5 Replies to ““War is a harsh teacher” – Jeremy McInerney [video]”

  1. Thanks for putting it on your site, Colin. I wasn’t expecting an Australian accent. He was a very engaging, and it was refreshing to hear the US compared to ancient Greece for a change instead of Imperial Rome. But I think all he accomplished was to say there’s nothing new under the sun. I hoped he might expand (he nearly did) that war isn’t so much about the conflict between [government-decided] enemies, and more about the conflict between governments who want war and their constituents who don’t. Gore Vidal in his “United States of Amnesia” said that during his 2 years in the Pacific War (WW2) he never heard a patriotic word spoken by any one of his fellow combatants.

    1. Thucydides viewed the most dangerous power as Athens because of their inordinate strength and the risk of them becoming a tyranny. He also believed that aggressive use of that power against one’s enemies would not make the empire safer but would encourage vulnerable states to plot against it. In the modern context, USA occupies a position similar to Athens. This interview with Andrew Bacevich promotes similar views.

      Projection of hard power by the US has not solved global problems over the last 50 years. In fact it has exacerbated problems in the Middle East. Soft power is far more effective. But it needs a change of mind-set on the part of the US. Don’t get me wrong. You still need Teddy Roosevelt’s “big stick” as a deterrent, but soft power — engineers, doctors and school teachers — are far more effective at winning people over to your world-view than B52s and unmanned drones.

      1. Never a truer word spoken.
        But if history really does repeat itself, the US won’t change anymore than Greece or Rome did. It’ll probably crumble and break up the same way; maybe first into red and blue, and then latino, black and white, with a little christian vs Islam thrown in for good measure. I’d give it a hundred more years at most. Then again, Putin might put command and control of nukes in the hands of rebels before that.

      2. “But if history really does repeat itself, the US won’t change anymore than Greece or Rome did.”

        The biggest obstacle to change is the entrenched interests of the people at the center. The biggest hope for change is a US ‘Maidan’. Democracy has to evolve otherwise it too will die.

  2. “Consider for example Michael L’s summary of why we fight: ‘We want’ — you know, downward tyranny — ‘We want free countries. We think that America is better off if we live in a world primarily populated by free countries who have to appeal to their own people for the source of their power and to ratify their decisions….'”

    This is where I differ with Jeremy. I believe that wanting more free countries should be the goal of every democracy. Democracies pose far less a threat to their neighbors than authoritarian regimes like Russia, China, Iran, etc. My argument being that if an authoritarian leader like Vladimir Putin does not respect the rights of his own citizens, how much less regard is he likely to show for the rights of citizens in other countries?

    Where I do agree with Jeremy though is that we should not attempt to achieve these goals through aggressive projection of power which is largely self-defeating. It drives authoritarian regimes to form a bloc — a “dictators club” — presenting a united front to resist change. Do not discard the “big stick” but it should not be brandished under other regimes noses. Rather project soft power, as alluded to in my earlier comment, and use special trade status and other enticements to court these regimes towards democratic change.

    The counter-argument to this is that it was tried with Russia under Dmitry Medvedev and failed. I would say this is a setback and not a failure. Russia under Medvedev leadership is a whole different country. He just did not have the political strength to resist Vladimir Putin and his cronies who have a stranglehold on political power and the economy. But attempting to drive Russia back 50 years in time to their KGB heyday is bound to fail…..and the seeds of democracy have already been sown.

    In the mean time, the free world needs to follow a similar strategy to when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan: apply sanctions, isolate the regime as far as possible politically, pursue them through the International court, and arm and support their neighbors — Roosevelt’s WWII Lend-Lease comes to mind. Raise the cost of their actions to a level where it threatens to cripple the Russian economy. Whatever the cost to the West, it will be a small price to pay compared to the alternative of letting the Russian bear run loose across Europe.

Comments are closed.