakespeare. In Henry VI, Part 1 (Act IV, Scene 4), the Earl of Somerset, for reasons of domestic political calculation, resists the entreaty of Sir William Lucy to go to the aid of his fellow English lord, “the over-daring Talbot,”

Who, ring’d about with bold adversity,

Cries out for noble York and Somerset,

To beat assailing death from his weak legions:

And whiles the honourable captain there

Drops bloody sweat from his war-wearied limbs,

And, in advantage lingering, looks for rescue,

You, his false hopes, the trust of England’s honour,

Keep off aloof with worthless emulation.

Somerset fails to rescue Talbot, but grandly states,

If he be dead, brave Talbot, then adieu!

To which Lucy replies,

His fame lives in the world, his shame in you.

Can Republicans do no better than shamefully to emulate Somerset and Obama (“I assure you nobody ends up being more war-weary than me”)? Will no brave leader step forward to honorably awaken us from our unworthy sleep?

[Night Hides Not]

Reagan did an outstanding job of rebuilding the military and restoring American pride, but he didn’t use his powerful military much.

When Reagan took office in 1981, we were still rebuilding our forces post-Vietnam. I was stationed in Germany at the time, and we were undermanned with old, worn out equipment. We spent as much time getting rid of substandard soldiers as we did training.

I left the Army shortly after Reagan was re-elected. I saw the great improvements in the quality of our soldiers, as well as equipment.

[ek_hornbeck]

Bill Kristol sure loves to agitate for war, but I don’t recall him ever volunteering himself or any of his immediate family for the front lines. Nothing like an armchair warrior to set the rest of us straight!

[papertyger]

First, please forgive my terse responses. FReeping on a phone will do that.

Your summation of my thesis is accurate.

Please restate your alternative hypothesis as I don’t understand the statement.

As to Obama’s motivations vis’a vis’ Israel, I see regarding him as a quasi-muslim, with all the atavistic antagonism that entails, as having sufficient explanatory power for his actions thus far; bearing in mind he still has to maintain his “cult of personality.”

All that being said, I regard Obama primarily a Maoist with a domestic “cultural revolution” at the top of his agenda, all other considerations being secondary.

[nathanbedford]

I believe that Israel, despite its lifelong flirtation with socialism, is at the core of Western civilization. But I do not think that the foreign policy and warmaking decisions of the United States should be determined on such an ephemeral notion as defending "Western civilization."

I suggest that it would be convenient to the United States interests if Israel were to prosper in peace. I am not sure is in America's interest to make war on behalf of Israel or to try to arrange all of the chess pieces in the Middle East to make that world safe for Israel.

Moreover, support for Israel carries a price and we ought to consider whether that price is worth paying for what we get. In sum, we support a 8 million Israelis against hundreds of millions of Arabs and more than 1 billion Muslims with a ton of oil. If what we get for that support is domestic support for politicians at the polls, I oppose it. If what we get out of that support is a safer world for the United States, I favor it.

This is a standard which I do not apply only to Israel, but to all our so-called "allies." If you look at my post #37, I think you will see I raise much the same questions and that applies to your question about whether Arab communists are different. If a radical leftist Obama is in bed with radical Islam that is not a paleo-conservative alliance rather it's one which ultimately must come to a death struggle between communism and Islam.

More important than our relationship with Israel is our strategy concerning Islam. We have tried invading and occupying nations, and that has failed. We have tried leading from behind, and that has failed. We have tried supporting the Muslim brotherhood, and that has failed.

Edison could try hundreds of ways to make a lightbulb and fail but we might not have the space or time for so many failures.

[ek_hornbeck]

Kristol and his pals love to dishonestly claim the mantle of Reagan as their own. Yet Reagan withdrew US troops from Lebanon, refusing to become involved in their civil war. He also had a foreign policy team that included Eagleburger and Weinberger, both of whom were foreign policy realists who wanted a balanced Middle East policy.

He did (rightly) send troops to Grenada, justifiably so to prevent a Soviet satellite from taking hold in our backyard.

Moreover, I have yet to understand why it was OK for Nixon and Reagan to negotiate with the Red Chinese and the Soviets (who were far worse than either the Iranians or Putin), but people like Kristol shout "treason!" at any US politician who wants anything short of all-out war with Iran and a new Cold War with Russia.

