A great deal has been said and written about the lying our public figures do, recently. After the “misremembering war events” scandal that brought Brian Williams down, Bill O’Reilly has been subjected to scrutiny over his claims of witnessing combat during the Falklands War. This past week, Secretary of the VA Bob McDonald has been criticized for claiming to a homeless man to have been in Special Forces – he was not. Chris Kyle, of course, is remembered as a hero by many, despite having a demonstrable record of lying about events (much of this occurred post-moral injury, when Kyle was suffering from PTSD). Hillary Clinton lied about being shot at by snipers and is polling stronger than any other potential Democratic candidate for President in 2016. Army veteran (who should goddamn know better) and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal lied about serving in Vietnam. Republican Congresswoman and military veteran (who should also know better) Joni Ernst has received criticism over calling herself a “combat veteran” using a very broad definition of “combat.”
People lie. There seems to be a fairly broad consensus along the political spectrum that politicians lie a great deal – whether you believe that “your” people lie less or less harmfully probably goes a ways toward establishing how one votes in an election (having become fairly disillusioned, I recently registered Independent, abandoning the Democratic Party). This explains why a state populated primarily by Democrats would elect Richard Blumenthal over his Republican rival, despite his – well – lying about combat. This explains why Democrats are happy to forgive Hillary for lying about being in combat (misremembering is not something that happens when you’ve been under sniper fire once), and why Republicans think that Joni Ernst should be given the benefit of the doubt for her admittedly less egregious (but still fairly stupid) description of having been in combat, when she was posted to Kuwait, quite far from combat. In this case, her description of herself as a combat veteran is less annoying than her repeated and ongoing defense of that untruth.
I should also point out that most combat veterans, myself included, don’t feel that combat experience gives one special insight about life that one would covet, save that combat is a situation to be avoided at all costs. When one considers that politicians who experienced combat throughout history continued to encourage or abet warfare, it’s impossible to conclude that there’s any real utility to combat as a morally didactic lesson, save potentially on an individual level.
It’s slightly different with journalism, in that, technically, in order to call oneself a journalist it’s important that one adhere to certain unwritten but widely-obeyed rules: don’t get involved in a story, don’t plagiarize, don’t lie. O’Reilly has already said he’s not a journalist, and has no credibility with people who aren’t a certain type of conservative – this seems to have insulated him from the brunt of the fury that resulted in Brian Williams’ demise.
And that’s fascinating! Williams, by defining himself as a journalist, made himself more vulnerable to truth-criticisms from people that watch his program than O’Reilly. (For the record, I was fine with him continuing as an anchor – anyone who thinks journalists, who are human, don’t directly or indirectly lie [routinely] should be banned from ever voting)
I wanted to compare how various public figures seem to be judged on their military lies, so I threw together a basic chart and mapped public perceptions of journalists and other truth-tellers onto it.
What I found was… well, not shocking at all, really. O’Reilly’s posse sticks up for him and he won’t be fired despite having lied I’ve put myself on the spectrum (right in the middle there) because if one is going to make a claim about a thing, well, have the sack to tell others where you fall.)
And Williams, who has a more discerning audience that is willing to entertain shades of gray, suffers by comparison:
And just to see how that works out with politicians – there’s the Republican case of Joni Ernst, who has claimed (playing off a credulous public’s unfamiliarity with battle and sympathetic media) that she was in combat because she was in a combat zone. Which is exactly like me saying I got the shit kicked out of me once at a bar because there were a group of guys at the end of bar muttering and looking over at me and I was really worried about getting the shit kicked out of me. Someone who had once gotten a severe ass-whipping would probably take issue with my claim, as I do hers. Let’s see if she’s going to be fired or held to account or not (remembering that this is a question of whether or not someone’s worthy of the trust, confidence, and respect of the public):
Looks like Ernst is gonna be okay – the Republicans have her back (not surprisingly), and the Democrats / media don’t feel like evaluating her claims on their merits, and calling a liar a liar. Of course, if they did that with Ernst, they’d have to do that with Hillary Clinton, the putative fundraising frontrunner for 2016, and – don’t forget – maybe our first female president. What does it matter if she happened to lie about – well, anything?
I’m also down on Clinton because of that “we need to go into Iraq” thing she did, which if anyone remembers, was basically responsible for all the horrors we see in the Middle East today – a place that used to be filled with sensible dictators who were amenable to bribes and arms deals and could be relied on to limit their war crimes to 25,000 or 30,000 dead every decade – a tiny fraction of the dead since we became involved over there. But it looks like she’s going to walk, too.
In conclusion, the lies that get told to us by our political leadership don’t seem to matter as much as the lies that are told by people who call themselves “journalists,” which may or may not involve abiding by a set of agreed-upon rules to tell stories in a certain way. And while “liberals” or “progressives” tend to evaluate journalists and people outside their group more generously than “conservatives,” both groups are equally bad at applying rigorous scrutiny to their politicians.
So it goes.
I think the difference for politicians isn’t so much that we don’t care or that they’re likable as that it really is public opinion at issue. Brian Williams’ got in trouble because his falsehoods conflicted with the network’s branding. Fox doesn’t really care if most people think they’re duplicitous; it’s even arguably helpful for them to be condemned, since it fits with their conspiracy theory marketing.
