It looks obvious

Every time that I’m thinking about Clausewitz’s famous observation that the war is “merely continuation of politics by other means” I realize how shallow and unsophisticated was his military theories after the napoleonic wars. Personally I always preferred Tolstoy, which have finer understanding of the chaotic nature of large scales wars, and the limits of central command to control it and effect its outcome. But this definition, regardless of its obvious limitation, enjoyed an immense influence on modern thinking

In its narrow definitions military activities should be subjected to political goals and the military planning should be subordinated to the civilian ruler and its strategic goals. Even Clausewitz’s followers had problem with this definition, and as early as 1880’s. They argued should diplomacy suspended during military operations, how close is the control of the civilian authorities during war and in planning to it and if the military command should take over the control during war time. Even now we are often facing the argument that the Senate should not dictate to the commanders in the field - which demonstrate the blurry nature of the relations between politics and political goals and military operations.

But the graver mistake is the large believe in the ability of military organization to achieve more than capturing area, defending area and destroying enemy forces. It is often tempting to use the military forces, mostly when the army is efficient and well managed, to do more than the tasks if holding and area and destroy enemy forces. I have some familiarity with some of the theoretic intellectual work that attempted to transform military forces into modern organizations that are capable to achieve more than the their limited historical rolls. I can understand the temptation - the organization already exist, and people tend to believe that sophistication and skillful use of it can help in achieving complicated results.

Historical evidence,however, suggest the opposite. Using power, rather than the implied threat of using it, has it limitations. In any attempt of using massive military force to achieve sophisticated goals in the modern age had very limited results - mostly failure. These limitations seems to amplify when a superpower failed to use its diplomatic tools and maneuvering and choose to intervene directly in conflicts. So it was for the American in Korea, Vietnam and now in the Middle-East and so it was for the Soviets in Afghanistan and in the Middle-East in 1969-1970. Counter-intuitive is the example of Eisenhower that was able to position the US in much stronger position, isolate the soviets and built American supremacy - mostly by limiting American direct involvement in regional conflicts.

The urge for non-intervention in the manners envisioned by some of the American founding fathers is unrealistic, it was unrealistic already then and its is unrealistic now. However the practical practice of limited intervention, for very short periods and with very limited scope is the more effective and wiser approach.

I don’t envy the frustration of the relief workers trying to access Myanmar and help the survivors. The military regime in Myanmar was evil before the current disaster and it demonstrate, again, its horrible nature after the cyclone hit. But calls to invade Myanmar are unwise and irresponsible:

That’s why it’s time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — “I can’t imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday — but it’s not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government’s consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan.

The urge to do something in face of crisis, or evil, is well understood. However we have enough experience that such invasion isn’t as simple, short live, effort. Considering using military force, that will change the current balance in East Asia can’t ignore the interest and the reactions of other countries in that region - china is the most prominent of them. Moreover, those who advocate for such invasion usually ignore the assumed responsibilities by the invading countries after they successfully invade. Such efforts aren’t limited to relief effort but must include developing replacement for the previous regime. We don’t need to search historical cases, although we can, since the results of such efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq can alerts us to the unavoidable failure such efforts brings.

Armies are limited organizations - they can capture and area, defend it and destroy enemy forces. Observer tend to get illusion concept of the military abilities because they are comparatively efficient, disciplined and can execute tasks in short notice. One can use the military forces successfully to deploy relief efforts. But using armies to achieve political outcome such as nation building, developing a healthy political culture and other dreamed goals - never worked and there is no reason to believe that will magically work in Myanmar.

Furthermore, even if we assume that there is a chance for successes for the foreign invasion, one have to wonder if global strategy of removing evil regimes is based not on well thought plan but rather on natural disaster. Is Myanmar the worse place for its people in the world today? Or is it simply the current news focus? The rush to war is yet again premature, not fully thought and will lead to even worse results than avoiding such course of action

There are basically only two reason to go to war - “Positive” and “Negative”. The terms might be somewhat confusing as Negative war is a defensive, and it is negative only because the goal of the war is to prevent from your adversaries to achieve their goal. It is important to note that the positive war or usually the immoral one, the imperialistic and those who tend to fail at the end. The call for invasion into other country, regardless of its motives, is a call for the wrong kind of war.

The question of just war was, and still is, a source for many philosophical discussions. It was not only a theoretical question but a question that leaders considered practically, even if only for the purpose of legitimacy. It was also the justification establishing the league of nations and its younger, and equally failure, the UN.

My observations over the years brought me to believe that there are many more benefits for limited intervention or limited activism. My natural suspicious approach toward central planning, and the ability of central power to manage one country successfully, are in order of magnitude higher when a country tries to centrally manage the rest of the world.

The question I’m straggling with, without a good answer, is the question of moral obligation. Are there cases when a country must intervene in foreign war? The immediate answer is, obviously, a country should be obligated to stop cases of genocide. But this, as it usually is, isn’t as simple as we might have wish.

I believe that government only role, and justification, is to protect the human rights of those under its sovereignty. Is sending one to fight a none defensive war serve this purpose? Is this a justified expanding of the powers the government assume? I am not sure. Morally I would rather individual making a decision for themselves if, and how, they want to contribute to a struggle against evil around the world - but there is a valid question of practicality. Can an NGO stop a genocide without the backing of a state?

But even if we put the question of the state role aside there are many other, more practical questions. What level of genocide justified intervention? Why Darfur but not Congo? Is it a question of size or that wars between different groups? Should we stop a tribal war? What should we do in cases when the state kills its own people like in Cambodia? Or only certain segments of its population - like what have been done to women in Afghanistan?

If it was justified to stop Nazi Germany genocide why didn’t the world go to war to stop the killing in USSR under Stalin? Was it morally different?

Growing up I used to look at the pictures of my grandparents relatives that the german murdered in the holocaust. I used to imagine how would it be to belong to a big family, as it should have been if they would not have been murdered. It was obvious to me that it was immoral and evil to ignore the genocide. But I have no good answers what should be the right approach. I know the anger and pain of a nation that was the victim of such genocide, and the unanswered question: “How could you let this happen”? But I don’t know what should be the answer.

I’m pretty much on the bandwagon of non-interventionism foreign policy. But it seems to me that it be intellectually dishonest to be non-interventionist selectively, with suspicious set of standards. If one decline to condemn china for its Human Rights abuses, or decline to condemn Syria for promoting terrorism based on complete non-intervantion and neutrality than one should not applause an ex-president for advancing his own foreign policy agenda.

It is also somewhat appalling when one impose himself on someone and than expect to be served as a wanted guest. It is not much different than imposing American democracy - both are implying that because One is superior and stronger one can impose its will, and both are wrong.

We should really be proud about the results of our “Nation Building” and “Spreading Democracy” into Afghanistan. Thank to us the Afghans now enjoy freedom of speech - they have the freedom to say whatever they want and the government in return:

The NeoCon logic of “Spreading Democracy” tied together with alliances with tyrannic regimes doesn’t strike me as brilliant, successful or moral. And yet it is consider radical, outright stupid and fringe to suggest otherwise.