US involvement in Mid-East wars:
How can it end?
The US has been in a state of perpetual war in the Middle East since 1991. Most of the presidential
candidates in both major parties support continuing the perpetual war. Some would expand it to Syria,
Iran, Libya, Somalia and/or Yemen. Is there any escape for the US from perpetual Mid-East war?
Rediscovering our own traditions, experience and collective wisdom can show us a way.
A presentation by
David Grappo, J.D.
To the Academy for Lifelong Learning
March 10, 2016
1: Introduction: How I got here
2. Credentials
3. Usefulness of independent observers
4. George Washington’s view on foreign wars/treaties/and entanglements
5. Some major players involved in Middle East politics
5a. ISIS
5b. Turkey and Saudi Arabia
5c. Syria, Iran, and Russia
5d. Israel
5e. The Kurds
5f. Syrian “Moderates”
6. Historical overlay in Middle East
6a. Historical overlay: Shia and Sunni Muslims
6b. Historical overlay: the Crusades
7. Relevance of Washington’s foreign policy advice today
8. Washington’s advice modernized
9. Applying the modern approach to the US/ISIS conflict
10. The US lacks any strategy for dealing with ISIS
11. What military action should the US consider now with respect to ISIS and other Middle East hot spots?
12. Responding to the “fight there now or here later” argument for US military intervention
12a. “Fight there now or here later” argument has a history of failed uses in modern practice.
12b. Viet Nam
12c. Iraq
12d. Afghanistan
13. Immediate withdrawal from preemptive wars has been the most effective action the US could take.
13a. Viet Nam
13b. Lebanon
13c. Somalia
13d. Comparative effectiveness of intervention strategy and total withdrawal strategy
14. Abraham Lincoln’s advice: make friends not enemies. Four modern examples.
14a. Applying Lincoln’s advice
15. Summary
1: Introduction: How I got here
Thank you Judy Ringle and thank you to the Academy of Lifelong Learning for inviting me to
speak to you today. It is an honor for me to be here. It is also somewhat of a surprise to me
that I am here. I need to tell you the story of how I got here today. That will help me explain
to you the significance, or lack thereof, of what I am going to say to you today.
Our topic today is United States involvement in Middle East wars. Is there a way out of
these wars for the United States?
Just over a year ago I wrote an “As I See It” column for the Gazette-Times on this topic. As
many of you know, the Gazette-Times allows local people to write short columns of up to
600 words on any topic of interest to them. The GT hesitated at first, but finally decided to
publish the column I had written. The GT editors were a little dubious because I couldn’t
identify for them any credentials I had to address this topic. I think I finally convinced them to
publish my article when I pointed out that they had run many pro-war articles by nationally
syndicated columnists, but nothing by anybody who opposed US involvement in Middle East
wars. My article was definitely opposed to US involvement in those wars. In fact, I
advocated immediate withdrawal of the US from those wars. So, possibly in the interest of
presenting an opposing point of view, the GT published my article.
Shortly after its publication I got a call from Judy Ringle who coordinates speakers for the
Academy of Lifelong Learning. She asked me to expand on the column I wrote and give this
talk today. I explained to her that I lack the traditional foreign policy credentials that
speakers on this subject might be expected to have. She encouraged me anyway - and so
here I am today.
2. Credentials
I want to talk a little bit more about the whole concept of credentials. And how, even with my
apparent lack of credentials, I can still contribute to the debate on our important topic of
today.
So what do we mean when we say that someone has credentials? Credentials can be
academic in nature. A professor who spends his or her life studying a subject would be
someone who we would say has credentials in that subject matter. In our discussion about
Middle East wars, someone who has been in the diplomatic corps would be someone who
we would say has credentials. A person may have a lot of military, business, or travel
experience in an area like the Middle East. That would be someone who we would say has
credentials to speak out about Middle East affairs. Someone who has simply been a media
pundit for years would also be someone who we might say has credentials to speak out
about most anything they wanted to speak out about.
Well, I don’t fit into any of those categories. I have no academic, or diplomatic, or military or
business experience in the Middle East. I have never been there. Yet there is a special kind
1
of credential that has long been recognized as worth paying attention to that I may have to
offer.
3. Usefulness of independent observers
This special credential has an honored place in the history of English literature. In 1837
Hans Christian Anderson published his famous short story and fable entitled “The Emperor’s
New Clothes.” In that story two con men approach an emperor and convince him that they
can weave a fantastic set of new clothes for him, but only people who are smart and
competent will be able to see the clothes. The new clothes will be invisible to anyone who is
dumb or incompetent. The emperor falls for the con job and decides to parade about in his
new clothes after letting everybody know what the weavers have told him. The weavers
were frauds and con men, but surprisingly many people who saw the emperor were lavish in
their praise of his new clothes. The emperor finally paraded past a young child who laughed
and exclaimed that the emperor was not wearing any clothes at all. Then everyone realized
how foolish they had been and all had a good laugh at the fact that the emperor was
parading about without any clothes.