Politicians, though, go to the public — and for the most part the public doesn’t pay attention to…well, to just about anything. People vote based on partisanship, because folks don’t usually have time/inclination to follow the news cycle. If you do something really egregious, or sexually scandalous, it can hurt you — but short of that people aren’t thinking about it too hard, would be my guess.
When did Hillary Clinton ever say “we need to go into Iraq”? Her Senate speech regarding the Iraq AUMF vote was highly ambivalent. She only favored invading Iraq if and only if Saddam Hussein did not comply with weapons inspections, which is all the AUMF authorized. Saddam did comply with the inspections. However, Dubya pulled the inspectors out when they didn’t find anything. We then invaded Iraq in violation of the AUMF.
The text of Clinton’s Senate speech re: the AUMF vote can be read here.These are some relevant excerpts:
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
[snip]
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
[snip]
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action.
[snip]
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.
[snip]
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.
[snip]
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
[snip]
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him – use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed.
Where did Hillary say we should go into Iraq? When she voted in favor of the resolution to do so. All the words that were said before she chose to say “Yay” over “Nay” were 100% irrelevant, at least to the soldiers on both sides (who fought and were hurt or died). She stood up and was counted with Dubya at the only moment that really mattered. Others had the foresight and strategic understanding and wisdom to see that voting “Yay” would lead us into catastrophe.
“(much of this occurred post-moral injury, when Kyle was suffering from PTSD)” I know that was a typo, but it was an *awesome* one.
Adrian–
1) Your view of Clinton and the AUMF is quite tendentious. Supporting an invasion if certain U. N. resolutions are not complied with is not the same as supporting an invasion outright. Saddam complied with the resolutions. If Bush had complied with the AUMF, we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq.
2) If Clinton didn’t say it, then don’t put it in quotes and imply that she did. That’s deceitful.
3) The word is “yea,” as in supporting passage, not “Yay” as in an expression of triumph. Your propagandist slip is showing.
4) I’m rather curious as to who you would identify as the “others” who “had the foresight and strategic understanding and wisdom to see that voting “Yay” [sic] would lead us into catastrophe.” Obama isn’t one of them, by the way. He went on the record in a 2004 interview with Tim Russert that if he had been in the U. S. Senate at the time of the AUMF vote, he doesn’t know how he would have voted.
So…suggesting it’s some kind of propagandistic misstep to substitute yay for yea seems pretty ungenerous. People make spelling mistakes, you know?
I think it’s fair to hold Clinton accountable for her support of the Iraq war. Lots of folks thought we shouldn’t do that (like me, as just one example.) The vote in the Senate wasn’t unanimous; there were massive protests, etc. Clinton’s always been something of a hawk; she made a stupid decision and lots and lots of people died. I’ll probably end up voting for her myself this time around, but it’s not crazy or deceitful to decide that her decision there was unforgivable.
Noah–
My experience with blogging and online writing largely began during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign. I have a lot of experience arguing with Obamabots, and that misspelling when talking about the AUMF vote was pretty common among them. It may be an honest mistake on Adrian’s part, but that meme is just as calculated as as Republicans using “Democrat”–rhymes with rat–as an adjective instead of the correct “Democratic.” The only people I’ve seen make that mistake about yay-versus-yea are O-bots and others afflicted with Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
Beyond that, you and Adrian are both portraying things as the AUMF was approved, and then we immediately invaded. Far, far from it.
Adrian, I really like your bar analogy. I will try to remember to give you credit when I use it.
Yeah…I would say give Adrian the benefit of the doubt, you know?
I think authorizing any invasion of Iraq for any reason at that time was wildly irresponsible, inspections or no inspections. People who signed onto that are directly responsible for the worst foreign policy disaster of our lifetime, not to mention tens of thousands of dead at least and the ongoing catastrophe that is Iraq and Syria. It’s not deranged to feel that anyone involved is unfit for public service. Though, like I said, I’ll probably end up voting for her because the alternative will be worse. I don’t know what I’d do if Rand Paul got the nomination, but that’s not going to happen, so I don’t really need to worry about it.
Robert, you seem really angry, brother! I, by contrast, am sad.
1) By your reasoning, people should vote for or against issues based on their likely potential outcome rather than whether or not they agree with the motion in question. The best thing I could say about that is it holds equal potential for good or for mischief – although it doesn’t seem to take morality into account. That terrifies me, that leaders should ignore the moral quality of the outcome of an action – it doesn’t seem to bother you. I hope our leaders encounter only pleasant outcomes, for both our sakes. In your example, Clinton and Bush encountered a very bad outcome, the results of which we’re seeing today.
2) I never implied, nor did I say, that Clinton spoke the following words: “We need to go into Iraq.” I said “that ‘we need to go into Iraq’ thing she did.” Which implies, with the context, that she voted – yea – in favor of us going into Iraq.
3) “Tendentious” is a great word. I have two angles, both of which I’ll freely admit: -(1) I’m opposed to stupid wars, having been in one (Clinton has proven her willingness to drag us into bad wars, and looks likely based on her actions and statements to drag us into more)
-(2) I’d like my political leadership not to lie. A quality that is acceptable and inevitable in a human and citizen is unacceptable in people who are making important life-and-death decisions.
