The Lesson of World War One (That is too costly to learn twice)

Today is the 100th anniversary of the end of "the Great War." This war killed 15 to 20 million people but within a generation we had a second world war that killed 60 million. In between, the Great Depression caused so much economic misery that it gave power to communists and fascists throughout the world.

The decades after the first world war were a time of misery. The decades after the second world war were a time of peace and prosperity.

Between 1350 and 1950, there was at least one major military confrontation between European powers in every decade. What changed after 1950 is that we created international institutions.

There is a quip that nations either exchange goods or gunfire. Economic development and trade have been a boon to peace. The West also has institutions that link it together: NATO, the UN the IMF and the EU. These didn't really exist until after WWII and they do a great deal to explain why the time after the second world war was so starkly different from the time after first world war.

Just as the institutions of families, city councils, federal governments, corporations, churches and banks all deserve continual criticism and drive to improve them so that they adapt to changing realities and new possibilities, so do these post WWII institutions. They need improving. Without institutions we are like the other primates, though. We can't afford to neglect or discard them. And the West without these post-WWII institutions would be more like the world of Stalin, Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler than JFK and Reagan, Thatcher and Blair, Trudeau and Mulroney, de Gaulle and Chirac, and Kohl and Merkel.

The lesson of WWI is that without creating institutions that transcend nations we again slip into the the madness that goes by a variety of names (patriotism, nationalism, self-interest) and devolves into the worst kind of competition rather than raise us to the best kind of cooperation. It is a lesson too costly to learn twice.

The Only Enemies Americans Ever Eradicated

We fought the British. We fought the Mexicans. We fought the Japanese. We fought the Vietnamese. When those battles were over there were still Brits, Mexicans, Japanese, and Vietnamese.

We also fought Confederates and Nazis. Two things that were different about these wars.

One, the death toll. Including all deaths during war, from the American Revolutionary War to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (but not counting the deaths of Confederates), about one million American military have died. The number who died fighting Confederates and Nazis? 73% of that.

Two, when those wars were over, Confederates and Nazis had been eradicated. They no longer existed. We dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities but Japanese still existed at the end of that war. We took Texas and California from the Mexicans but Mexicans still existed at the end of the Mexican - American War. At the end of WWII there were no more Nazis. At the end of the Civil War there were no more Confederates. Those were the only times in history that Americans didn't just defeat an enemy but eradicated them. This would seem to make you a true American if you stand up against Confederates and Nazis

Until, of course, they started showing up at demonstrations within .... the United States.

Good News for Planning: July 2011 is Firm

In reporting on the new Afghanistan strategy,

"The July 2011 date is firm, Defense Secretary Gates said, but conditions will dictate how many troops would be withdrawn then, and at what pace. Much will depend on the training of Afghan security forces, he said."

So, when Gates says that the July 2011 date is firm but what they do will depend, is he just saying that the administration is resolved that the actual month of July 2011 will not shift around in time?

I'm sure that it is a comfort to Afghans and Americans alike to know that the Obama administration is committed to the Julian calendar. Now if only we knew whether it is committed to withdrawal.

Chapter Two of Chapter One (Haven't We Read This Sentence Before?)

Bush thought that once he'd toppled the Taliban and Hussein regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, democratic nation-states would just emerge. Nation-building has proved to be a little more complicated.

I'm not clear that Obama appreciates the difficulty of nation-building either. Given the state of the state in Afghanistan, it seems to me that we have two choices: stay for a generation and massively subsidize education and development to build something akin to a modern nation-state or essentially withdraw from the country and contain its military threat. I think those are wretched choices, but building roads or securing check points into major cities for a year is not the same thing as building a nation or securing its people. Nation-building isn't measured in months but in decades. It has as much to do with reconstructing the minds of people as their towns.

And yet Obama is going to send in a surge of 30,000 more troops but only for one year. Because that is all that Bush got wrong; he was just short by tens of thousands of troops and 10 to 12 months.

It's not even obvious to me that Obama is all that sold on his own plan. His speech lacked the snap of his campaign speeches, sounding like lots of blah blah blah. (Is there a rule that when you send troops to war you talk in platitudes sure to reverse the adrenalin rush of war?) It wasn't obvious to me that he owned this speech.