There are two important lessons we can take away from this famous fable. The first lesson
is that sometimes people who should know better can get persuaded to accept as true
something they should easily recognize as false. The second important lesson is that in
order to get an honest opinion about something, sometimes you have to go completely
outside the normal range of experts.
That is where I come in. I am not within the range of experts anybody would think to consult
about Middle Eastern affairs. Think of me like the child in The Emperor’s New Clothes fable.
I can be candid and honest about Middle East affairs because I don’t have anyone who I
fear and must please. And so I can share with you today a set of thoughts, observations,
and questions that can help you resist the strong tendencies now pushing our country
toward new and bigger wars in the Middle East.
We shouldn’t want to go there. So let’s start talking about the reasons why we should stay
out of Middle East wars.
4. George Washington’s view on foreign wars/treaties/and entanglements
The column I wrote for the Gazette-Times begins by referencing George Washington’s
famous farewell address. I think that is a great place to begin any discussion of the proper
United States role in the Middle East. Most of us are familiar with the most famous parts of
Washington’s farewell address. Washington urged the country to avoid foreign
entanglements and treaties and to avoid taking sides in Europe’s constant wars. He pointed
out that European politics were so complicated that the United States would find it
impossible to find a proper way to get involved in European wars. Picking any ally to support
would surely offend some other ally. Picking any enemy to oppose would surely offend
some other preexisting or potential ally. Europe has too many factions, intrigues and political
undercurrents that the United States has no interest in supporting.
2
Washington’s advice did not specifically mention the Middle East. He spoke only of Europe.
But that was only because no one at the time even imagined that the United States would
get involved in Middle-East wars.
Washington’s advice is as applicable to the Middle East now as it was to Europe in his time.
As we will discuss later, Middle-East politics in our time is as complex as the politics of
Europe in Washington’s time. There is no safe way for the United States to step into MiddleEast wars. Our prudent course is simply to stay out of those wars.
However before we look at the problems with getting involved in Mid-East wars, I want to
talk a little bit about why we might want to look to George Washington as an advisor on our
current war policies.
For many years most everyone in the United States felt fondly towards George Washington
and the entire group of men collectively known as our Founding Fathers. It was always
common to include a few quotations from them in any speech about public affairs or about
how government should operate. It is hard to underestimate what the American Revolution
and the people who fought for it accomplished. Our Revolution was not a social revolution.
The daily lives of people in the United States didn’t change because of our Revolution. Our
Revolution was a revolution in the way people thought about their relationship to their
government. Prior to our Revolution royalty governed most of Europe. Kings and queens
ruled under a theory known as “the divine right of kings.” Our revolution threw out that
concept. Our Declaration of Independence proclaimed that governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed. It was our Revolution that established that
concept in the minds of people. We all take that concept for granted now. Some of us can’t
even imagine how anyone could ever have thought differently - the concept has become so
ingrained in our way of thinking about government. But it was a radical and revolutionary
thought when used to justify the American Revolution.
George Washington unquestionably deserves our respect and a prominent place in history
as the leader of our Revolution. He understood the profound significance of what he was
doing though he may have been less prolific in his writing about it than others.
Because of how George Washington performed in carrying out his pivotal role in our history,
we can justifiably look to him for advice and wisdom on topics related to what he dealt with
in hopes of finding inspiration for dealing with our own predicaments. It was George
Santayana who warned, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Washington’s advice on dealing with the complexities of European politics and wars
certainly has the appearance of a learned lesson about history. It is hard to find any fault
with his argument. The consequences of ignoring him has produced failed military
interventions by the US and the jumbled confusion we see in our Middle East policies today.
5. Some major players involved in Middle East politics
3
At this point I would like to go on sort of a condensed tour with you of some of the major
players in the Middle East. Let’s look briefly at how the United States relates to each of
these players. Let’s see if we can find the same kind of convoluted situation and
relationships in the Middle East that George Washington saw in Europe. Are there a
multitude of factions, intrigues, special interests and political undercurrents in the Middle
East that make the area especially treacherous for any United States military intervention
there? Well, of course, that is exactly what we will find.
5a. ISIS
Let’s start by looking briefly at ISIS, one of the newest players in the Middle East. In the past
2 years ISIS has grown from obscurity to become what the US government considers to be
the greatest single foreign threat facing the nation. President Obama says we must
“degrade and destroy” ISIS. No other nation gets such ferocious rhetoric thrown at it by the
US as ISIS. ISIS is treated as more of a threat than Iran, North Korea, or Russia.