You seem good with words – what’s a word for a person who focuses on the letter of the law and the definitions of things but doesn’t see their meaning so ends up sounding sort of mean and small-minded? I’m not near a dictionary.
4) Two great examples of people who had the strategic foresight and wisdom – both of whom I’ve met, and have integrity in ways Hillary clearly does not – are Rosa De Lauro (D-CT) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). They stood up for what was right and decent, while others (Clinton (D-NY), conspicuously) did not. As a result, their words have weight and credibility.
So seriously – it doesn’t bother you that Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed to have been under sniper fire with her daughter in Bosnia, during an election year, when her foreign policy credibility was at stake? Or that when confronted with proof that this was not the case, she said that she had “misspoke” and ducked any real responsibility for the deception? http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=hpmostpop
If that doesn’t bother you, frankly, it seems a little crazy that a misspelling would. Especially given that there are political leaders who don’t feel compelled to lie when they feel a little fire under their feet.
I missed the Obama-bot comment. I can assure everyone that I have never voted for Obama, or supported his Presidency. I’m happy he was elected rather than McCain, who seemed increasingly deranged as the campaign went on, but predicted early that he’d run into problems with foreign policy, as he has. His utter unpreparedness for the office of Presidency is not itself an argument for Clinton, however, who was unprepared in different ways. Just because I don’t like Hillary, doesn’t mean I like Obama – I don’t!
I agree with the generalization “people are always more willing to rationalize the bad behavior of people they see as one of their own”. I question those “charts” which seem not data-driven but broad cliches of Independent Thought vs. Reflexively Biased Mass.
Except Hilary’s lie was exposed during the 2008 primary and a whole lot of Democrats decided that she should be denied the job as President and a whole lot of Democrats still do. That Democratic officials, prominent pundits and Hillary fans are willing to soft-pedal it does not equal public opinion. Even among those who like or identify with Hilary for some reasons question her for others and wouldn’t vote for her again – remember, her last position of power was appointed, not elected.
I think it’s important to consider the constraints which inform tolerance of liars. Elections are often about choosing a candidate which best serves ones agenda than a person one could embrace or personally endorse. Which doesn’t disillusion me – co-existing with a a vast amount of other humans means sometimes the best available option is just the least objectionable to one’s ideals.
In this context, Bill O’Reilly lies are in a context that doesn’t matter to his status with fans and the product’s value (for now). Just as Rob Liefeld somehow manages to cling to status within comics despite his inability to draw feet.
Brian Williams is more disposable, better known to many viewers from cut-up raps on Fallon than the news show. His status and value was highly dependent on conveying an aura of integrity.
Williams also had the disadvantage of a more recent and vividly documented screw up which involved some network complicity (it appears a headline was the first to misrepresent his claim).
Personally, I think he got hit hardest because of uncomfortable recognition of human frailty in his behavior. We don’t like thinking about we are all vulnerable to supplanting actual memory with a good anecdote. It seems like Williams was genuinely invested or believed his version. I’d like to think if I had the resources Williams did, I’d verify my memories regularly, but it seems not. An object lesson in the overwhelming power of self-delusion is not what a declining market for prime time news wants.
I must also add most of the essay was great – the bar analogy was particularly insightful – except for the charts.
Also Robert – you seem to be implying that you supported Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2008 through writing – if this is the case, naturally that puts your angle in perspective. I don’t know what “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” is – does seem pretty disingenuous on your part to impute motives to me, and attack me through implication when your own motives are unclear. As Noah pointed out, he will probably vote for her in 2016 out of necessity, and therefore “forgives” (he didn’t say that, I’m just putting the word in quotes to demonstrate that his action is producing the reaction designated) her lie – ultimately this has been a disturbingly personal exploration of what I claimed in my piece, which is that the Democratic party will allow Clinton to slide, despite this important failing as a leader (notice I didn’t write “failing as a candidate” – she seems very well suited to candidacy).
Linke – thank you for reading. The charts were an indulgence. I couldn’t resist.
I’d be more inclined to give Adrian the benefit of the doubt if he hadn’t attributed that quote to Clinton. She never said it. That’s a much bigger deal to me than yea-versus-yay.
Also, based on what he’s written elsewhere, I question whether Adrian would have objected to the Iraq invasion in 2002, or whether his present stance is CDS-related. You are aware he favors military action against Russia given the way things are presently going with Ukraine, don’t you? Putin, like Saddam, needs to be “contained.” He is no dove.
I recently saw a discussion on Facebook among female veterans regarding Joni Ernst’s combat veteran status that highlighting a unique problem for a lot of female veterans: due to the ban on women in combat, women officially aren’t combat veterans. There were women who were sent to war zones in support roles, and combat came to them, like Shoshana Johnson and Jessica Lynch who were taken prisoner. But upon returning home, many female vets have had a difficult time getting treatment and benefits related to the combat they actually experienced. The impression I came away with was that these women are so desperate for Congressional representation that they’re willing to give Ernst the benefit of the doubt.
Adrian–
I supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in 2008. There’s no mystery about it.