[wideawake]

George Bush's strategy impoverished the nation,

You have got to be kidding me.

We spend more per year on Medicare and Medicaid fraud than we spent on the war effort. Spending which, unlike fraud, directly created jobs.

weakened us militarily,

Now I know you're joking. As one field officer I know told me: "you could spend a trillion dollars on training and not recreate the expertise gained by every officer and noncom in the Armed Forces from this war."

The US now has the most battled-hardened and technically advanced cadre of soldiers on this planet.

aroused Islam against us,

Really? "Islam" wasn't already mad at us? Was 9/11 a love tap?

Give me a break.

failed ultimately to make America safer from terrorist strikes,

Out of 300 million Americans, how many have been killed by terrorist attacks on our soil in the past twelve years? Hint: you probably have enough fingers to count them.

and left us weaker economically,

Sure, it was the war that created the housing bubble, right?

diplomatically,

Brilliant observation. as we've learned this week, other countries really respect weakness and vacillation - not power and self-assertion.

and, worse, morally.

Says the man who idolizes an individual who bought and sold people for cash and produce.

I can read all this bankrupt rhetoric at CounterPunch or Huffington Post. Why repost it here?

BTW, what is your problem with Israel, exactly? Are you associated with your idol's fraternal organization?

[nathanbedford]

I think your example of chairman Mao is brilliant. He was even more of a social engineer than Stalin and he was also a supreme narcissist which is the one element I would add to your analysis of Obama. His narcissism uses his communism as the go to rationale to sustain itself.

Incidentally, I have been posting for years on these threads that this narcissism means Obama is potentially not a pacifist in the style of Jimmy Carter but potentially someone who can commit us to war to sustain his own narcissism rather than pursuit of legitimate national interests. In other words, we should not mistake the character of Barack Obama, he can be very, very dangerous.

The alternative hypothesis:

For decades in America politicians appealed to the Irish vote by twisting the British lion's tail, I think much the same has obviously transpired in American politics. When that happens it's analogous to government running a business, profit is not the motive and everything goes awry. If the politicians are pandering to an ethnic group concerning foreign policy you can bet the national interests of the country become secondary.

[ek_hornbeck]

This is a standard which I do not apply only to Israel, but to all our so-called "allies." If you look at my post #37, I think you will see I raise much the same questions and that applies to your question about whether Arab communists are different. If a radical leftist Obama is in bed with radical Islam that is not a paleo-conservative alliance rather it's one which ultimately must come to a death struggle between communism and Islam.

During the Cold War, a lot of the Islamic world sided with the US against the Soviets (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) because Communism was (obviously) incompatible with their theocratic Islamism.

With this in mind, I never understood how Islamists and left-wing atheists could put their differences aside so easily in today's political world. You'd think that Islamists would object of the "blasphemy" of the Left, while Leftists would detest Islam for the very things that they hate Christians for. Yet Leftists seem to be bothered a lot more by Christian bakers in America not selling gay wedding cakes to homosexuals or by some preacher saying that a woman's place is the house and home than they are by Saudis beheading homosexuals or stoning women to death for pre-marital sex.

[dfwgator]

During the Cold War, a lot of the Islamic world sided with the US against the Soviets (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) because Communism was (obviously) incompatible with their theocratic Islamism.

Secular Arab states, like Iraq, Syria, Nasser's Egypt, Libya sided with the Soviets......Ironically now we would be better off today if those states remained secular.

[nathanbedford]

I will not respond to your snarkiness except to refer you to my about page.

[ek_hornbeck]

Says the man who idolizes an individual who bought and sold people for cash and produce.

I can read all this bankrupt rhetoric at CounterPunch or Huffington Post.

You do realize that CounterPunch and Huffington Post would say precisely the sames things about Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Confederacy as you do. So playing the "you agree with the liberals" card really cuts both ways.

[ek_hornbeck]

Secular Arab states, like Iraq, Syria, Nasser's Egypt, Libya sided with the Soviets......Ironically now we would be better off today if those states remained secular

That's right - the secular (socialist) Arab nations were often pro-Soviet (though Iraq was also a US ally during the Iran-Iraq war), the Islamist states (with the exception of Iran) tended to side with the US during the Cold War, largely because they saw the Christianity of Americans as a lesser blasphemy than the atheism of the Soviets.

