Dec 9th 2015

Questions that go unanswered as we drift to a State of Permanent War

by David Coates

David Coates holds the Worrell Chair in Anglo-American Studies


As the main US media outlets report and amplify each and every outlandish assertion by Donald Trump and his fellow contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, major damage is being done to the underlying quality of the dominant political discourse in the United States.

That damage has two main characteristics. By giving so much airtime to the Republican leadership battle, the preoccupations of a tiny but vociferous portion of the American electorate is being showcased as though they represented the views of Americans as a whole. And by restricting the response to that battle largely to the counterviews of the leading Democratic Party contenders, a whole slew of arguments of a more profound kind are receiving virtually no air time at all. The democratic process is being inexorably damaged by both these tendencies.

I

The Republican candidates are currently having a field day. Views that once would have been roundly condemned as unacceptably non-American are now treated as simply more moderate responses to proposals that are more outlandish still. Views that once would have been quickly dismissed as factually incorrect are now given traction and legitimacy by their regular repetition. This is the real damage currently being inflicted on the quality of American political discourse by Donald Trump in particular, damage rooted in his apparently consistent search for the evermore reactionary position that leaves simple conservatism looking gloriously moderate by comparison.

In the latest iteration of what is now becoming a regular sequence of events, Donald Trump is currently proposing a total ban on the entry – or indeed re-entry – into the United States by anyone of the Muslim faith;[1] so effectively redefining as more moderate, proposals like those of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz that priority should be given, when admitting Syrian refugees, to people of a Christian faith.[2] In the process, the entire Republican exchange encourages us all to ignore the fact that America is a country of many faiths and of none, and that the separation of church and state is a core principle of the very constitution to which all leading Republican candidates claim to attach such importance.[3] That was this week. Last week the assertion was different but the effect was the same; with the Donald promising to “bomb the hell out of” ISIS and “to hit ISIS so hard like they’ve never been hit before:”[4] so providing cover for a Ted Cruz who is apparently keen to “carpet bomb them into oblivion. [5]  As Cruz calmly put it recently: “I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out.”  

These assertions by leading presidential candidates play well to a Republican Tea Party base that is hungry for quick and simple solutions to what are in reality deeply-rooted and complicated problems.[6] But they potentially play well too to a wider American audience –one that is aware of America’s increasing involvement in a third Middle Eastern conflagration and one that feels, particularly after the mass shootings in San Bernardino, increasingly unsafe because of that involvement. That is an audience which is likely to look first to the White House, or even to the Democratic Party more generally, for reassurance and action; so it is also an audience  which is likely to be currently disappointed and frustrated by the heavily qualified justifications for war now currently on offer from the Obama Administration.

The President struggled to be heard on all of this in his Sunday night address, his voice partly drowned out by the cacophony of hate now passing as legitimate political commentary on right-wing radio and television talk shows.[7] Yet even if his right-wing critics had been willing to hear him out, what they would have heard was less than fully convincing. For he would have them and us believe that it is possible to fight ISIS successfully without committing large numbers of US ground troops to yet another Iraq-type war; and that it is possible to wage that war without significantly increasing the danger of large-scale terrorist activity here at home. These two claims rest on a linked set of well-rehearsed but still problematic assertions: that airstrikes are effectively degrading ISIS as a military force; that local ground forces are available to complete that degradation if properly trained by the United States; and that a broad coalition of the willing is involved in this fight, happy to accept US political leadership and to share the burdens and dangers involved.

The trouble with all these claims and assertions is that we have heard them before, and seen them fail in both Afghanistan and Iraq.[8] We are seeing the training of local forces in Iraq and Syria failing even now.[9] Little wonder then that, when offered the prospect of foreign war without domestic pain, the Obama Administration should be losing ground to Republican arguments that wars are not won that way, and that if this one is to be won it has to be harder fought.  Little wonder either that the Democratic candidate who is most likely to face this Republican onslaught next November is already sounding more hawkish on ISIS than the Administration that she has both to defend and to replace.[10] The President would have us conduct a surgical war, “strong and smart” as he put it.[11] His opponents want something that is significantly more strident: but both of them seem to be offering us the prospect of yet more war without end.  Both seem to be offering us, that is, what Ira Chemus recently correctly labelled “America’s Reckless War against Evil.”[12]

II

What neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party leadership seems willing to question – in public at least –  is whether this war is one in which the United States should now be so invested. What neither set of leaders seem willing to admit is that being in that war necessarily invites a warlike response from those we attack; and that in consequence being in this war inevitably makes America less safe than if no war was underway.[13] And no one in either party – and that stretches to include Bernie Sanders on one wing of the debate and Rand Paul on the other – is currently making the case for handing this war over to the international community as a whole, even though we are repeatedly told that countries as distant from us in interests and ideology as Russia and Iran wish ISIS gone. If they do, why is the United States leading the coalition? Why is this whole matter not back in the hands of the UN Security Council? And why are we – along with the French and the British – intensifying our bombing campaign against ISIS when other powers in the region – most notably Saudi Arabia – are no longer so heavily engaged?