“I don’t know what “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” is…” O. K., that’s enough. Talk about disingenuous. That’s not a hard expression to understand even if you’ve never encountered it before. This dialogue isn’t going anywhere productive, so I’m taking my leave.
Tracey – that’s very interesting – makes a lot of sense, or at least explains the willingness to forgive. There are female combat veterans (again the distinction doesn’t mean much to those who haven’t served, or in absolute terms) – Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth being a fine example. Ernst shouldn’t get a free pass for being a female veteran – though she deserves respect for her (non-combat) service.
Robert – I have advocated for containment of Russia specifically because I do not want war – especially the type that will lead to mutual destruction. Putin has put Russia on a very dangerous path, and we are allowing that to happen. Our chances of containing Putin’s aggression were higher at its beginning – I’ve been backing away from containment lately (as can be seen in tweets, etc.) because I’m not sure now that it would be productive or effective in the way it would have six or nine months ago. Battlefields change.
There are people in my family who are obsessed with politics and political-speak like Obama-not and Saul Alinsky and etcetera. I don’t lie because it’s impossible to have a conversation otherwise, and I do not hide behind disingenuous statements or half-truths for the same reason. So you may trust that when I say I have no idea what Clinton Derangement Syndrome is – that this is, in fact, the first time I’m aware of even having heard of it – I am telling the truth. My area of expertise is foreign policy / military / and veteran affairs. I can assure you that I have no idea what you’re talking about. Implying or saying that I do means that you think I’m lying, which is extraordinary given the essay I’ve written, and the pieces I’ve written elsewhere, as well as the things I’ve tweeted and posted elsewhere. While everything I’ve said is not to be taken at face value – I believe in irony, sarcasm, and satire as ways of hammering home a difficult point – to accuse me of dishonesty is about as wrong as you can get.
If you ever want to have an honest and forthright conversation about leadership (about which I know a bit, having led soldiers in combat, forward and back) or foreign policy, I’m happy to do so. Withdrawing yourself from the conversation after offering several cheap and unsupported attacks on my person is churlish and – based on the excellent writing and thinking I’ve seen you do on this site and elsewhere – totally beneath you.
“I have advocated for containment of Russia specifically because I do not want war…”
Don’t you think that the US/NATO’s policy of “containment” is precisely what got Ukraine/Europe into this position in the first place?
Hilary Clinton is pretty contemptible as far as foreign policy issues are concerned – forget about her record on Iraq, most people nowadays are focused on her sickening record on Libya. She clearly has not repented in any shape or fashion.
Speaking as someone with a whole Theory about how James Frey was a scapegoat for Americans’ outrage and anxiety about the war in Iraq, I submit that Brian Williams got into trouble precisely because he seemed, as a person, trustworthy. Not as a journalist per se, but as a sort of friend who ppl invite into their homes every night after work.
Politicians rarely seem likable or credible or accessible. We don’t think of them as familiars, so their transgressions aren’t betrayals in the same sense. They don’t hurt our feelings or damage our egos when they lie because (as you say) we expect them to.
Ng Suat Tong – that’s a great question – probably *the* question. Broadly speaking, yes – the US/NATO’s *policy* (or lack thereof) since the fall of the Soviet Union has amounted to gestures that have been interpreted in Russia as economically and militarily belligerent. Yes. I can’t adequately express in comment or tweet form how disappointed and angry I am – we should all be – in the State Department, and how they’ve bungled things these past 25 years.
So having acknowledged that the actions of NATO/US from 1991-2013 helped set the stage for a jerk like Putin to take power in Russia, we’re presented with the situation last year: Ukraine. Putin reacts, emotionally, to perceived slights, and stupidly gambles peace and stability in Europe – invades Ukraine *and annexes* Crimea. At that moment, at that specific moment, the correct move for us and for Europe should have been to send a strong signal to Putin and Russia that his actions were intolerable – by sending military forces forward. Behind closed doors, we could have negotiated a face-saving accommodation with him – he gets to keep Crimea and go no further. He’d have been able to say he got what he wanted, and we could have figured out where to go with the mess we have.
Instead, we did… *nothing.* We imposed sanctions that did almost nothing to him, directly – destabilized the energy market – blew a lot of credibility talking about international violations and etc., and allowed Putin to *continue* his march westward. As he has done.
The problem with this type of situation is one we saw in WWII. When you don’t stop a bully and tyrant with force early, when they’re still hesitant, you incentivize further gambles. And because what is acceptable / unacceptable to you becomes difficult for someone like Putin to gauge (who would have thought Russia’s annexation of Crimea was acceptable in 2014? Not this guy!), Putin ends up making more and more risky grabs. The worry, to those of us who are paying attention, is that Putin reaches too far – that he tries to take something that is actually intolerable to us. Estonia is part of NATO. How important is NATO to us? To Europe? A lot of people didn’t think Hitler would actually reach for Danzig, or that the Allies would necessarily go to war over Poland. Catastrophe always comes as a surprise, especially when it’s so damned avoidable.
Obviously this isn’t a comprehensive answer, and is being debated. My understanding of history, as well as my understanding of how bullies work psychologically through fighting low-level Taliban bullies in Afghanistan, leads me to believe I have assessed the situation properly.
