Rhetoric Has Consequences
Filed under: Foreign Policy — Jason, Managing Editor on March 13, 2008 @ 4:35 pm CET
I have already said much about the disappointing lack of professionalism in military analyst Thomas P.M. Barnett’s Esquire piece on ADM William Fallon. Under pretense of a fawning profile, Barnett takes a series of hackneyed shots at the old “neocon” bogeymen, concluding with the prediction that Fallon’s retirement would be a harbinger of impending war.
Well, such irresponsible accusations can have serious consequences, as those not tuned into the typical U.S. political game of hyperbolic demonization might think that the predictions are for real. Now that Fallon actually has retired, the U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is trying to reassure jittery allies that war is not, in fact, iminent and that Barnett’s prediction was based on nothing.
The usual “warmonger” rhetoric beloved by the left as a primary weapon against their ideological rivals is a risky tool because it inspires fear in those who are merely observing the American political debate. When used irresponsibly (and many prominent commentators on the left throw the term around to describe literally everyone they disagree with about anything on foreign policy), such rhetoric may have the effect of actually increasing the risk of conflict by unnecessarily exacerbating suspicions.
To be sure, the Bush administration’s ham-handed diplomatic style has done huge damage to the ability of the United States to rely on a reservoir of goodwill and a presumption of good faith from the rest of the world. But by frequently going too far in their own rhetoric, many critics of the administration have done significant additional damage of their own. By prioritizing their domestic political conflict over objective American national interests, some critics on the left have in effect embraced the same kind of destructive political hubris that they hate the Bush administration for. And they should be accountable for it.
Nothing is needed more in American foreign policy than a cogent critique of what has gone wrong and some ideas on how to fix the damage. American diplomatic stature is at low ebb as a result of 7 years of a foreign policy that has at its high points been merely competent and at its (many) low points have been tantamount to shooting ourselves repeatedly in the feet. But the nature of our collective self-criticism needs to be in the tone of a diagnostic, not a polemic. Overstating the problem and irresponsibly predicting further disasters around every corner only further undermines the U.S.’ relations with potential friends and makes additional disasters more likely.
Bottom line: Administration critics need to set their priorities straight.
1 Jay_C
March 13, 2008 @ 5:51 pm CETHe "retired" sure… more like "strongly convinced to retire"
As Oberman on MSNBC said: this is "Dissent is Disloyalty-gate" for Bush.
However, I agree with Fallon. War with Iran is an il-advised action on many levels.
As I said before about the Bush administration, they think they can do no wrong. or if they do, they just ignore it.
I liked this part of the article best..
"Just as Fallon took over Centcom last spring, the White House was putting itself on a war footing with Iran. Almost instantly, Fallon began to calmly push back against what he saw as an ill-advised action. Over the course of 2007, Fallon’s statements in the press grew increasingly dismissive of the possibility of war, creating serious friction with the White House. Last December, when the National Intelligence Estimate downgraded the immediate nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon’s caution was justified. But still, well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don’t want a commander standing in their way. And so Fallon, the good cop, may soon be unemployed because he’s doing what a generation of young officers in the U. S. military are now openly complaining that their leaders didn’t do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq: He’s standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war. "
2 Jay_C
March 13, 2008 @ 6:02 pm CETCaps are my additions to Jason’s statement:
"Overstating (or understating) the problem and irresponsibly predicting further disasters (or threats, or irresponsibly predicting, or announcing that "things will be fine") around every corner only further undermines the U.S.’ relations with potential friends and makes additional disasters more likely.
3 C Stanley
March 13, 2008 @ 6:19 pm CETAnother problem is that the threat of war has to remain on the table to give leverage for diplomacy to work. When there’s internal questioning that forces the administration to continually deny that they are planning to go to war, it undermines the possibility for the soft power to work and ultimately can increase the likelihood of war.
Gates, when he was first nominated, cited a quote that he liked in during an interview. Unfortunately I can’t find a reference to it and I don’t remember the exact wording, but it was something to the effect of military might being a necessary condition for diplomacy to bear fruit. He’s often spoken about the integration of hard and soft power in that way; it’s obviously a very important concept for him (and I agree with him) so he’s got to be highly irritated at anyone who undermines the balance.
Jay_C: civilian leadership of the military is an extremely important concept. It’s being tested, of course, since current civilian leadership has chosen ill advised policies, but it’s still important that we don’t throw out baby with bathwater.
4 Jason
March 13, 2008 @ 9:16 pm CETAs I have written about before (my dissertation is on this topic), "civilian control of the military" does not and never has meant that officers do not express dissenting opinions in areas where they are socially empowered to do so (such as foreign policy) or even prevail in conflicts in some areas (such as personnel policies).
The trivial common understanding of what really lies at the heart of "civilian control" causes some people to fundamentally misunderstand and others (like Barnett, who should know better) to fundamentally misrepresent what goes on in the Fallon case and in other similar cases running back many decades in American civil-military relations.
Jay_C: I consider changing my words to insert an old anti-Bush meme (that I acknowledged and dispensed with in the actual post anyway) to be changing the subject, hijacking the thread and willful baiting (because you know I hate that crap). Stop it.
5 HiFly
March 14, 2008 @ 3:36 am CETAdmiral Fallon is no stooge and he had the uneviable task of trying to keep peace in the region while also balancing the rhetoric coming from the Bush/Cheney neocon gameplan. The Admiral is not alone in concluding a war with Iran would be an entaglement that could unravel all working relationships with Muslim countries the US has managed to maintain throughout the conflict. It does appear that his resignation comes after plans to ratchet up the pressure on Iran fell through and someone had to be the scapegoat.
6 Jason
March 14, 2008 @ 3:43 am CETWhenever I see those BDS buzzwords, the commenter immediately loses all credibility.
7 Jay_C
March 14, 2008 @ 4:01 am CETadmin: this is not a debate. don’t hijack/bait or don’t comment. your choice.
8 Jay_C
March 14, 2008 @ 1:31 pm CETDidn’t think I was doing any of these, I guess I don’t have a choice, I’ll have “choose” not to comment then.