As an unabashed admirer of Robert Gates, it behooves me to point out that Gates' declared "weariness" of wars of choice didn't prevent escalation in Iraq, escalation in Afghanistan, or the Libya war. I seem to recall he played a role in all three.
I know, I know, I'm not being fair. The Iraq surge was decided before Gates arrived at the Pentagon. Gates was a late decider and reluctant supporter of the Afghanistan surge. He was the dissenting voice on Libya who saluted and got on with it.
But that's really the point: he saluted and got on with all three optional wars. There's an argument for escalation in Iraq and Afghanistan that holds escalation to be the surer path to winding down the wars. I respect it more than I can assent to it, since it collapses the essential distinction between ending wars and waging them, and that's the crucial distinction to anyone who's rigorously critical of wars of choice.
On Libya, Gates could have quit. Not only would that have placed a huge roadblock in the path of The Third Optional War, it would have granted Gates the retirement he's proclaimed he wanted for, oh, four and a half years.
There's a simpler way to be weary of wars of choice: oppose them. You're the man in the arena. You have the power to resist, and a considerable constituency -- in the country and in the Pentagon -- for resisting. I have yet to meet a military officer who favors the Libya war; I've met lots who opposed the Two Surges, and many more who are conflicted. It's not like you have to grow weary of optional wars after years of painful experience.
"Weary" is a condition, not a reason either to act or not to act.
One should look at events, and decide if they present a compelling argument for action.
No rational person could have honestly reached the conclusion in 2003 that Iraq represented an immediate threat to the US, no matter the discussion of WMDs. And while military action against al Quaeda and the Taliban government that gave them safe harbor made sense, as soon as the Taliban fell and al Quaeda relocated to Pakistan, there was simply no compelling argument for a continued US military presence in theater.
But the argument for Libya was different. The world had stood by and watched Rwanda and Somalia. Before that, they made promises they chose not to keep in Srebrenica and found themselves complicit in mass murder. Now, here was a dictator challenged by a democratic rebellion, which he promised to put down while showing 'no mercy'. He had the air, the armor, the artillery and heavy weapons to do it, and his forces were closing inexorably on the rebel population centers in the East.
The world had two options - to stand down once again, or to act. It may end badly, and it may turn out to be yet another disastrous decision. But I simply cannot say I would prefer to live in a world that didn't have the political courage and will to at least TRY to prevent another massacre of innocents...
mikey
Posted by: mikey | 06/18/2011 at 11:22 AM
The article uses the word "wary," not "weary."
And concerning wars of choice, I'm both.
Posted by: just john | 06/18/2011 at 11:35 AM
Aaaaaand I'm increasingly dyslexic in my old age. But I think the point stands!
Posted by: Attackerman | 06/18/2011 at 11:37 AM
It's not dyslexia, Spencer. The article's html "title code" says "weary." You might have seen the title code through an RSS feed or at the top of your browser.
Posted by: Frank Lynch | 06/19/2011 at 07:47 AM