The ‘we should have gone to war, then there wouldn’t be the current bad war’ position is so weird. Providing military aid to Ukraine right away would be in violation of international norms in Europe, it would have infuriated Germany and probably other Europeans, and there’s nothing that shows Russia would not have responded with it’s current escalation sooner. You would think that what Libya and Iraq show is that everything isn’t all roses once the bully has been stood up to, but I guess once you’ve served in the army everything looks like low-level Taliban.
That said, the Noam Chomsky-ish position Ng Suat Tong articulates, that everything is America’s fault because NATO should have stayed out of the former USSR block, is annoying too because it denies any agency to countries that have good reason to want to have protection from Russia. Protection that has worked so far, despite the hand wringing that we’re in 1939 again and Russia is really eying Estonia and Latvia.
(I’m also curious to see if Robert Stanley Martin’s defense of Clinton becomes mainstream in 2016, that when she voted for the AUMF she only did so to put force behind weapons inspections. It’s a claim that pays minute attention to the letter but not the spirit of the AUMF that I don’t think it could become a popular talking point, but who knows.)
“…gestures that have been interpreted as economically and militarily belligerent”
Or maybe they actually ARE belligerent. Isn’t foreign policy bungle thing getting a bit old?
I’m no apologist for Putin or anything, but when it comes to invading other counties…
Isaac – again, I never advocated going to war, nor did I advocate arming Ukraine. I advocated forward staging U.S. military units (specifically, 4 BCTs in Kiev and 1 BCT in Georgia) as a way of signaling Putin that his troop movements were unacceptable to us. Forward positioning soldiers is what we did from 1945-89 and what we’ve done in Korea since 1953, and it does a terrific job of keeping the bullies in check, without war. Bullies all act the same, from the playground to the deserts and mountains to the cities – when they risk getting worked over by a foe of equal or greater strength (and despite his rhetoric, Putin is pragmatic enough to understand that engaging the US military would result in his armed forces receiving an historic mauling, our equipment, air force, and soldiers are far better equipped and resourced than his own), they back down. Every time. The exception to this is when they don’t think that their actions will provoke a foe of equal or greater strength. Hence the miscalculation. Obviously, attacking our soldiers in strength would be a direct declaration of war on us, which Putin definitely does not want, as it would result in his destruction.
Putin’s strength is his military, and the support of his population. A year ago he was playing small stakes – our lack of action has allowed him to dream bigger. You’re probably right that troop movements on our part would be a bad move right now and would make things worse, which is why I’ve backed away from the idea. Which means we just need to ride things out, see what happens, and hope that he doesn’t overreach. If he does, he will likely lash out with nuclear weapons, and ensure that his destruction is our destruction as well. Those are the stakes.
Adrian, the problem there seems to me to be nuclear weapons. Like, are we willing to maul Putin’s army in the knowledge that if he’s pushed into a corner he could start a nuclear holocaust and end life on earth?
Hitler kept pushing in part becuase he had remarkable success early on. Putin is not having that kind of success in Ukraine, luckily.
Isaac: “because it denies any agency to countries that have good reason to want to have protection from Russia.”
I don’t think this is true. Suat’s position (I think) is that we shouldn’t have extended NATO, whatever those countries wanted. And I think he’s right. NATO should have been shelved after the USSR fell. It’s strategic reason for being was gone; keeping it just reinforced and continued a policy that positioned Russia as the enemy, making the paranoia of folks like Putin more credible to the public over there.
I doubt the ins and outs of the AUMF are going to be much discussed. Clinton doesn’t have any primary challenge to speak of, and it’s not like the Republicans are going to be throwing things at her for supporting the war in Iraq, since their official position is that it was all good and the only mistake was withdrawing.
Isaac–
To be perfectly honest, I don’t think anyone much cares about the AUMF vote besides the CDS contingent and their fellow travelers among the bourgeois left. Clinton is the only member of Congress who gets criticized for that vote. John Kerry and John Edwards both voted for it, and I didn’t hear a peep about it during the 2004 Dem primary campaign. Among the 2008 prospects, Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd voted for it as well, and there was no significant criticism there, either. Although the Obama campaign used it to gain traction against Clinton during the campaign, Obama obviously doesn’t give a damn about the AUMF vote. If he did, he wouldn’t have made Biden his VP, Clinton and Kerry his Secretaries of State, or Chuck Hagel his Secretary of Defense. None of the four were controversial choices. It’s a non-issue.
Noah – couldn’t agree more that disbanding NATO or expanding it to include Russia was the correct move, which we did not make for whatever reason. We messed up, bad.
Also agree, as any rational person would, that America’s misguided wars have only led to bad results. One can only *argue* that a war is just if it is waged in active defense of an imminent threat – and even then, there’s an argument to be made that one would be better served pursuing other means to peace.
Hitler got into a war he never really wanted with the West based on miscalculation. I think Putin’s had exactly the amount of success he wants in Ukraine – it allows him to claim that he’s in a war with a well-funded foe, and demonize the West – he’s like a cat, toying with a mouse. It suits his purposes to have Ukraine where it is because it suits his purposes, and he’s not sure what’s going to trigger a response from us.