5b. Turkey and Saudi Arabia
The next two major players we should look at in the Middle East are Turkey and Saudi
Arabia. The one thing these two countries have in common is that the United States
considers both of them to be allies or friends of the US. Yet these two countries are believed
to be the earliest promoters of the rise of ISIS. Turkey allows free movement of personnel
and supplies and Saudi Arabia provides financing. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia treat the
Assad regime in Syria as hostile to them. Both would like to rid Syria of Assad. To do that
both supported ISIS as ISIS forcefully expelled Assad from some northern sections of Syria.
ISIS continues to fight him to this day. It is not known to what extent Turkey and Saudi
Arabia still support ISIS. Both may be motivated to support ISIS because both are SunniMuslim majority countries and Syria is a branch of Shiite. I think it is worth noting that
although ISIS controls territory that borders Turkey in Syria and Iraq, ISIS seems to fully
respect Turkey’s territorial borders. I am not aware of any reports of ISIS trying to take over
any territory from Turkey. Despite its sometimes grandiose rhetoric, even ISIS seems to
recognize that some international borders must be respected.
5c. Syria, Iran, and Russia
The next group of three players we should look at is Syria, Iran, and Russia. I look at these
three players together because they have one common goal: they support the Assad
government in Syria. But even before ISIS became a major player, the United States had
committed itself to removing the Assad government from Syria. Now that the US has
elevated ISIS to its number one nemesis in the Middle East, US policy finds itself in a
miserable quandary. If it fights ISIS, it indirectly helps support the Syrian government that
has lost a lot of territory to ISIS. On the other hand, if it successfully removes Assad from
Syria, ISIS and its supporters may fill the void and take over all of Syria.
4
How can the interventionist minded US policymakers deal with such a quandary? Well,
before you try to answer that question, let’s complicate the situation a little more. Let’s talk
about the role of Iran. The United States and Iran have been hostile ever since the takeover
of the US embassy in Iran in 1979. Iran is predominantly a Shite-Muslim country, which may
explain its ongoing support for the Syrian government. US policymakers paint Iran as
nefariously trying to upstage the US in influence throughout the Middle East. Getting rid of
the Assad government has become a primary objective of US policy in order to counter
Iran’s influence in the region. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, getting rid of Assad
may promote ISIS as the next group to rule Syria. US policymakers certainly don’t want that.
So what are they to do?
Well, let’s complicate the situation even more. Let’s talk about the role of Russia in the
Middle East. The US and Russia have been rivals for decades. Because of Russia’s military
strength, the US has tried to constrict Russia’s influence everywhere in the world. Russia’s
two biggest allies in the Middle East are Iran and Syria. Syria is particularly important to
Russia because Syria is the site of Russia’s only military base in the Middle East, a naval
facility at Tartus on the central coast of Syria. Russia has been a major supplier of military
hardware to the Syrian government, in part, to protect its own base there. The US views
getting rid of the Assad regime as a double objective because it could then hopefully restrict
the influence of both Iran and Russia in the Middle East. The counterpoint is that the US has
no way to know if a successor to Assad may be even a worse alternative if it were an entity
in the ISIS mold. And any direct attempt by the United States to remove Assad may provoke
a much bigger conflict with Russia or Iran. The US track record in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Libya does not provide any reason to believe that a US military intervention in Syria would
produce a good result.
5d. Israel
In our survey of Middle East players, let’s shift now to a player unexpectedly quiet and
absent from much of the current activity. That player is the nation of Israel. Israel is
considered the most dependable US ally in the Middle East. Yet Israel contributed nothing to
either Iraq war the US fought. Israel contributes nothing to the US efforts in Afghanistan.
Israel did not provide any support to the Libya campaign. Israel provides nothing in the war
effort against ISIS. What is going on here? How can the most dependable Mid-East ally of
the US be absent in every instance that the US intervenes in the Mid East?
The answer is simple. Both Israel and the US realize that Israel is the one country that is
most hated by all the other countries in the Middle East. Both Israel and the US realize that
no other Middle Eastern country would participate in any military coalition in which Israel
was involved. As a result, the US does not ask Israel to become involved or to contribute
supplies, manpower, or support of any kind. Similarly, Israel for the same reason does not
offer to help in any way. Both the US and Israel know that participation by Israel would make
it impossible for the US to get other Mid East nations to support its interventions. As a result,
Israel escapes any participation in the US military interventions in the Mid East. In the
complex world of Mid East politics, the United States is unable to call upon its strongest ally
in the region for any support whatsoever when it comes to a military intervention.