[dfwgator]

Or more like they saw the US as bigger suckers than the Soviets....the Soviets didn’t mess around with Muzzie terrorists.

[nathanbedford]

I am at a loss as you are but a few ideas occur to me.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Just as Hitler and Stalin could make a pact to gobble up Eastern Europe between them knowing that eventually they would have to settle up with each other, so the authoritarian personalities of the left and the authoritarian theocratic personalities of Islam can make temporary alliance to destroy the great Satan. If they believe that the primary obstacle to their utopian world vision is the existence of the United States and the role it plays (or used to play before Obama) in supporting freedom and civilization, they can combine now to do away with us.

[CitizenUSA]

Several thoughts concerning your post:

Some people assume Democrats don’t have good intentions. I believe Democrats are generally well meaning, but that’s not the issue. The problem is their policies don’t generally work in the real world even though they believe they have an obligation to fix said world.

Some people also assume Democrats aren’t religious, but I believe they’re driven by strong morals. They’re neo-Puritans (without the Christianity) who hold very strong beliefs about what is moral—good or evil—and believe it’s their religious duty to spread the “faith.” Guns, for example, are evil. Smoking is evil. Smoking pot, on the other hand, is good. It’s a faith based religion of liberalism, so it doesn’t even have to make sense.

So I agree with your post. Liberals have a nearly messianic urge to save the world. That is also why they generally love the idea of a one world government. It’s not like what most conservatives think, that liberals want world government so they can oppress people. Liberals see the elimination of nation states as a means to an end, so they can finally have enough power and money to help the poor, end war, and create a utopia.

[ek_hornbeck]

Spending which, unlike fraud, directly created jobs.

The whole "war is good for the economy" line is a Keynesian lie. It benefits certain sectors of the economy which rely on military contracts, while draining resources from the rest of the economy. If what you say were true, our 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan would have ushered in an era of unprecedented economic prosperity. That's not exactly how it turned out.

Out of 300 million Americans, how many have been killed by terrorist attacks on our soil in the past twelve years? Hint: you probably have enough fingers to count them.

This whole "our wars kept us safe from terrorism at home" line reminds me a bit of the rooster who thought that his crowing in the morning made the sun rise. We haven't had any massive comets strike the Earth during that time either, so I suppose that our decade in Iraq and Afghanistan kept us safe from another comet strike too.

[TADSLOS]

When was the last time little Billy Kristol strapped on his battle rattle and joined in on one of his neo-con inspired war adventures?

A: NEVER.

[ek_hornbeck]

Some people assume Democrats don’t have good intentions. I believe Democrats are generally well meaning, but that’s not the issue. The problem is their policies don’t generally work in the real world even though they believe they have an obligation to fix said world.

Almost nobody is a villain in his own mind. Even the greatest mass murderers in history (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot) probably thought that they were killing "enemies of the people" for the greater good.

Some people also assume Democrats aren’t religious, but I believe they’re driven by strong morals. They’re neo-Puritans (without the Christianity) who hold very strong beliefs about what is moral—good or evil—and believe it’s their religious duty to spread the “faith.” Guns, for example, are evil. Smoking is evil. Smoking pot, on the other hand, is good. It’s a faith based religion of liberalism, so it doesn’t even have to make sense.

Politically correct liberals are the most self-righteous people on the planet. The Puritan comparison is mostly right, with the exception that Puritans were rank amateurs when it came to censoring thought and speech by comparison. It's not enough for PC liberals that you agree with their general principles and beliefs, you have to use their Newspeak dictionary while doing so - or else.

[CitizenUSA]

I served in the military from Carter to Clinton, and it was exactly as you wrote. We were demoralized and ill equipped during the Carter administration even though he signed some big pay raises. Pay isn’t everything. When you can’t get the parts you need to do your job, it’s frustrating.

That all changed when Reagan came in. It almost seemed like we started receiving new equipment overnight. Reagan also went after the druggies with a vengeance, and I think the quality of recruits generally improved. It was night and day compared to Democrat administrations.

[CitizenUSA]

I agree with your assessment of President Obama. People shouldn’t underestimate his ability to muck things up. I would not be the slightest bit surprised to see him do something crazy like send the military to defend Ukraine. Some people foolishly make fun of President Obama’s red lines, but do we really, really want this president to start defending those lines with American blood?