This is like projecting deficit reduction after this year of deficit increase. I simply don't see how 30,000 troops will change things so much over the course of a year that withdrawal will be any easier. How is war like snorting heroin? It's terribly destructive but hard to quit. Next year at this time, expect a mid-course correction from Obama. Something about the need to keep troops in country just 6 (or 12) more months.

Dithering

It's no so bad to impulsively ask someone on a date but it seems insufficient as a basis for marriage. Dick Cheney has criticized Obama for "dithering" on his decision about what to do in Afghanistan. Assuming that Cheney's disdain is not proof enough that dithering is worth doing, here's something to consider.

Think about the implications of Obama's decision.

If he pulls out, we risk alienating any ally dependent on our commitment to their cause, risk destabilizing Afghanistan AND Pakistan, lose our ability to encourage the humane treatment of girls and women, lose a potential base in a region of the world that could explode into conflict, and provide the Taliban with a safe haven for plotting and launching the kind of attack that turned the date 9-11 into a tragic event.

If we stay, we continue to pump billions into a cause that has little chance of success, we lose more troops and alienate Muslims by continuing to kill both soldiers and civilians in the area, we are distracted from relationships that will do more to define our future (e.g., our relationship with Pakistan or India, for instance), pay an opportunity cost in terms of less money to spend on things like AIDs in Africa, pandemics, health care in the US, and every other single issue or problem or possibility to which the money and attention could be applied.

It is not just that the first order consequences are important and potentially counter intuitive; the second and third order consequences are worth spending time thinking through. I am going to assume that Obama is doing just that and think it is perfectly fine that he takes his time.

Time will tell, but I'd like to think that Obama is playing chess on the same checker board where Cheney was playing bumper cars.

Today's Big Idea for Congress

I generally dislike term limits. They seem to me a way to ensure that the lobbyists have all the experience and the legislators are perpetually going - but never getting - up a learning curve. With that said, I'd like to propose term limits of a particular kind.

Here in California, we are about to provide the second recessionary dip courtesy of a mandated balanced budget. California's requirement that budgets be balanced inevitably exacerbate the highs and lows of business cycles. When the economy is booming, the state gets more revenues and floods the economy with some combination of tax cuts and spending. When the economy is faltering, the state gets less revenue and makes things worse by increasing taxes or cutting spending.

Governments need discretion to raise taxes and cut spending during booms and lower taxes and increase spending during recessions. Governments can offset swings in the economy.

But of course, once you give a legislature power to run deficits, there is no stopping them. And, as they did through most of the last administration, they run deficits even during a boom time.

So, how do we allow legislatures the power to offset recessions without enabling them to create chronic deficits? I'd like to propose a "three-deficits and you're out" policy. Members of Congress can vote for deficit spending - but only three times before they are out. They have the tool to offset recessions but not to avoid hard choices regarding spending cuts and tax increases.

This proposal might need one other provision to make sure that the legislature doesn't fail to offset recessions. Not only would they have only 3 deficits, but they'd be allowed nation-wide unemployment of only 10%. Local recall elections would be triggered by the third recession in a congress person's career and nationwide recall elections would be triggered by 10% unemployment rate.

And once we get that in place, I think that we ought to have a similar policy for the declaration of war. Knowing that they are ordering soldiers (and foreign civilians) to death by the declaration of war, a congressperson ought to be able to authorize only one war before hitting his or her quota. "Not only am I willing for our young people to die in this conflict, but I am sacrificing my own seat to authorize it."

I am aware that there are a few details that would need to be worked out, but as a blogger, my work is done.

It's Not War

The latest Newsweek reports on the length of American wars. By their accounting:

Vietnam War 8 years, 5 months, 21 days
American Revolution 8 years, 4 months, 16 days
War in Afghanistan 7 years, 11 months, 22 days
Iraq War 6 years, 6 months, 9 days
World War II 6 years, 2 days
World War I 4 years, 3 months, 15 days
Gulf War 1 months, 13 days

War is a battle to invade or repel an invasion. It may or may not topple a government when it is over. At its conclusion, either a government has surrendered or two governments have negotiated a peace.

Occupation is a battle to rule a people. There is only one official government. If there is no government change to come, no opposing army to surrender, and no land to conquer or give up, there is no way to "date" the end of that battle.