5
5e. The Kurds
Now let’s switch to another strange anomaly in Mid East relationships. Let’s consider the
Kurds - the Kurdish people. The Kurdish people occupy land in both Southern Turkey and in
Northern Iraq and Syria. The Kurds are regularly involved in fighting against ISIS. The US
generally regards the Kurds as the most effective Middle Eastern group fighting against
ISIS. Some US legislators have advocated arming the Kurds with sophisticated US military
hardware. That isn’t going to happen. The reason is that the other major US ally in the
region, Turkey, objects to the US providing any support to the Kurds. The Kurds have at
various times expressed an interest in forming an independent country. That new country
would be formed from some territory currently occupied by ISIS in Syria, some territory
currently occupied or claimed by Iraq, and some territory occupied by Turkey. Turkey
regards the major active Kurdish group as terrorists that should be wiped out. Both Turkey
and the current Iraqi government are opposed to giving up any territory to the Kurds. Both
think problems with ISIS should be managed without involving or arming any Kurds. Their
fear is that once armed the Kurds will keep fighting against both Turkey and Iraq until they
get independence. So the US cannot give any assistance to the Kurdish people without
enraging both Turkey and the Iraqi governments.
5f. Syrian “Moderates”
The last group I want to look at, and I will only do so briefly, is the fighting group the US
government calls the Syrian “moderates.” I can’t talk about these people much because our
government won’t tell us much about them either because it doesn’t know much about them
or it doesn’t want us to know what it knows. By calling these fighting groups “moderates”,
the US government wants people to think that these people are politically middle-of-the-road
people - much like simple Democrats or Republicans back home in the United States. That
is not likely the case at all.
Armed civilians who actively participate in insurrection or warfare are not “moderates.”
“Moderates” don’t go around killing people, even for a good cause. The people our
government politely labels as “moderates” are, at best, active revolutionaries. They may just
be gangsters. We don’t know. Our government probably doesn’t know. It is simply too
incredible to believe that there exists anywhere in the Middle East an armed civilian group
that is supportive of Western values or sympathetic to the interests of the United States.
Mislabeling such people as “moderates” doesn’t conceal the fact that such groups are likely
to be very dangerous, highly unreliable in loyalties, and chronically unstable in leadership.
Contrary to the exhortations of people like Senator John McCain, these are not people to
whom modern weaponry can safely be entrusted.
I am going to conclude here my discussion of the players in the Middle East wars. My
survey has not been a comprehensive survey by any means. There are many other great
and small players who have great and small roles in the region. What I have given you is
enough to reach our necessary conclusions on the proper role of the United States in the
region.
6
6. Historical overlay in Middle East
But before we get there to talk about the role of the US, we need to identify two other what I
call historical overlays of what is happening in the Mid-East. We will simply identify these
overlays. As Westerners we are unable to fully appreciate the effect these historical forces
have on the lives of Islamic people in the Mid-East. We know the effect is profound, so we
need to aware of them; but we are unlikely ever to fully understand or appreciate them.
What are these historical overlays or historical forces?
6a. Historical overlay: Shia and Sunni Muslims
The first great historical overlay is the Islamic split between Shia and Sunni followers. As we
Westerners observe modern wars and hostilities between Islamic people, nothing seems to
better explain the alignment of groups or countries better that simply to point out whether
one side comes from primarily a Sunni or a Shite tradition. Within each of those traditions
there are multiple branches and divisions. But when it comes to hostilities and wars, the
alignment of parties seems to follow the larger Shite/Sunni split.
We in the West can compare what we see in the Middle East today with what happened in
Europe after the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Much blood was spilled in the
European wars between Catholic and Protestant countries. Those wars among Christians
seem to have abated only recently with the end of Catholic/Protestant killings in Ireland - but
we really can’t be sure of even that. Unfortunately for the adherents of Islam, their wars are
not over. They seem to actually be increasing in intensity in the last few years as an
unfortunate byproduct of the Arab Spring. And it is not apparent that those wars are going to
end anytime soon. A fairly safe prediction would be that those wars are not going to end in
our lifetimes. Westerners can hardly understand those wars, let alone have it within their
power to stop them. The wisest policy for Westerners is simply to stay out of those wars.
6b. Historical overlay: the Crusades
The second great historical overlay on the Middle East is the enduring impact of the
Crusades on Islamic people. Although the Crusaders from Europe stopped descending on
the Middle East over 500 years ago, resentment over the destruction they caused is still
strong. Every European looking person who appears in the Mid East toting lethal weapons
must overcome the suspicion of being seen as a returning Crusader. US military
interventions in the Middle East during the past 25 years have done more to revive those old
fears rather than to reduce them. The shadow of the Crusades still haunts any Western
military intervention in the Middle East.
So this completes my cursory survey of the current state of the Middle East as it presents
itself to us. US policymakers must decide what, if anything, they are going to do now.