Why indeed, if ISIS is so evil, are we even allied with Saudi Arabia, whose own modes of punishment are as barbaric as those that so offend us when they are deployed by ISIS?[14] Why do we apparently feel no sense of outrage when our military action causes heavy civilian casualties in the territories that we bomb, and yet immediate and intense outrage whenever our civilian populations are gunned down by individuals linked in some way to those we are already bombing? Do Arab lives matter less than American/British ones?[15] Do we really believe in the legitimacy of one-sided wars: do we really believe that violence is okay if we do it to others, but not okay if it is done by others to us?

In the UK at least, the main opposition leader has challenged the wisdom of yet more bombing,[16] arguing that it can only increase civilian casualties and play into the ISIS song book: reinforcing their claim that western imperialism is the Arab world’s main problem, and that a mighty confrontation is coming soon between the forces of Islam and Christianity in which Islam will inevitably prevail. So prevalent in the western corridors of power is the counterview, however – that the West is engaged in a global war with Evil – that merely by raising those questions Jeremy Corbyn found himself accused by the British Prime Minister of being a terrorist sympathizer.[17] The accusation was quickly withdrawn and apologized for, but the damage had already been done. Our political leaders, on both sides of the Atlantic, are allowing individual acts of terror on their own territory to dictate the trajectory of their entire foreign policy – so inviting more acts of terror from an enemy that actually wants us to fight them.[18] And our political leaders seem now hell-bent on yet more war, as though a decade and a half of such conflicts have taught us nothing;[19]  even though the latest reports suggest that the flow of foreign fighters from America and Western Europe into the ranks of ISIS is still intensifying, in spite of all the efforts to stem that flow.[20]

Maybe the advocates of war are right. Maybe pottery barn rules apply here: if you break it, you own it.  After all, it was George W. Bush and Tony Blair who laid the ground for this horrendous and lethal mess by their illegitimate invasion of a sovereign nation. Maybe we do have to reap the bitter harvest of what they sowed. Maybe blowback terrorism[21] is now too entrenched to be removed by any late-day change in US and UK foreign policy. Maybe we are genuinely trapped in ISIS’s war. But shouldn’t we all be talking about precisely this, to the exclusion of all else? Shouldn’t we be asking precisely these kinds of questions? Shouldn’t we be asking if this isn’t a war within the Arab world that western powers should observe rather than lead? And shouldn’t we be saying to countries with a more direct and immediate stake in the outcome of that war – Russia in the Caucuses,[22] Turkey in Kurdistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran in the Middle East proper – that they deal with this?  That we are done with all the heavy lifting.

III

Such a change in US and UK military strategy may make the Russian and Saudi populations less safe, but wouldn’t it make ours safer?  And wouldn’t we, the United States, increase the pressure on those regional actors to find a genuine political settlement if we told them that we will not, this time, bankroll and staff militarily a struggle against an extreme form of Islam that is more their immediate problem than ours? If global civilization is genuinely as stake, as our war-hawks insist, then international bodies exist to coordinate its defense. If however, civilization is not at stake, if all that is under challenge here is a regional distribution of power and resources, why are we turning a regional fight into a global one by a bombing campaign that can only add to ISIS’ international following? If the Saudis don’t like fundamentalist Islam, shouldn’t they stop funding it?[23] And if Shiite and Sunni Muslims have serious housekeeping problems of their own, problems inherited from their own complex and bloody past, aren’t they the ones – indeed ultimately the only ones – who are best positioned to find some mutual reconciliation?

Will someone please start asking fundamental questions of this kind, before we all sink into a morass of anti-Muslim sentiment at home and permanent war overseas?

