War Has To Be On The Table

Or at least use of military might and technology

                                              “Speak softly and carry a big stick” 
                                                         - Theodore Roosevelt

I was talking to a friend about my last post and he basically told me it was incoherent - and to some extent, I agree. So let me be clear up front about what I’ll try to address in this post. A thesis, if you will.

1. I will try to show the difference between being anti-war and pro-peace

2. I will endeavor to show why being anti-war is stupid

3. I will undertake to outline why war should have been on the table in negotiations with Russia

4. I will seek to outline what I believe America should stand for

5. At some point, possibly throughout the whole thing, I will attempt to grapple with the argument I see from doves on both sides of the aisle, that the U.S. shouldn’t be the world police. Because it’s generally a stupid and idealistic argument not based in the conditions of the real world.

Let’s get started.

Potential conflicts are always framed as if there are only two camps: those who are pro-war and those who are anti-war. As with most framings, this is much too simplistic and, like most framings, it also makes people pick a stupid side that is too simplistic. You see twitter posts and bumper stickers and statements by politicians that basically say something along the lines of “War is bad.” As if that’s some sort of incredibly profound insight. It’s not. War is bad. Full stop. I challenge anyone in the world to find literally one person who non-ironically says they prefer war to peace. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t times where things are at stake that are worth fighting for. Some things are worse than war and I would argue that now is a time where we should have at least been discussing it, not just talking about peaceful means of resolution. Because as we can now clearly see, if one side isn’t worried about the consequences of non-military actions, diplomacy without the backing of potential military action is basically useless.

Now, cards on the table, I’m what you would call a hawk. I believe that the U.S. has a role to play in preventing another world war, and that’s in being the world police. I would hope that this role would be multilateral as often as possible, but we should also be willing to lead when others are not¹. But this doesn’t mean I’m anti-peace, I’m very pro-peace and, in fact, think that a large military has proven to be the best way to ensure peace². I think the reason we’ve not had war in Europe for so long is because of structures like the EU and the NATO alliance backed up by the United States’ military might. And I think this invasion is evidence of that. Clearly, Putin has had his eye on restoring the Russian empire for a long time, but hasn’t felt able to act until now.

Obviously, we don’t know the inner thoughts of Vlad, and his reasons for choosing this time to invade are probably complex and involve many factors. That being said, I personally think that he chose now, because he sees the willingness of people across the world to sacrifice in the name of a higher cause at an all time low³. This is exactly why I think being anti-war is dumb. I’ve literally heard people (thought leaders, politicians, and the like) say things like “there’s no cause, no country, no ally I would go to war for.” And there are clearly many people who agree, to one extent or another, with this outlook. Even as Russia invades another country - a country that recently democratized, much to Russia’s chagrin - and violates international law, national sovereignty, the calls from both sides of the aisle are for sanctions, for peaceful means to stop the violence (which have done so much in the past, I mean just look at Kim Jung Un or Putin in the past), but almost nobody is seriously talking about military interventions.

So tactically, it just doesn’t make sense to take war off the table, because as long as the other side is willing to suffer some economic price, nothing is keeping them from using military force. If you increase the economic price to include a military loss, that changes the calculus dramatically. And I’ll add that in this specific case, the economic price Russia is paying is going to be relatively small in the long run, as China has allied with them and Russia’s main export is energy, something China really needs.

But going beyond tactics to something more nebulous, there just are things worth fighting for. Freedom. Sovereignty. Innocence. In a world order where the U.S. steps back, China and Russia have free reign to do what they will. So while I’ll agree that the U.S. should not impose its will on another nation, can we at least agree that nobody should? And when someone tries to impose their will on another country, defending that country is an absolute good? I want to prevent loss of life as much as the next guy, but our taking military action off the table didn’t save lives today - it emboldened Putin and he bombed targets today that clearly weren’t military. He purposefully took civilian lives for some sort of nonsensical land grab.

Before I close, let me just preempt the comments by saying: obviously we can’t know what happens in a universe where the U.S. didn’t take military engagement off the table. I know that. I just think my theory of the world holds up better to scrutiny than the anti-war crowd’s. Just think about it, if you’re Putin and you know the citizenry of the west doesn’t have the willpower to go to war, what is stopping you from trampling smaller countries that can’t stand up? Why is it that in the past two years genocide has begun in China, Hong Kong has been silenced, and Ukraine has been invaded by Russia? Can you really look at the current global appetite for war and intervention and tell me that that doesn’t have something to do with the biggest crackdown on basic freedoms we’ve seen since probably the genocide in Cambodia⁴? When the only country that truly stands for freedom backs down, the people in the world who stand for power, greed, and corruption step up.

And do not start with me about the sins of America’s past and how it’s hypocritical for us to claim to stand for freedom when so many in our country are still oppressed. Because 1. no country has a perfect past or present and 2. America, while it still has its issues, is a lot better than most of the world at standing for freedom because 3. in your beloved Europe, people are openly racist (especially in the Nordic countries) and 4. your past shouldn’t define define your future. I believe this about people as much as I don’t about countries. Especially the United States which 5. has fought for freedom since its founding (and done a d*ng good job too). We’ve overstepped and we’ve bungled and we’ve downright done some horrible things, but when you mess up you, don’t stop trying, you get back on the horse and you learn from your mistakes. In order to keep people like Putin and Chi from remaking the global order into something much less free and much less secure, we need to step up, not disengage.

1. This should be a principled role. Not invading countries to shape them to our will, but defending little guys from big, bad guys, standing for human rights, things like that.

2. I have complicated thoughts on the military industrial complex that don’t really fit in with the point of this essay, but I’ll hopefully get to those at another time.

3. Not the band

4. I’m not a huge history buff, so please don’t correct me on the specifics of this claim, but just take it for the point I’m trying to make.