I think that last point is key because – little known fact – we went to war against the Taliban when they refused to hand over Al Qaeda. If they’d given us Osama in 2001, we would not have invaded Afghanistan, and it would’ve been much more difficult to justify our going into Iraq. The reason – I am not making this up – that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama / AQ was because based on our actions 1991-2001, they calculated that we would not attempt regime change, and limit our involvement to bombing, gunboat diplomacy, and sanctions. They did not perceive the possibility of their own destruction.
When we send mixed or unclear signals, in diplomacy, people don’t know how to deal with us. That’s fine if we’re a weak country – we want to keep people guessing. But we’re not. America is by far the most powerful military entity on earth. The only country that has a reliable counter for our military power is Russia – the nuke. But that only works as an item of deterrence, of last resort. Russia is the only country that could destroy America.
I think that the smart move last year would have been to send a clear and unequivocal signal to Putin that he should not be moving forward with war, for a number of reasons. Most importantly, for our purposes, the longer wars go on, the greater the risk of miscalculation and overreach. And if Putin gets himself involved in a war with the West – one that he can’t handle, which must lead to his destruction, he will use the nuke.
My seventeen cents.
Robert, I don’t think that’s accurate, that it’s a non-issue, or was a non-issue. Clinton didn’t get the nomination because of her support for the war. Obama was elected as the candidate who didn’t support the invasion, because, in 2008, we had lost a war, and losing a war is one of the few things that can actually piss off the electorate enough to get them to vote on it.
2004, people were in a different place on Iraq. In 2008, if Biden had been the other plausible nominee other than Obama, it would have been an issue for him too.
Now, did Obama think it was really that big a deal? Probably not. Will it be an issue in 2016? almost certainly not. Does that mean it didn’t matter, or it shouldn’t have mattered? Personally, I think it’s useful to remind politicians that, in whatever wavering way, the electorate does actually get pissed off if you lose a stupid war.
Clinton didn’t get the nomination because Wall Street shifted their support to Obama. The nomination was decided by superdelegate support, and Obama got that support because he had the big money behind him. That’s how you get into a position of power in our political parties.
Wall Street got behind Obama because they knew what was coming. They didn’t want a Hillary Clinton who was going to propose reviving New Deal programs. They wanted a president who was going to appoint an attorney general who wouldn’t prosecute them, and a co-opted treasury secretary who was going to make their life as easy as can be. Obama was tailor-made for their purposes. He was a do-nothing hack politician with no public-policy ideals, and his only goals were his social advancement and other forms of self-aggrandizement.
Robert, the idea that Clinton is some sort of New Deal democrat, or that she would have prosecuted Wall Street, or really that she would have governed all that differently from Obama is…well, I find it not very credible, let’s say. Your account of the election isn’t very convincing either. Wall Street was afraid of Hillary Clinton? Of Hillary Clinton? She’d been waiting her whole career to suddenly turn into some radical populist? Seriously?
Clinton was in Obama’s administration. That wasn’t some bizarre accident. They’re not very far apart ideologically. A Clinton administration may be more hawkish on foreign policy; that’s going to be the only difference if she gets into office.
Noah–
I’m perfectly happy to educate you on these topics. Let’s start here:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122230767702474045
Yep, politicians make promises and populist noises. This is undoubtedly the case.
Adrian Bonenberger – I know this is getting quite far away from the subject of the post, but on your last comment – you don’t think first US use of a nuke in any such conflict as being at least as likely?
I think the vote matters to the primary, yes. There is a big push for Warren that could get behind other progressives if Warren ends up not running, so I think Clintons hawkishness could be a big part of the debate. And being wrong on Libya and Iraq is a big deal. I hope. There is a good chance that we’re going to see Bush vs. Clinton round 2, with equally hawkish views and that Clinton will simply inherit the democratic nomination without any debate.
NATO disbanding; I don’t buy it. The USSR was flat out genocidal in Poland, Russia was allowing Slavic Serbians to ethnically cleanse, and their wars in Chechnya continue to be super savage, so yes, moving the countries to under NATO security is one of the few good uses of American power in recent years. I think their well being is more important that Russia’s feelings.
As for the rest, that Russia saw weakness and was incentivised to invade, the line of thinking doesn’t make sense. What if Russia invaded while American troops were in Ukraine and said they were just local militia, as they have done since the start? Didn’t they already invade and defeat Georgia, one of America’s few allies in the Iraq war? Why would we make Putin’s argument for him, that the Ukraine protests were a western plot, by sending in troops to a country that is not an ally and is historically considered Russia’s backyard? I think what’s happening in Ukraine is simply a demonstration that American power has limits, for good and bad.
” I think what’s happening in Ukraine is simply a demonstration that American power has limits, for good and bad.”
I agree with that. But…that’s why continuing NATO was a bad idea. Are we really willing to go to war if Turkey is invaded? What exactly are we going to do if Russia decided to do in Estonia what it’s doing in Ukraine? Making promises we can’t actually keep seems like a bad idea in general.
Isaac – the limits of American / western military power have been demonstrated – proven even – over the last several years, but neither by Georgia nor Ukraine. The limits of any military power are that one cannot coerce a population to support you through violence (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan). Georgia and Ukraine are perfect examples of where American military power would have been useful, at a certain moment.