 

See also an earlier posting “Weighing the Arguments on US Military Action against ISIS”[24]

The domestic costs of excessive US military involvement abroad are discussed more fully in David Coates America in the Shadow of Empires (London & New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014)[25]

               



[1] Ed Pilkington, “Donald Trump calls to ban all Muslims from entering US,” The Guardian, December 8, 2015: available at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/07/donald-trump-ban-all-muslims-entering-us-san-bernardino-shooting

 

[2] David A. Fahrenthold and Jose A DelReal, “’Rabid” dogs and closing mosques: Anti-Islam rhetoric grows in GOP,” The Washington Post, November 19, 2015: available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rabid-dogs-and-muslim-id-cards-anti-islam-rhetoric-grows-in-gop/2015/11/19/1cdf9f04-8ee5-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html

 

[6] E. J. Dionne, “Class War comes to GOP,” The Washington Post, December 6, 2015: available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/class-war-comes-to-the-gop/2015/12/06/d62afe64-9ace-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html

 

[7] Greg Jaffe, “Obama’s Oval Office address reflects struggle to be heard,” The Washington Post, December 6, 2015: available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-oval-office-address-reflects-his-own-struggle-to-be-heard/2015/12/06/ca9b5976-9c41-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html

 

[8] David Ignatius, “The big hole in Obama’s Islamic State strategy,” The Washington Post, December 7, 2015: available at www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-big-hole-in-obamas-islamic-state-strategy/2015/12/07/04ce2d16-9d01-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html

 

[9] Michael D. Shear et al, ‘Obama Administration Ends Efforts to  Train Syrians to Combat ISIS,” The New York Times, October 9, 2015: available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/pentagon-program-islamic-state-syria.html

 

[10] Amy Chozick and David E. Sanger, “Hillary Clinton Goes Beyond President Obama in Plan to Defeat ISIS,” The New York Times, November 19, 2015: available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-islamic-state.html

 

[12] Ira Chernus, “America’s Reckless War Against Evil,” Posted on Huffington Post, December 8, 2015: available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-chernus/americas-reckless-war-aga_b_8748504.html

 

[13] Jeffrey Sachs, “Ending Blowback Terrorism,” posted on Facts & Arts November 20, 2015: available at https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/islamic-state-blowback-terrorism-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2015-11

 

[14] Peter Baker, “A Coalition in Which Some Do More Than Others to Fight ISIS,” The New York Times, November 29, 2015: available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/us/politics/a-coalition-in-which-some-do-more-than-others-to-fight-isis.html

 

[15] Gideon Rachman, ‘Why the west’s view of the Saudis is shifting,” The Financial Times, December 7, 2015: available at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a33c5e6c-9ccc-11e5-8ce1-f6219b685d74.html#axzz3tlSQkFOH

 

[16] Jeremy Corbyn, “David Cameron has failed to show that bombing Syria would work,” The Guardian, December 1, 2015: available at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/01/cameron-failed-show-bombing-syria-isil-work-jihadist

 

[17] Nicholas Watt, “David Cameron accuses Jeremy Corbyn of being ‘terrorist sympathiser’,” The Guardian, December 2, 2015: available at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/01/cameron-accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser

 

[18] Jeremy Shapiro, ‘How not to overreact to ISIS,” posted on Brookings, November 17, 2015: available at http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/11/17-dont-overreact-to-isis-shapiro

 

[19] Andrew Bacevich, “An Invitation to Collective Suicide,” posted on TomDispatch.com, December 3, 2015: available at http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176076/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich,_an_invitation_to_collective_suicide/

 

[21] Jeffrey Sachs, “Ending Blowback Terrorism,” posted on Facts & Arts November 20, 2015: available at https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/islamic-state-blowback-terrorism-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2015-11

 

[22] Kathrin Hille, “Russia and radicalization: Homegrown problem,” The Financial Times, December 7, 2015: available at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/77156ed2-9ab0-11e5-be4f-0abd1978acaa.html#axzz3tlSQkFOH

 

[23] Gideon Rachman, ‘Why the west’s view of the Saudis is shifting,” The Financial Times, December 7, 2015: available at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a33c5e6c-9ccc-11e5-8ce1-f6219b685d74.html#axzz3tlSQkFOH

 

 


This article is brought to you by Project Syndicate that is a not for profit organization.

Project Syndicate brings original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by esteemed leaders and thinkers from around the world to readers everywhere. By offering incisive perspectives on our changing world from those who are shaping its economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivalled venue for informed public debate. Please see: www.project-syndicate.org.

Should you want to support Project Syndicate you can do it by using the PayPal icon below. Your donation is paid to Project Syndicate in full after PayPal has deducted its transaction fee. Facts & Arts neither receives information about your donation nor a commission.