The War in Afghanistan threatens to become the longest American war because it is an occupation. You can date the fall of Iraq or the Taliban supported government in Afghanistan. By that measure the wars were short. There is no good way to date the end of the occupation - or even a good way to end an occupation.

[It's worth noting that the American Revolution also ended with victory on the side of the lesser power whose chief advantage was that they had no where else to go as they battled an occupying force.]

Love's Little Memorials

Yesterday, I was listening to live music from various friends and acquaintances, a delightful concert that featured about a dozen acts. So many of the songs were, of course, about love; love lost, love gained, love that could have been, and love that sits at the back of your throat as words you’ve never quite had the courage to utter. As the configuration of musicians and singers changed from song to to song, there were, at times, ex's collaborating. The unsung love song about relationships lost and realized in the real lives of the singers and musicians was at least as poignant as the lyrics we heard.

And as I’m watching this, two things occur to me.

One, we have war memorials to commemorate lives lost. Why not also have breakup memorials to commemorate loves lost? Why should the parks only mourn the dead? Why not the relationships lost and whole lives never lived? When someone turns away from love, something real is lost. And its worth mourning. Might it warrant a statue? Why not a park to commemorate lost loves?

And then a second thought occurs to me. We do commemorate lost love. I was sitting there listening to these love memorials. That is what so many songs are. No wonder we pay such close and frequent attention to songs. It’s not a statue, but on the other hand, nobody walks around the kitchen humming a statute.

If anyone ever asks you about the difference between a committee and a band, you tell them that committees commemorate war with statutes and bands commemorate love with songs. And nobody ever asks, Hey? What is that committee’s name?

Changing the Rules of War

I'd like to propose a new rule for war. Why not limit battle to those who are over 75?

This would have at least three benefits. One, it would mean no longer cutting short the lives of the young. Two, it would create a new kind of arms race: rather than just spend on defense, countries would be motivated to spend on health care, doing all they could to keep the 75 and older crowd vibrant, strong and healthy. And it would mean that when you spent more on war you would almost automatically spend less on retirement, helping with deficit reduction.

Of course, that would mean that the world's toughest job would be the new job of carding heavily armed soldiers to confirm that they really are over 75.

[And thanks to Sarah for posting a picture of her son in uniform, thereby provoking this thought.]

Post-War Politics? Beyond the Peace-niks and Hawks?

McCain's loss was the fifth by a presidential candidate to have the better war record. (Bush 41 lost to Clinton, as did Dole. Gore and Kerry lost to Bush 43. Now, McCain loses to Obama.)

Obama did gain in the primaries for having declared the Iraq invasion absurd (or something to that effect). In that sense, it would be easy to see his election as an anti-war vote. But I wonder if it is something more.

What if we're beyond the anti-war and pro-war protests that marked the politics of the baby boomers and into something beyond that, a world where the first order of business is not to allocate half of the discretionary budget to defense or to get caught up in the false promise of beating UAVs into desktop computers? What if the argument between hawks and peaceniks seems as quaint to modern voters as the argument between advocates of bell bottoms and crew cuts?

[Now if R World had an editor, he would point out that this is a largely meaningless post. Or would he? Hm. I'm going to stay with it anyway, in spite of my imaginary editor's misgivings about the possibility that it says very little.]

Good Soldier

A good soldier is like a good gun. He doesn't ask questions about where he is pointed, he just moves in that direction. A leader, by contrast, is all about asking questions - ensuring that the gun is pointed in the right direction and extremely hesitant to ever pull the trigger. You don't want a soldier who debates for months about following orders. You do want a leader who knows when to debate for months about issuing orders.

McCain's criticism of Obama's opposition to the war shows that he's not ready to be a leader. If Obama were running for general, it would be fair to criticize him for questioning our need to go to war in the first place. He is not. Obama is running for president. As such, he should be completely willing to question any use of our soldiers.

McCain, by contrast, has not seemed to show himself able to question the war. If he were still in the military, this would be admirable (I guess). Given that he's asking us to make him president, this just makes him scary. He might be a good soldier. There is nothing about his stance on the war that suggests that he'd be a good president.