7
As I said before, I realize there are lots of other players involved here, and lots of other
considerations and factors involved. But I have given you a snapshot of some of the biggest
issues and concerns facing US policymakers. We could spend a lot of time talking about
additional players and concerns. If we did that the entire situation would get even more
complex than I have painted it. It would not get simpler. I don’t think we need to do that. I
think we already have enough of a picture in order to say some sensible things about the
best US policy in the Mid East going forward.
7. Relevance of Washington’s foreign policy advice today
So let’s go back to where we started. Let’s go back to what George Washington said about
getting involved in Europe’s wars. He warned the country to stay out of entangling alliances.
He pointed out that there are so many factions, intrigues and circumstances in Europe that
there was no good way for the US to get involved in European politics or wars.
Washington’s description of Europe in his day is a perfect description of the Middle East in
our day. The situation in the Middle East is so complex that any military action the US takes
is certain to have serious adverse consequences. There is no way to thread the needle
there and come up with any plan of action that can produce a desired result. The best plan
of action is simply to stay out of Middle East wars. I think it is pretty safe to say that with
respect to the Middle East, George Washington would advise us to follow the same advice
he gave us about Europe. Stay out of Middle East wars.
Many of us modern folks have a problem with looking to someone like George Washington
for advice. Can what he said so many years ago still be relevant today? Haven’t we grown
any smarter or wiser in all these years so that we don’t need advice from him anymore? I
think these are fair questions.
8. Washington’s advice modernized
In my study on this topic I have found what I think is an updated and modern, but still
Washingtonian approach to analyzing US war policy in the Middle East. The updated
modern approach begins by asking this question: for any military intervention the United
States undertakes against ISIS or anyone else, what is our endgame plan or exit strategy for
concluding our involvement?
You probably have heard this question asked many times:
What is our endgame strategy? It represents a very succinct and focused way to help us
modern folks analyze how to deal with a difficult situation. But I see this modern approach
as really just the flip side of the same issue George Washington was addressing. George
Washington advised us not to jump into what obviously is a dangerous snake pit. The
modern analysis instead asks: how are you going to get out of that snake pit once you get
into it? George Washington focused on the front end of the problem. He says, once you see
a snake pit, avoid it if you can. The modern approach looks at the back end of the same
problem and says, before jumping into a snake pit, first figure out how you can eventually
and safely get out of it.
8
For purposes of analysis, either of these approaches will do. They should both lead you to
the same conclusions. You can formulate the question either way you choose. I think it is
worth knowing that Washington came up with an analytical tool that is as useful as anything
else we have been able to come up with today. Let’s be careful about thinking that anything
old is also outdated. That’s not the case at all.
9. Applying the modern approach to the US/ISIS conflict
But let’s carry through with the modern analysis, apply it to the current US military
intervention against ISIS, and see what results we get.
According to President Obama, the US is committed to a campaign to “degrade and
destroy” ISIS. That campaign consists of heavy bombing of ISIS controlled locations, some
unspecified support for some “moderate” rebels opposing ISIS, and probably some other
clandestine activities. That’s the campaign. But that campaign is not producing desired
results. President Obama claims that the amount of territory ISIS controls in Iraq and Syria
has been reduced. But unfortunately, ISIS folks have reappeared in Libya, Afghanistan, and
Yemen.
Fighting ISIS is starting to look like the famous carnival game called “whack-a-mole.” In that
game you try to swat any mole that appears in one of many holes on a tabletop. But each
time you swat one mole, another appears in a different hole. Fighting ISIS is starting to look
like a real life whack-a-mole game. ISIS reappears at some other location else every time
you think you have it under control in one location. That doesn’t look like progress towards a
goal.
So it’s certainly time that we should hear from President Obama his answer to the basic
question about any war: what is the endgame or exit strategy in the Middle East war against
ISIS? President Obama has been remarkably candid in addressing that question.
Unfortunately his response has also been remarkably distressing. He told the nation that
fighting ISIS would be a long war. His successors will also have to fight this war. That is
what President Obama told the nation. Essentially what he said was that there is no
endgame or exit strategy for the war against ISIS. Like the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan,
this war has no foreseeable end. It is becoming part of the perpetual war the United States
has waged in the Middle East for the last 25 years.
10. The US lacks any strategy for dealing with ISIS
Just over a year ago, President Obama came under severe criticism for saying that he had
“no strategy” for dealing with ISIS. I thought that what he said then was an accurate and
honest statement and it continues to be an accurate statement. However, I thought
President Obama could have expressed himself more artfully. What he should have said is
this:
9
There is no military strategy involving the United States that has any hope of success in
resolving Middle East conflicts. The best course of action for the United States is to get out
of all involvement in Middle East wars. Anything we can imagine to do now will be as
ineffective as all the things we have been doing for years. We just don’t have any new ideas
to bring to the table. What we are doing now isn’t working. It is time to stop.
