Who Cares About Limited Warfare?
Jay
May 25, 2009, 8:42 pm

Modern day culture is full of contradictions both superficial and profound. A person who rails against greedy corporations could also be found stressing over the state of his portfolio, which is comprised of the very companies that he was criticizing. A person could argue that people must respect the rule of law while consistently driving 15+ MPH over the limit and then becoming outraged when they receive a speeding ticket. And most Americans hate the thought of war while eagerly lining up at the box office to watch the latest action packed blockbuster, which usually comprises of some heroic figure gunning down a bunch of bad guys while spewing a bunch of semi-funny one-liners.



In the United States, there is wide, albeit shallow, support for our military. But we are extremely reluctant to bring it to bear, even when military action can be justified. Perhaps this is a good thing. Warfare should never be undertaken lightly, and only when all other practical options have expired.

I have no problem with treating warfare as a last resort. In the modern era, war should be something to avoid until not going to war becomes irreconcilable with our duty as a citizen or even as a human being. But I do have a problem in the way America conducts war, after the decision to "send in the Marines" has been made. We simply lack the will to win our military engagements as soon as the first obstacle, real or imagined, is encountered.

All American military conflicts after WWII have, consciously or unconsciously, been undertaken with a doctrine of limited warfare. That is, the United States has never really had to make a choice between guns or butter. We could always have both. There is a very good reason for this. After WWII, the United States was the mightiest country on Earth. There was no country, or even group of countries, that could threaten the existence of the US. That meant we would never have to marshal all or even most of our economic resources to destroy an enemy after we met them in combat. A fraction of our national wealth devoted to the military would be enough to defeat any foe.



The implications of that are profound. WWII ultimately took about 140% of GDP to defeat (along with the British and the Russians) both Nazi Germany and Japan. Our largest military engagement after that, the Vietnam War, took about 10% of GDP and about 500,000 active duty personnel. But unlike WWII, Vietnam was not viewed by the political establishment as a "gotta win it" war.

During WWII, the government would suppress dissent, illegally impound (German or Japanese) Americans into internment camps, and conduct a relentless propaganda campaign to boost domestic morale. Reporters embedded with units on the front would not, could not report bad news that could possibly hurt morale. The government's conduct during Vietnam is a stark contrast. Marches on Capitol Hill went undeterred. Reporters, most notably Walter Cronkite, were allowed to say the US was losing in Vietnam without official reprise.

This is even more perplexing when considering that the Federal government was infinitely more powerful during the 60s and 70s than the Federal government of 30 years ago. What changed?

Let's start with the obvious. The years before and during WWII, the United States did not believe it was the strongest country on earth, even though it had been ever since the end of WWI. After WWII, every politician in Washington believed it. The political class sincerely believed that, sooner or later, the USA would be playing for keeps during WWII. They did not believe that in Vietnam.



Ultimately, they were right on both counts. Hitler's "Second Book" (never published in his lifetime) revealed his private views on the global state of affairs and held the United States as the ultimate enemy of Germany. He intended to start WWII to conquer enough territories for German Lebensraum in order to compete against what he saw as a nascent American hyperpower.

But Vietnam merely confirmed Washington's belief that Kennan's theory of containment was erroneous (even though Reagan ultimately vindicated it). Even when all of Vietnam turned communist, it did not significantly alter the state of affairs in Indochina other than shaking off the last vestiges of French imperialism.

But if Vietnam didn't matter, why go in in the first place? During the last phase of Vietnam, we could have escalated the conflict and won it or we could withdraw. We chose the latter option. Why throw away 50,000 American lives and billions of dollars on something that was not crucial to our national interest?

This brings me to Iraq II. In 2007, Bush was faced with the exact same choice that Nixon was given in 1969. Escalate or get out. Nixon chose a hybrid option. He escalated in order to get out by forcing the North Vietnamese to the table. Bush escalated to win, and we had the "troop surge". Under General Petraeus, the surge was an undeniable success. Additional American presence throughout Baghdad and other Iraqi cities pacified the country and allowed political progress on many fronts.



The Iraq today is an order of magnitude more peaceful and stable than the Iraq of 2006 and early 2007. Assuming that President Obama will carry on with Bush's policies in Iraq (and he largely has), Iraq is well on its way to becoming a post-industrial, democratic, Arab ally of the United States. The benefits of such a country to the United States are enormous.

But even that doesn't really matter. During the Cold War, Vietnam was of marginal importance. What really mattered was that the United States was on the right side of history. From 1945 to 1991, the overriding issue of paramount geopolitical significant was the bilateral relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. And what really mattered is that the United States would eventually win the Cold War due to our significantly larger, and more dynamic economy.

In the 21st century, we have another overriding issue. And that's the bilateral relationship of the United States and the People's Republic of China. Iraq is a side issue compared to this. What really matters, or in ordinary speak, the trillion dollar question is this: will the United States be on the right side of history again?

And that is the reason why winning wars is so hard for us. They don't really matter, even though they kind of do.