Lennon Sings Happy Christmas (War is Over)

With a tip of the hat to Tom Leher, it is sobering to think that when John Lennon's was my age, he had been dead for 7 years. He's been gone for more than a quarter of a century and we still haven't caught up with the man.

No, Really. What is so Funny About Peace, Love & Understanding?

A little something for your weekend - a duet between Nick Lowe, who wrote this song, and the Elvis of import, who made it a classic. For extra credit, answer the question: what is so funny about peace, love, and understanding? And why is it that the people who argue for that are considered naive and simple and the people who argue for something as messy, dangerous, and unpredictable as war are considered pragmatic? When will neuroscientists find the switch for organized violence and simply switch it off? (What was it my son said the other day? "This isn't rocket surgery.") I'll shut up now and just let you enjoy the song while formulating your own follow up questions.

The Steep Cost of Hating Ahmadinejad

The folks at Columbia University showed their bravery, mocking Iranian President Ahmadinejad's lunacy this week. On a normal day, I'd cheer the discomfiting of the powerful. I would, that is, if only it weren't for this seeming like more preparation for yet another delusional war and if only we Americans did this to our own presidents and not just the foreign ones.

The criteria for invading Iran ought to be simple. Iran's population is double that of Iraq's, so we ought to estimate it'll cost twice as much to wage war there. (Putting aside the nearly inevitable additional costs that will come as a result of the entire Muslim world quite reasonably seeing the US as intent on toppling all Arabic governments if we do this yet again.) Estimates of the total cost of the Iraq war range from about $1 trillion to about $2.5 trillion - working out to somewhere between $10,000 to $35,000 for each family of four. (Just imagine having that little pool of cash to draw from as you make mortgage payments over the next decade.) So, Americans are disgusted with Ahmadinejad. Fine. Will they pay double what they'll pay for the Iraqi war? $50,000 to $60,000 per family to see him ousted? And shouldn't there be a requirement to pay that amount up front? Mad at Ahamdinejad? For only $50,000 you can finance a military campaign against his country. Perhaps the Bush administration could imitate PBS fund drives, or go door to door soliciting the cash. ("Honey! Do we have $50,000 we could give to this Pentagon official at the door?")

Secondly, Ahmadinejad, the man who put the mad in Ahmadinejad, is braver than George. As reported here, George, whose staff has “micromanaged and laboriously controlled for the past five years to weed out the merest whiff of protest,” ensuring that George never has to face a forum like Ahmadinejad faced at Columbia, a situation in which his lunacy is ridiculed rather than silently endured or supported by equally delusional supporters. If only our president had to face his critics, like the British Prime Minister or like someone accountable to his electorate.

If you're going to buy the buzz about how evil is Ahmadinejad, be prepared to pay $50,000. Personally, I just don't think it's worth it. I wouldn't buy a used car from George and Dick. I certainly wouldn't buy a used excuse for war. What's the tag line on the marquee? The Iranian invasion - from the people who brought you the Iraqi war.

Quality of Life is More Important Than Life Except When Quality of Life is Less Important Than Life

In tonight's Republican debate, the hopefuls were asked about the most pressing moral problem: other than Ron Paul, all singled out the reverence for life, a reference to anti-abortion. The quality of the life of the mother deserves no consideration if pursuit of that threatens the life of a fetus.

Ron Paul, however, was just rude. He claimed that the most pressing moral problem was that his fellow Republicans wouldn't rule out a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that was no direct threat to us.

There are, last I heard, children in these countries we have bombed and would be willing to bomb. Why do we accept this "collateral damage" in the execution of war? Because we feel that people in these countries deserve freedom and deserve economic prosperity. That is, quality of life is more important than life itself.

If you can crack the code on that one, you might have a future as a Republican candidate.

In Memory of Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.

"All wars are popular for the first thirty days."
- Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who died Wednesday, 28 February 2007.

Quick, Laura, Grab My Drugs! We're Invading Iran!

Pentagon officials have announced that they're building up forces for an invasion of Iran. This after the November election indicated that this nation has largely lost its confidence in the Bush administration's ability to start and conduct wars.

Baffles the mind, doesn't it? We require drug testing for grownups playing children's games like baseball and football but don't require psychiatric and drug testing for people who make policy? George has got to be doing cocaine again; his administration has been characterized by unmoored optimism interrupted by random bouts of paranoia. Unbelievable.