 

 

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Jun 25th 2020
EXTRACT: "The facts are clear: the wealthiest 0.54%, about 40 million people, are responsible for 14% of lifestyle-related greenhouse gas emissions, while the bottom 50% of income earners, almost 4 billion people, only emit around 10%. The world’s top 10% income earners are responsible for at least 25% and up to 43% of our environmental impact. Most people living in developed countries would fit into this category, meaning you don’t have to consider yourself rich in order to be globally affluent. Even many poorer people in wealthy countries have a disproportionately large and unsustainable resource footprint compared to the global average."
Jun 24th 2020
EXTRACT: "To be sure, the American Dream was always more aspiration than reality. Economic, social, and intergenerational mobility have always fallen short of what the myth of the self-made man or woman would lead one to expect. But with social mobility now declining as inequality rises, today’s young people are right to be angry."
Jun 19th 2020
EXTRACT: "There is only one way to repair America’s reputation, regain the trust of allies, and ensure that the US can act as an effective counterweight to China: address the root causes of the cracks that Trump’s disastrous presidency has exposed and widened. This is in line with the vision advanced in 2011 by two military strategists, Captain Wayne Porter and Colonel Mark Mykleby, using the pseudonym “Mr. Y.” Porter and Mykleby argued that national security depends not only on the capacity to respond to threats from foreign powers, but also – and perhaps more important – on the “application of credible influence and strength.” That influence, in turn, depends on America’s success in providing a “pathway of promise” for US citizens – and a model for the world."
Jun 14th 2020
EXTRACT: "The most critical question then is not how far Trump will go to promote his treasonous agenda, but for how long Republican leaders will silently accept and subserviently enable Trump to destroy the basic moral tenets and values on which this Union was founded, and which they swore to uphold and protect...............Of course, shame on us if we continue to be surprised by Republicans’ continuing silence, because as we all know, even when presented with overwhelming evidence that Trump committed crimes against the American people, Trump’s Republican stooges in the Senate exonerated him following impeachment almost unanimously...................The Republican leadership, to be sure, has made its bed. It has committed moral suicide. History will judge them harshly for their treason and betrayal of the nation, including all of those who have lived and died throughout our history to foster and protect our safety, integrity, and freedom."
Jun 9th 2020
EXTRACT: " Governments can do nothing about the quotidian offenses of living as a black person in America – the empty taxis that refuse to stop, being mistaken for employees in supermarkets, the myriad intentional and unintentional insults. Many now in the streets won’t be satisfied unless the result of this national spasm is improved schools, health care, and job opportunities for minorities – a fair shake for black people. What will happen when America once again falls short of honoring its professed values?."
Jun 8th 2020
EXTRACT: "It should be apparent to most observers of international relations that the Chinese government wants the world to play by its own set of rules. Beijing appears to believe that China’s rise and its assumption of global leadership positions are an inevitable extension of earlier periods in its history, when it was the world’s most powerful country. This is often at odds with the global norms that have been established – with China’s participation, it is worth adding – since the 1940s. While this is clearly the Chinese century, few outside of China would agree that Beijing’s global leadership is either inevitable or necessarily desired – certainly not on the Chinese government’s terms."
Jun 4th 2020
EXTRACT: "Many Americans are clearly horrified by their president’s crass and incendiary words. But will their disapproval be offset by anxiety about violent social unrest? Will age-old racial prejudices, often unspoken, or even acknowledged, still make them vote for the false security of a coarse white bully?  Much will depend on how hot this summer gets. If people think rationally in November, it is hard to imagine that enough of them would vote to keep this appalling administration in power for another four years. But fear is reason’s worst enemy."
Jun 2nd 2020
EXTRACT: "For starters, many Americans have accepted that they live in a winner-takes-all society of deepening inequality. While the wealth and incomes of those at the very top continue to grow, tens of millions of Americans struggle to afford health care, childcare, and other basic goods. This story has been told many times over. But what often goes unremarked is that the responsibility for managing the social costs of this system has been offloaded onto the police."
May 27th 2020
EXTRACT: "Obamagate is the latest conspiracy theory to be pushed by US president, Donald Trump. It started on the morning of May 10, when Trump retweeted the word “OBAMAGATE!” By the next day, the Obamagate hashtag had accrued over two million tweets and another four million by the end of the week. Trump has repeatedly reused the slogan on his Twitter feed since and it has been promoted by right-wing influencers including Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and many others....You are not alone if you’re confused by what Obamagate actually is or why Trump is tweeting about it."
May 23rd 2020