President Obama’s critics would have attacked him for saying anything so honest, but the
American people would have recognized the truth in what he said. The American people
would likely have supported him.
When President Obama later announced his proposal to “degrade and destroy” ISIS, his
congressional critics correctly pointed out that that was no kind of workable strategy. They
demanded that he submit a new war powers resolution to Congress so that Congress could
examine his proposal, rewrite it as deemed appropriate, and properly exercise its
constitutional war powers. Obama’s critics thought he would be forced into submitting
something they could criticize as wholly inadequate.
At this point we all should have recognized the truth. Any United States war strategy in the
Middle East is much like the fable of the emperor’s new clothes. It is hopeless to try to
design a workable war strategy. There just is no strategy anyone can suggest that has any
prospects of producing desirable results. I think President Obama recognizes that reality,
even if he has not expressed it.
So President Obama sent a proposal to Congress that basically said that with respect to
ISIS and any other terrorists he should be authorized to exercise whatever war power he
thought necessary, whenever he thought it necessary, and wherever he thought it
necessary. He then asked the Congress to restrict this proposal in whatever way the
Congress saw fit. Obama’s critics thought that they had maneuvered him into proposing an
unworkable war policy. Instead, Obama threw the responsibility back onto them. Obama’s
Congressional critics quietly stopped talking about drafting of a war powers resolution. They
too know that trying to draft a useful war strategy is a hopeless task. They were not about to
make fools of themselves by trying to do the impossible.
That Congressional exercise in brinkmanship with Obama is both illuminating and sad. It
was illuminating because it vividly demonstrated that no one in Congress or the White
House believes they have the ability to craft a workable Middle East war strategy for the
United States. No one was even willing to try. That’s how hopeless the effort is. Sadly,
however, neither Obama nor his critics used the fruitless exercise as a teaching moment for
the pubic. The fact that there is not now and cannot be a coherent US Middle East war
strategy remains a fact unspoken by any US government official. No US government official
wants to be the first to admit that this emperor has no clothes.
11. What military action should the US consider now with respect to ISIS and other
Middle East hot spots?
10
So let’s talk for a little bit about what the US should be doing about ISIS now. Actually, it is
not necessary that the US do anything about ISIS now. I think we should remember that the
first time President Obama even mentioned ISIS, he called it the JV, or junior varsity team.
By that he meant that as a military power, ISIS was definitely not a threat to the United
States. It has no air force, no navy, no long-range missiles, and no known weapons of mass
destruction. Some of its best weapons are American made, either captured from retreating
Iraqi forces, or purchased from arms dealers.
ISIS practices and rhetoric are certainly gruesome and hateful, but that does not equate to a
military threat. The US can certainly repel any actual threat that may develop from ISIS. In
the meantime, we should let regional powers in the Middle East deal with ISIS as they see
fit. They obviously aren’t as concerned about ISIS as people in the USA or Europe.
So that completes our cursory view of the major players and some historical influences the
United States faces in the Middle East as it tries to create a war policy there. I think it is fair
to say that anywhere that the United States tries to intervene in the Middle East, it will get
seriously burned and worsen whatever situation it steps into. That summarizes its recent
military history there. But it also summarizes any prospective military action the US may
take.
George Washington would have no hesitation in advising the US on its best course of action
there. His advice would be simple. Stay out of any wars there. If instead we choose to use
an updated version of Washington’s advice, we can ask ourselves this famous question:
what is our endgame or exit strategy there? There isn’t such a strategy. No one can think of
one. We have had years to come up with such a strategy and haven’t been able to do it. It’s
not there. As far as we can see into the future the Middle East wars have been and will be
perpetual. Our best endgame and exit strategy is simply to get out now. Bring our troops,
our guns, our bombs and our boats home. We can’t stop the Middle East wars, but we can
stop our participation in them. That is what we can do and should do. And we should do it
now.
12. Responding to the “fight there now or here later” argument for US military
intervention
In doing the research for this presentation I tried to identify the arguments the United States
uses to justify its ongoing Middle East interventions. I found many different ones. I am sure
there are many more. I’ll briefly address what I think is the most significant justification now
being used.
The first and foremost argument to address in favor of military intervention is the one that
says: if we don’t fight them over there, then we will eventually have to fight them over here.
This theory says that in order to prevent war, you must start a war. As an initial observation,
this theory sounds like classic doublethink straight out of George Orwell’s famous book
“1984.” It tells us we should create the very evil we want to avoid. In some effort at fairness
to the proponents of this theory, their belief can be characterized as saying that a small war
11
now can prevent a larger war later. This seems to me to be the primary justification the
United States uses for its Middle East military interventions. This theory is sometimes
named the “preventive war theory” or the “preemptive war theory.”
12a. “Fight there now or here later” argument has a history of failed uses in modern
practice.
