Today I was aimlessly channel-checking and ran across one of my favorite programs – Conversations with History on UCTV. Created and hosted by Harry Kriesler, the Executive Director of the Institute of International Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, Conversations with History is an interview program, created as “a way to capture and preserve through conversation and technology the intellectual ferment of our times.”
Today Dr. Kriesler was interviewing Gideon Rose, editor of Foreign Affairs magazine, on his new book How Wars End. Topics covered include: his intellectual journey, the challenges of editing Foreign Affairs, public discourse on international affairs, the interplay between ideas and action, the politics of ending wars, Obama's strategy in Afghanistan, and the lessons to be learned from the record of American war termination from World War I to the second Iraq War. I found it encouraging, in this era of endless and ever-multiplying wars, that someone at least remembered that wars could be ended.
Rose did a lot more than that. This was a brilliant interview with someone who clearly is not afraid to think deeply about issues and, more importantly, to tell the truth. I have not read How Wars End, but after hearing this interview, it is at the top of my reading list. I will hit some of the program highlights below the fold and link to the hour-long video in the Tip Jar.
Kriesler asked for some details on Rose’s career and the magazine he edits. After giving a short bio, he spoke of the mission of Foreign Affairs to give voice to ideas that are “competent and well informed, representing honest opinions seriously held and convincingly expressed.” When asked about its influence on national policy, he replied, “I edit the magazine as if there were a wise policy maker paying attention, but I am under no illusion that there is.”
Rose explained one of the major problems in extricating a nation from war. He said that there are two categories of ways to end war. The first category is the good solutions, where everyone knows the answer, what needs to be done, but the good solutions cannot be done because of the cost, lack political will, etc. The second category is where no one wants to talk about it – either a solution has been decided upon and is underway (as in Iraq now) or the solutions all cost too much, either fiscally or politically (like in Afghanistan).
Noting that “I almost subtitled the book ‘Smart Policy Makers, Dumb Decisions,’ Rose talked about the role of power and resources in ending wars. He explained that having too many resources (like the U.S.) is a mixed blessing because it leads to bad decisions, adding
When you have a lot of money, the tendency is to act on whims and throw money at problems, rather than to think about them and craft good solutions. When you have a lot, you don’t think out policy.
He cited as an example of this the Korean War. Although this was covered up at the time, when the archives relating to the Korean War were opened in the 1980s, it was revealed that the Korean war took an extra two years to end because of the POW issue. The end to the war was negotiated in six months and then it took another six months to iron out the logistical details.
At that point, Secretary of State Dean Acheson decided any Korean or Chinese POW that wanted to would be allowed to stay in U.S. He imagined it would make for good PR and a few photo ops. It sounded good, but was poorly thought out. Because it raised so many issues – What about their families? How would they be used for propaganda both here and in North Korea? What would they say about the (as it turns out) deplorable conditions under which we had held them as prisoners? Would it raise the possibility of international sanctions?– it took an additional 18 months to work out. And while they were working it out, the war continued.
In connection with the role abundant resources play in the national decision to start wars, Rose talked about the constraints that usually reign in even the wealthiest and most powerful nations. In most administrations, there are two kinds of constraints: internal and external. External constraints are other countries, and we are bound by what they will tolerate. Internal constraints are what the people in the country will tolerate.
He noted that the unique thing about the Bush administration was that it was characterized by a lack of constraint.
Clinton was a master of internal politics and he built up a huge reservoir of internal good will for government policies, which Bush then expended. Internally, 9/11 removed all constraints on war-making. People were howling for revenge, so he was free to pursue wars of aggression without constraint. External constraints were removed because we had the money and materiel to do what we wanted, and Bush simply didn’t care what any other country wanted or thought.
In discussing ideas on how to end wars, Rose explained that wars should be started with the end in mind. Because “no one ever completes number 4 on the “To Do” list,” the decision should not be: 1. invade, 2., subdue, 3. establish new leadership, and 4. go home . To effectively end a war, you should start with the end in mind -- what would a successful end situation look like? – then reverse-engineer your strategy to get to that goal. Instead of a To Do list, it should be treated at a countdown
Rose also explained how the “surge” in Iraq actually made it more difficult for Obama to end the conflict in Afghanistan. Because it established a “successful” military model for “winning” the war in Iraq, it made it seem that a military solution was possible. Therefore, choosing to just get out of Afghanistan without deploying a surge-type strategy left Obama open to charges that he “just quit” and gave up on Afghanistan.
In discussing ending the war in Afghanistan, Rose made a profound comment:
Choices between lousy options don’t get any better if you ignore reality.
Before you rush off to check out the comments, here is a word from our sponsors. . . .
We have so many insightful and powerful diaries written here at Daily Kos. Our diaries inform, inflame, impassion, and even entertain. We Kossacks have strong voices and an even stronger will to be the change we wish to see in this country.
One of the richest, and perhaps most under-appreciated, areas of thought come in the form of comments attached to these diaries.
Here at Top Comments we strive to recognize and promote the talent of this community by highlighting outstanding comments found throughout the day by the diarist, and through nominations by other Kossacks. So when you find a comment that enlightens, entertains, or encourages, send it to:
topcomments at gmail dot com.
Comments should get to the inbox by 9:30 EST to be included that day (but we will carry over later ones). Don’t forget to include your Dkos screename, a link to the nominee, and a brief comment about why you think it is a Top Comment.
Tonight’s Top Comments. . . .
From A Lizard:
play jurist gives a good explanation of the corporatist business model in Muskegon Critic's diary New Bill Amendment Banning Ofshore Wind Power in Michigan.
From
asimbagirl:
It's a bit long, but utterly fascinating - the story behind the original Tea Party. Thanks to Khun David for posting!
From
indyada:
This diary-worthy comment by NBBooks sums up the looting of America by the Wall Street banksters, from the diary Harry David Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy by madame damnable.
I especially like the last graph regarding Obama; t'would be great if there was an answer to the closing question NBBooks raises.
From
sardonyx:
In ProgressiveWarrior's first diary entry, potatohead writes a truly excellent comment, that "the right to read, and the freedom to think critically are the two most basic things in my life that I value."
NWTerriD agrees with occams hatchet's guess at teacher priorities, but says she has a second, more selfish priority, and I'm very glad she took the time to write about it.
From Ed Tracey:
In the diary by madame damnable about the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Oregon specialty fruit merchants Harry & David - but how few mention the company's purchase in 2004 by a private equity firm who proceeded to slash its workforce (and service departments in particular) - judy99 noted that her employer used to use Harry & David for corporate gifts, but that "around 2004 we didn't seem to get the great service in organizing the lists of recipients, etc. that we received in prior years" - and switched vendors. Now, she understands why.
From me:
Habitat Vic brings some harsh reality to the table. And then he explains the real issue preventing the U.S. from addressing deficits.
judyms9 points out the irony of of the GOP outsourcing writing legislation in CalbraithRodgers' must-read diary I Write the Laws, I Write the Laws.
In that same diary, Cartoon Peril poignently illustrates what it means if the GOP succeeds in destroying unions.
mike101 makes an important point about the ratio of goverment jobs to manufacturing jobs in the era of outsourcing and unemployment in Avenging Angel's outstanding diary Beggar Thy Neighbor, Beggar Thyself.