EXTRACT: "Not all aspects of our near and medium-term future can be foreseen at this juncture of the Covid-19 pandemic, but we now know enough to make some hypotheses about what is likely to change, based on what has already changed. The future is sure to look very different than it did before this decade began, regardless of whether a vaccine is found. If a vaccine is found, it is unlikely to be tested, approved, manufactured, and efficiently distributed to the world’s population of nearly 8 billion people for years. Bearing in mind that there is no vaccine for any coronavirus, what is likelier is that the world will be living with Covid-19 as a part of our ecosystem for many years to come – possibly permanently. That means that our new normal is probably already here."
May 21st 2020
EXTRACT: "LONDON – The new Franco-German proposal for a €500 billion ($547 billion) European recovery fund could turn out to be the most important historic consequence of the coronavirus. It is even conceivable that the deal struck between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron might one day be remembered as the European Union’s “Hamiltonian moment,” comparable to the 1790 agreement between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson on public borrowing, which helped to turn the United States, a confederation with little central government, into a genuine political federation."
May 19th 2020
EXTRACT: "In April 2011, Donald Trump, then considering a run for the presidency the following year, said that he had sent investigators to Hawaii to check out rumors that President Barack Obama wasn’t born there, but in Kenya, which would disqualify him for the presidency. His investigators, Trump declared, “cannot believe what they’re finding.” I can find no record of Trump being challenged on this outlandish claim at the time. In the fall of 2016, Trump, now the Republican presidential nominee, was convinced by his staff that he had to abandon this “birther” nonsense. He did so reluctantly, charging – also with no evidence – that such rumors had actually been initiated by his opponent, Hillary Clinton. There, in a nutshell, is Trump’s modus operandi: he’s not just a liar but a fabulist, seemingly unconcerned with whether his fictions will be exposed. If they are, the world simply moves on as he invents fresh distractions."
May 19th 2020
EXTRACT: "Li, a doctor, was purportedly silenced and chastised by Chinese officials for warning on December 30, 2019, about a new virus in the Wuhan hospital where he worked. When it became evident that he was on to something serious – so serious, in fact, that it ultimately killed him – the Chinese government changed its tune and celebrated Li’s bravery. If only that had happened sooner, the argument goes, the world would have avoided this horrific pandemic.................... But that’s not what happened."
May 9th 2020
EXTRACT: "Jana Winter and Hunter Walker at Yahoo News broke the story that 11 Secret Service agents have tested positive for the coronavirus. Likely some of them served in the West Wing. This week it was revealed at that a US military valet who brought Trump food came down with the virus, sending Trump into a “lava level” rage. Two aides to Vice President Mike Pence have tested positive. Some observers are afraid that the virus is circulating in the West Wing itself."
May 6th 2020
EXTRACT: "There has been much debate around the world about the source of the COVID-19 pandemic, ranging from a laboratory to Wuhan’s seafood market to some other form of animal-to-human transmission. While there is no proof (yet) that the virus may have been inadvertently released from one of the two biological research laboratories located at Wuhan, there is evidence that viral release has occurred in the past, and a host of additional data that point to a laboratory connection. "
May 4th 2020
EXTRACT: "A better bet is that nothing will be the same. Wealth will be destroyed on a catastrophic scale, and policymakers will need to find a way to ensure that, at least in some cases, creditors take part of the hit, a process that will play out over years of negotiation and litigation. For bankruptcy lawyers and lobbyists, it will be a bonanza, part of which will come from pressing taxpayers to honor bailout guarantees. Such a scenario would be an unholy mess."
Apr 29th 2020
EXTRACT: "We need the twenty-first century’s two superpowers, America and China, to set the example, by burying their rivalry and uniting all of humankind around a collective response to the current crisis, and to those that await us. As COVID-19 has taught us, the old international system can no longer guarantee humankind’s safety and security. We cannot afford to be taught that lesson twice."
Apr 29th 2020
EXTRACT: "It should come as no surprise that Trump has abused his power in orchestrating the federal response to the pandemic. For example, he made sure that Colorado received 100 much-needed ventilators, and made sure that Colorado voters knew it, in order to help re-elect troubled incumbent Republican senator Cory Gardner.  More alarming, Trump effectively threatened to wage germ warfare against US Postal Service workers by denying them congressionally approved virus-mitigation aid unless the USPS quadrupled rates on packages. Trump’s actual target was Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post."
Apr 28th 2020
EXTRACT: "These ten risks, already looming large before COVID-19 struck, now threaten to fuel a perfect storm that sweeps the entire global economy into a decade of despair. By the 2030s, technology and more competent political leadership may be able to reduce, resolve, or minimize many of these problems, giving rise to a more inclusive, cooperative, and stable international order. But any happy ending assumes that we find a way to survive the coming Greater Depression."
Apr 26th 2020
EXTRACT: "In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Federal Reserve will buy unlimited quantities of Treasury bonds, the Bank of England will purchase £200 billion ($250 billion) of gilts, and the European Central Bank up to €750 billion ($815 billion) of eurozone bonds. Almost certainly, central banks will end up providing monetary finance to fund fiscal deficits. The only question is whether they should make that explicit."