Regardless of how you identify it or try to soft-petal its brazenness, this theory has a terrible
track record in practice by the United States. We will look at three examples: the Viet Nam
War, the current war in Iraq, and the current war in Afghanistan.
12b. Viet Nam
The primary justification for the Viet Nam war was that if we don’t fight them there, we will
eventually have to fight them on the beaches of California. The US government acted on the
belief that the Communists were engaged in a worldwide effort to conquer the world. By
stopping them in Viet Nam, we could avoid the inevitable defense of our own shores from
invasion. Well, we lost the Viet Nam war. The Communists took over all of Viet Nam. What
became of the Communists march to take over the world? It didn’t happen. In fact, since that
war Viet Nam has become a good trading partner of the United States. In 2006 President
George W. Bush even visited Viet Nam on a goodwill tour. We now know that the entire Viet
Nam war, the 50,000 US casualties, the enormous cost and horrendous domestic turmoil
the US and Viet Nam went through were all unnecessary. The invocation of the
preventive/preemptive war theory in Viet Nam was a terrible mistake.
12c. Iraq
In Iraq, the United States invoked the same theory because of its fear that Saddam Hussein
had and would use weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and us. After
removing his government from power, we discovered that there were no weapons of mass
destruction, as we had feared. But the instability the US created in Iraq has resulted in an
estimated over 100,000 deaths, million of people driven into homelessness or refugee
status, a successor government that cannot defend its own borders and appears likely to
align itself with Iran, and the US has still not removed all its soldiers from the country. Iraq is
certainly another great failure in how to apply the preventive/preemptive war theory.
12d. Afghanistan
In Afghanistan the United States invaded as a preventative war exercise in order to prevent
the Taliban from letting Al Qaeda have a land base for its terrorist activities. Now over 14
years later the new Afghan government is unable to sustain itself without continued US
troop presence. If the US troops should leave, it would be a toss-up as to whether the
Taliban, Al Qaeda, or ISIS would come in and take over the country. For US policy makers it
is sort of a moot issue anyway. ISIS and Al Qaeda are already establishing themselves in
other Middle East countries - so it really doesn’t matter much what happens in Afghanistan.
12
The entire Afghan war effort by the United State will achieve nothing. Afghanistan is another
costly mistaken application by the United States of the preventive war theory.
So we have three good examples of how US initiated preventive wars backfired on us. Two
of our examples are very recent endeavors from the Middle East itself. Yet we regularly hear
US pundits and policymakers say we need a new preventive war against ISIS, Iran, or some
other faltering Middle East countries such as Yemen, Somalia, or Libya. It is pretty apparent
that the lessons from our own history are not being learned. Preventive wars can be long,
costly, and pointless. For the United States, that seems always to be the case. It would be
better if we had not engaged in any of those wars. Now, having gotten into them, our best
course of action is to withdraw from them.
13. Immediate withdrawal from preemptive wars has been the most effective action
the US could take.
When I tell people I advocate immediate withdrawal from all Mid East wars, I am often met
with surprised and shocked looks. But there are good precedents for an immediate
withdrawal. The United States has totally withdrawn from mistaken military interventions in
the recent past. In each instance it was wise to have done so. Let’s look at three examples:
Viet Nam, Lebanon, and Somalia.
13a. Viet Nam
In Viet Nam the United States withdrew all its forces after nearly a decade of fighting. At the
time of withdrawal, the US knew that the government of South Viet Nam, which we had
fought so long to protect, would collapse. That is exactly what happened. Everything the
United States had fought for was lost. We now know that the United States should not only
have withdrawn sooner, but also that it should never have intervened in Viet Nam in the first
place.
13b. Lebanon
Our second example is Lebanon. When President Reagan was confronted with the bombing
of our troops in Lebanon, in February of 1984 he wisely decided to withdraw all troops
instead of escalading the fight. Lebanon has never had a very stable government since
then, but no one has ever suggested that the United States could have accomplished
anything by staying there. Immediate withdrawal was an effective strategy.
13c. Somalia
Our third example is Somalia. The United States sent troops there to try to stabilize a
seriously deteriorating situation. When our troops were attacked President Clinton decided
in 1995 to withdraw them completely. Like Lebanon, Somalia has never had a very stable
government since then, but no one has ever suggested that the United States could have
accomplished anything by staying there. Immediate withdrawal was an effective strategy.
13
13d. Comparative effectiveness of intervention strategy and total withdrawal strategy
For the past 50 years, immediate and/or complete withdrawal of US troops from combat has
repeatedly been an effective military strategy for the United States. In comparison,
preemptive wars resulting in long-term military interventions have all been failures. So let’s
stop using a military strategy that has no modern track record of success. Let’s use the
strategy that has worked for us.
Let’s go back to a foreign policy that is as old and effective as George Washington himself.
