In part, in regard to Syria, he writes:
Are U.S. arms and influence without ground troops able to see those laudable aims realized, or would a post-Assad Syria end up like Libya or Egypt—and would that still be better or worse than the present-day Syria, for us, for Christians and other minorities, for Israel, etc.? It is not enough to state the obvious: Assad is a U.S. enemy and a monster who is killing his own; we have the ability to take him out; ergo, we should.
I'll grant that we can't say "mission accomplished" once the Taliban, Saddam, or Assad are tossed from the palace. But war is a blunt instrument and I don't expect military means to make things end with "and they lived happily ever after." This is why I get so frustrated with people who oppose a war because we don't have the perfect plan for the post-war before we go to war.
And I'm still waiting to see the perfect plan for Libya, by the way.
Using military force means we can't think of a way to achieve our goals by non-military means. Killing people and breaking things by definition lacks a certain nuance, no? I think it is too much to think of military force as the ultimate way of getting exactly what we want rather than an imperfect tool that is the only thing we have unless we want things to get far, far worse. We have a huge government, and foreign policy doesn't end when we declare major combat operations over or declare we've ended a war responsibly by getting out. Lots of work remains to be done and non-soldiers have the biggest role once the guns fall silent.
So Hanson has a point when he says we have to have an idea of what is better. But when the shooting starts, the thinking is often that we have to keep things from getting worse rather than looking ahead to see how we can improve things.
Saddam invades Kuwait? It would be worse to see Saddam digest Kuwait and have more power or even invade Saudi Arabia, emerging as the top power in the Gulf. So we went to war.
Yes, we left Saddam in power. We may have failed in the decade that followed to get rid of Saddam, but we did try to contain him diplomatically and militarily, and get him out of power with non-military means.
And yes, Assad is an enemy and monster. And since we have the ability to take him out in the current difficulties Assad faces, ergo we should. In the long run, we want to stay engaged with Syria after Assad is gone to build something better. But in isolation, it is a good thing for thug dictators who delight in killing Americans to know that if they slip up we will be all over them like ugly on an ape. In the long run, is that a bad thing for enemies to fear?
If we demand iron-clad promises of making things far better and indeed solving problems for good before we use military force, we throw away the option of preventing things from getting worse and losing the option of making things better out of the ruins that even victorious war brings.
If we can arm the opposition to Assad and get rid of the horrible Assad regime, that is a good thing. After that? Well, keep working the problem. In the realm of foreign policy, a victory is just the opportunity to keep playing the game with victory or defeat the options for every round.
And as long as I'm at this point, would we please keep playing the game in Iraq? We did lose thousands of Americans fighting for a better future there, did we not? I'd hate to see us repeat the failures of Vietnam where we won the war but lost the post-war by deciding we'd had enough and wanted to go home.