I’m *glad you brought Georgia up, for that reason, because it’s such a terrific example how Putin’s brain works when confronted with the prospect of U.S. military power. Let’s look at how things went down. SETAF, the parent organization of the 173rd (the airborne unit of which I was a part in 2006-08), was in Georgia with nearly 1,000 Marines and Army National Guardsmen for much of July to conduct a joint training exercise with the Georgian military. Russia, which had been fanning the Ossetian situation for months, massed soldiers and tanks along the border and… waited. Did nothing, while SETAF trained alongside the Georgians.
Then the U.S. left, in August, back to Italy.
Depending on which account you read, either the Georgian President shelled the Russians, provoking the invasion, or was attacked, at which point he responded by shelling the Russian soldiers across the border in Russian soil. If the former, it seems that he thought the U.S. would come to his aid – which was a miscalculation on his part, especially given that the U.S. had much of its front-line combat power, intel assets, Special Operations forces, etc. tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan (another reason those wars were a pointless waste). If the latter, it indicates a level of planning and foresight on the part of the Russian forces the *primary variable of which* seems to have been the presence of U.S. forces, and a desire to avoid even *accidentally* bringing the U.S. into battle against Russia. That Putin did not act – delayed action for over a month, in fact – lends itself most strongly to the interpretation that he did not wish confrontation with U.S. military power.
Putin acts very pragmatically within his operational paradigm. He controls the Russian military apparatus to an astonishing degree – in fact – and while individual skirmishes are beyond his purview, there’s a wealth of evidence that smaller militia commanders – people in charge of units as small as 10-15 “separatist” fighters – are marching to the beat of his drum. When they stop, or disobey orders they’re very publicly assassinated, or their equipment is cut off. What happens in Ukraine is very deliberate, and orchestrated by Putin, and should be seen as the direct manifestation of his will.
As for the idea that we should not have gone into Ukraine because we would have confirmed Putin’s argument that he was surrounded by enemies? That’s specious. Putin’s supporters already believe that there’s a massive Western/US conspiracy – in large part, as Noah pointed out and you have, and I’ve agreed, because we scotched things up so badly 1991-2014. Their saying “see, I told you so” isn’t a sufficient reason not to act. In any case, we don’t care about what pro-Putin Russians think or feel because it’s largely irrelevant – at least so far as Putin goes. While Putin has the support of a critical mass of his population, as he does now, we must form our calculus based on him and his actions. He has demonstrated an unwillingness to fight the U.S. (though he’s happy to take advantage of our absence, and badmouth us), and a willingness to attack positions he sees as weak though proxies or directly.
To your point about militias – it’s useful and important to point out that there are so many documented examples of regular and special operations Russian units in Ukraine, that Putin’s denials of their provenance or origin are incredible. And, ultimately, whether he calls them militias or separatists or aliens or makes up a word to describe their not-Russian-ness, if they were to become embroiled in a shooting war with the Americans, they’d turn into dead bodies, which Putin does not want, because he needs his military. They’re useful to him not as means to deny involvement, which nobody believes (not even in separatist areas, if you watch interviews – the “they’re not Russians” angle is seen largely by the ground population there as a charade).
Would there be skirmishes if US soldiers were in Ukraine? Would Putin be trying to embarrass U.S. soldiers with “incidents?” Possibly. That was the whole Cold War. There were U.S. soldier casualties and kidnappings pretty regularly, when you read the old reports from the 50s and 60s, and it seems very unlikely that it would be as touchy as all that, for a number of reasons. But Putin would *not* be looking for a war. War with America means Putin’s destruction. He believes that to be true, and does not want that.
If he continues to grab territory, and enjoys increasing power back home, there’s an ever-increasing chance that he will be encouraged through circumstances or accident to overreach or miscalculate. As I’m not longer confident that forward-deploying soldiers now will stop or dissuade Putin in the way it almost certainly would have six or nine months ago, I’m really not sure what the solution is.
It seems very unlikely that the U.S. would be the first to use nuclear weapons in a war with Russia. There would be no need – we would have air dominance in the first week or so (our Naval Air Force is actually adequate to defeat Russia’s entire air power – I’m talking about the combined air power of the U.S. Navy’s planes – not factoring in a single US Air Force jet – to give you an idea of the power disparity, and a sense of how crazily our politicians have pushed the military-industrial complex), and would have them on the operational defensive in no more than a month (hard to get around on the battlefield when all of your tanks and APCs are smoking wrecks) – and that’s probably when we’d get into a situation where Putin would look at jamming the red button. At which point, who knows. Science fiction. End of the world. Hope it doesn’t play out that way.
Noah – Putin could be sufficiently optimistic that Obama would do nothing that he would invade Estonia, to destroy NATO (it would either function and lead to war, or collapse). I believe we would not stand by while NATO collapsed – it’s the one thing, the red line, that is unacceptable to us. I think Obama would honor the alliance. This is where sending a consistent message is important, though. I’m advocating a consistent, aggressive stance, because I don’t want Putin to even *consider* Estonia. Because of how we’ve handled Ukraine, he is. Hence the potential for miscalculation. Which terrifies me. Because I do *not* want a war, especially not with Russia, and the potential for thermo-nuclear holocaust / end of all human life that would entail.