Let’s stay out of optional wars, or so-called preemptive wars. We know where those wars
lead us. Preemptive wars morph into perpetual wars. We don’t want to go there.
14. Abraham Lincoln’s advice: make friends not enemies. Four modern examples.
At this point in my argument my interventionist friends get exasperated with me. They say
the circumstances now are different. We are now dealing with ISIS. Those people hate us.
They want to kill us. They are our enemies. Can’t I see that?
Actually what I see with ISIS is a very challenging situation. But I think there is a better
approach to the situation than starting a war. Another great US president, Abraham Lincoln,
once reportedly said: “the best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend.”
Does this stunning maxim have any relevance to the modern world? Of course it does. Let
me give you four modern examples of former bitter enemies who have successfully followed
this maxim.
Our first example is the United States and Vietnam. These two countries were at war with
each other for nearly a decade in the 1960’s and early 1970’s. The US effectively lost that
war. The end of the war did not bring about any harmony between these adversaries. Now,
however, forty years later, these two countries are at peace with each other and are good
trading partners in spite of their hostile history. No one foresaw this back when the war was
raging. The US would have been much wiser to have just skipped the war and become
friends much sooner with the Vietnamese.
Our second example is Israel and Egypt. These two countries fought wars in 1967 and
1973. But by 1978 these two countries renounced further hostilities and became good
neighbors to each other.
Our third example is Israel and Jordan. These two countries also fought each other in the
wars of 1967 and 1973. But by 1994 these two countries renounced further hostilities and
became peaceful neighbors to each other.
Our fourth example is the United States and China. You have to be my age to remember
that for the first 23 years of its existence Communist China was treated like an outlaw
nation. It wasn’t even allowed to have a seat in the United Nations. The United States had
virtually no working relationship with China during those years. Most political pundits
14
expected that the US and China would eventually go to war with each other. Richard Nixon
was thought to be the most unlikely president to change that dynamic, but change it he did
when he announced his surprise visit to China in 1972. The US and China still have many
issues to work through, but the icy hostility is a thing of the past, and both nations are able
to engage amicably with each other.
These are four modern examples where once bitter enemies have become friends, or at
least relatively friendly. As Lincoln’s observed, enemies can be eliminated by making them
friends.
14a. Applying Lincoln’s advice
Well, if the United States and Viet Nam can become friends, and if Israel and Egypt can
become friends, and if Israel and Jordan can become friends, and if the United States and
China can become friendly, then there really is no limit on the ability of hostile countries to
change their relationships to each other.
I wonder what a friendly relationship between the United States and ISIS would look like. I
am not exactly certain about how we would get there, but I am certain that a step in that
process would be for the United States to stop its bombing campaign and other war
activities against ISIS. We may find that just as Turkey seems to be able to co-exist
peaceably with ISIS, the United States can do so also. It would certainly take a major
change in mindset for the US to engage peaceably with ISIS, but the United States and
other countries have shown that such unexpected things like that can happen in the modern
world.
15. Summary
So, let’s review what we have covered today.
First we looked at what it means to have credentials to talk about our subject today. I don’t
claim to have the traditional credentials related to this topic. Instead, I hope to provide the
kind of unique perspective that an independent outside observer can give. It is up to you to
decide whether I have actually provided you with any useful new thoughts.
Next, we looked at George Washington’s views on getting engaged in foreign wars, and
whether his advice has any relevance to the modern world. His advice was pretty clear. He
said to stay out of complicated foreign wars, and he was specifically addressing the situation
in Europe at that time.
Next we looked at the tangled maze of relationships in the Middle East today. Is it
comparable to what Washington saw in Europe in his day? I don’t think there can be any
doubt about that.
Next we saw that neither President Obama nor his opponents in Congress have been able
to articulate any sort of war strategy for the Middle East. The preemptive war theory used to
15
justify interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan is leading us into perpetual wars from which we
cannot find a way to extract ourselves.
Next we looked at three modern examples where the United States chose to completely
withdraw its military forces from foreign engagement in spite of ongoing hostilities. In each
case complete military withdrawal created the best available outcome for the United States.
Today’s political pundits and government policy makers never acknowledge the success
achieved by the complete withdrawal option. As citizens, it is up to us to remind our
government officials of what military strategies have worked in the past and what strategies
continue to fail.
Lastly we looked at four modern and extremely hostile international relationships where
seemingly implacable foes have reestablished diplomatic relationships and now
constructively engage with one another to resolve their differences. Lincoln’s thought that
you can eliminate enemies by making them friends has it own history of success that we
need to understand and adopt.
The world is now and always has been a difficult place to live in peace. If we in the United
States look to our own traditions, experience and history, we can find examples of effective
ways to create the kind of peace we want.
Thank you for listening today.
16