Adrian – Air dominance in a week and Russians on operational defensiveness in a month all sounds a bit “mission accomplished” to me – probably correct, but all the same, the US could still get into a situation it couldn’t handle just as easily as Putin, in which case I wouldn’t care to bet on which side would use nukes first (if either did).
But that’s idle speculation just now, and I suspect either of us would change the others mind. What I’m more interested in is that I see a double standard here – the Russians don’t get the foreign policy blunder excuse – but you (not just you personally, but other commenters here also) don’t seem to. Why isn’t the US dangerous too?
Good post btw – was maybe less interested in whether the liars were likeable or not, than that they were all so keen on attaching themselves to military action somehow when its so easy to be caught out these days – surely Hilary Clinton at least must have known her claims would be examined closely…
Sean, I feel like the U.S. is less likely to use nukes not because the U.S. is more virtuous or less likely to blunder, but just because U.S. conventonal forces are so superior. Also, the war is way closer to Russia than to the U.S. It’s just a lot easier to imagine a situation in which Russia feels backed into a corner/desperate and decides to drop a bomb than one in which the U.S. does the same thing (though I can see the U.S. escalating irresponsibly and going to a full strike after a single bomb.)
Noah – I really don’t want to come across as anti-American – not least because I’m not – but historically I’m not sure the precedents support that. I suspect the US may not need completely desperate circumstances – I understand Nixon seriously considered using a nuclear weapon against the Vietnamese. Granted, it didn’t happen – but its not like the US was backed into corner then. Wasn’t the justfication in Japan that it shortened the war?
Hope I ‘m wrong – I suspect neither side would do so – more for pragmatic reasons than anything else and, like I said, its all speculation. I’m really more interested in how American foreign policy is perceived. Like – I noticed earlier that you suggested that not closing NATO was a mistake that might fuel paranoia about US intentions, which surprised me given the general slant of HU… with the role that NATO has played since the cold war, it doesn’t seem unreasonable at all to question the intent.
Oh sure; I didn’t mean that folks were wrong to mistrust us.
“Yep, politicians make promises and populist noises. This is undoubtedly the case.”
Noah–
That was less than two years into Clinton’s second Senate term. She wouldn’t be facing voters again for at least four years. Obama did not support her proposal, by the way, so she was effectively going against her party’s presidential nominee by introducing it. The proposal was consistent with other foreclosure relief measures she had advocated over the years. And she went into the lion’s den of the Wall Street Journal editorial page to promote it.
Populist pandering, by your implication? No.
I was wondering why you wouldn’t call out Adrian for fabricating a quote from Clinton in order to attack her. I’m not now.
For pity’s sake; he didn’t fabricate a quote. In context it’s clear he’s paraphrasing her, not quoting her.
I think Clinton is fairly awful. But I didn’t vote for Obama in 2012 either, and I think he should probably be in jail for refusing to prosecute torture. I am extremely skeptical that Clinton would have handled the financial crisis and the aftermath much differently than Obama. But, you know, you’ll get to find out if her policies are much different if she gets elected.
You don’t put paraphrases in quotation marks. You put quotes in quotation marks. For pity’s sake, indeed.
Not necessarily. Sometimes the whole “put quotes in quotation marks alone” thing just isn’t what you’re doing.
If a quotation marks aren’t being used to indicate a quotation, they are what are called scare quotes. Those indicate ironic intent. It’s clear from the context and Adrian’s subsequent comments that he did not intend that ironically. That is a fabricated quote. It’s a lie.
If you want to argue the Chicago Manual of Style or the AP Stylebook with me, go right ahead. I work with them every day.
You’re saying, “these are quotes”. I’m saying you can use quotes as paraphrase, which I just did. That’s what Adrian’s doing in context.
I’m not arguing Chicago Manual of Style. I’m arguing typical English usage. I really find it hard to believe that anyone is going to read that as a quotation; I certainly didn’t, and I’m certain Adrian didn’t intend it as such. Calling it a lie is just tendentious; referring to the A.P. stylebook to back up a willful misreading…I don’t know. It’s hard for me to see how you’re arguing in even minimal good faith here Robert.
But, I don’t want to confuse people I guess; I’ll take out the quotes to make it clearer it’s a paraphrase.
Robert, Noah – I was worried that I’d lied, by implying that Clinton had said what I’d put in quotation marks, which was not my intent. So I asked 15 college English students whether they thought I was quoting Clinton. Three of them said “yes.” Twelve said “no,” and understood my intent – to describe Clinton’s actions as reflected by her vote on the referendum.
So, I’m sorry you seem to feel, based on your subjective interpretation of grammatical guidelines, that I was putting words in Clinton’s mouth. I didn’t, but by leaving it up to interpretation, I seem to have caused you a lot of grief. If I had put words in Clinton’s mouth, they would have been “nay” (to the referendum), and “I lied but I’m sorry, I’m under a lot of pressure here” (to her claims of having been in combat in Bosnia).
And Adrian says he’d prefer to keep the original version, so I’m going to go back to that.
Edit: Going to close the thread on this for the moment at least. Thanks for your comments all.