When is military force the right choice?

This being a pretty left-leaning board, there's a lot of skepticism regarding military force. Most of us find it easy to explain why, say invading Iraq was a bad idea. Flipping this around, though, when is it the right call? I'm not sure I'd ever say it's a good choice, but when is it the least-bad choice?

Here are some example problems:

- Rwanda: Should other nations - including the US - have intervened?

- The Balkans: The conventional wisdom is the US involvement brought about an end to that war. Is this wrong? Would fewer people have died if we had intervened earlier? Later? Not at all?

- Libya: Was the US right to agree to requests to intervene? How do we weigh what actually did happen against the high likelihood that Gaddafi would have massacred his opposition?

 Let's be blunt - "use of military force" means "we are going to kill people." That doesn't sit well with me, but what if the alternative is "even more people will die?" Furthermore, if there are cases where using military force is the least-bad choice, does the US, as the nation with the most powerful military force, have any particular obligations to be involved?

I felt that the initial invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was justified.  It quickly went off the rails, though.  I also believe that our defense of South Korea in 1950 was justifiable,  even though we had contributed to the initial division of the peninsula. 

St. Augustine's "just war" is probably a good place to start. Not as cut and dried as one would hope (what is just when those you seek to protect from an objective evil will seek to do the same to their defeated oppressors? See Syria etc).

Just war theory (including Augustine's, but I'm more familiar with more contemporary versions) are helpful for looking at the question of whether force is justified. That's a hard question! But I think I'm asking a harder one - not only when it is justified, but when it's the right choice.  Something can be just and still be a mistake.

Every time this country goes to War I begin by trying to analyze whether it's good or bad. After it's done I always feel that I have been "fooled again".

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. We had to go to War against them. Anything else, I am not sure.

Discussion is fairly complex and there is no simple answer.  Most can say going into Iraq was a mistake (on so many levels).  However, I think if we had a draft again, a lot more people would be a lot more reluctant to just go to war.  

Obviously if we are attacked as with Pearl Harbor, we have to defend ourselves.  Going in for humanitarian reasons is always a tougher call.  Going into Iraq and getting involved in Vietnam were bad decisions.  

I don't know the answer, but thank you for asking the question.

PVW said:

Just war theory (including Augustine's, but I'm more familiar with more contemporary versions) are helpful for looking at the question of whether force is justified. That's a hard question! But I think I'm asking a harder one - not only when it is justified, but when it's the right choice.  Something can be just and still be a mistake.

Interesting question.

Here's another, based on the above: how can anything that's just ever be a mistake?  If one's aim is the noblest exercise in attempting to uphold the good, I'm not seeing where the two terms are opposed.  It cannot be about outcome, and we're talking about decisions.

ctrzaska said:

PVW said:

Just war theory (including Augustine's, but I'm more familiar with more contemporary versions) are helpful for looking at the question of whether force is justified. That's a hard question! But I think I'm asking a harder one - not only when it is justified, but when it's the right choice.  Something can be just and still be a mistake.

Interesting question.

Here's another, based on the above: how can anything that's just ever be a mistake?  If one's aim is the noblest exercise in attempting to uphold the good, I'm not seeing where the two terms are opposed.  It cannot be about outcome, and we're talking about decisions.

If a certain decision nearly always leads to a worse outcome, then that's a bad decision -- but we really have no way of knowing if this is the case. Until we invent some kind of space-time manipulation machine that lets us explore all possible alternate realities in parallel, we really have no way of knowing that a given decision was the one leading to the best outcome.  If we knew, absolutely, what all the possible outcomes were for any given decision, we could just judge based on outcomes, but since we don't, we have to make a best guess and judge decisions instead. So there's a gap - call it the gap between justice and prudence, if you like.

ctrzaska said:

PVW said:

Just war theory (including Augustine's, but I'm more familiar with more contemporary versions) are helpful for looking at the question of whether force is justified. That's a hard question! But I think I'm asking a harder one - not only when it is justified, but when it's the right choice.  Something can be just and still be a mistake.

Interesting question.

Here's another, based on the above: how can anything that's just ever be a mistake?  If one's aim is the noblest exercise in attempting to uphold the good, I'm not seeing where the two terms are opposed.  It cannot be about outcome, and we're talking about decisions.

The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I think it's the right choice when:

- diplomatic options have been tried and exhausted

- there is a clear objective 

- our allies are with us 

- a draft (with no deferments and applicable to all genders) is in place 

Sweetsnuggles said:

I think it's the right choice when:

- diplomatic options have been tried and exhausted

- there is a clear objective 

- our allies are with us 

- a draft (with no deferments and applicable to all genders) is in place 

I don't think a draft Army should have anything to do with the decision to go to war.  However, as a practical matter, it is pretty clear that some wars look a whole lot less necessary if the decision-makers actually have skin in the game.  The Vietnam War would have ended a sooner if more sons of politicians had been lieutenants in the infantry.

Another important factor is whether or not the objectives can be achieved through military force.  All too often, we have just made things worse.  And all too often, we have this calibrated approach (see Syria) which causes the fighting to drag on with extended suffering and loss of life.  War isn't really a calibrated activity.

FilmCarp said:

I felt that the initial invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was justified.  It quickly went off the rails, though.  I also believe that our defense of South Korea in 1950 was justifiable,  even though we had contributed to the initial division of the peninsula. 

Afghan.... Mullah Omar offered to turn Osama to The Hague. That wasn't good enough for us.

Since the founding of the nation, all of the wars, maybe with the exception of WW II, had the economic interest of the wealthy as its purpose. Give the schlubs in the street some nationalistic, jingoist stuff to feel good about, then go on with the war.

I am still impressed with the life of General Smedley Butler. His book about his exploits is entitled, "War Is A Racket." 

To bring us up to more current times, Youtube has "The Shock Doctrine" which goes into detail about the U.S abuses in Chile and Argentina among others. 

Or if that doesn't work, google the current stuff about Saudi government sponsorship of the 9/11 attackers. This includes a gift of over $130,000 from Prince Bandar (A.K.A. Bandar Bush for is friendship with Shrub) to one of the 9/11 terrorists.

Get real clear. The stated reason for President Clinton's next war will also be bull*****.

Sweetsnuggles said:

I think it's the right choice when:

- diplomatic options have been tried and exhausted

- there is a clear objective 

- our allies are with us 

- a draft (with no deferments and applicable to all genders) is in place 

And when we have been attacked...

An aside concerning the draft. The military will never permit another draft. They almost lost control of the army during Vietnam. Spoken as a 1969 draftee.

wedjet said:

An aside concerning the draft. The military will never permit another draft. They almost lost control of the army during Vietnam. Spoken as a 1969 draftee.

Yes, but that was because of the nature of the war and not, at that time, the draftees.  Still, having said that, I would prefer to go to war with a volunteer force.

tjohn said:

wedjet said:

An aside concerning the draft. The military will never permit another draft. They almost lost control of the army during Vietnam. Spoken as a 1969 draftee.

Yes, but that was because of the nature of the war and not, at that time, the draftees.  Still, having said that, I would prefer to go to war with a volunteer force.

I disagree. Pressure to end the V.N. conflict came also from parents of middle class kids and the kids them selves who were draft eligible. Most enlisted troops today come from working class people who are less likely to question a war.

The more people question the basis for wars, the better off we will be.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

tjohn said:

wedjet said:

An aside concerning the draft. The military will never permit another draft. They almost lost control of the army during Vietnam. Spoken as a 1969 draftee.

Yes, but that was because of the nature of the war and not, at that time, the draftees.  Still, having said that, I would prefer to go to war with a volunteer force.

I disagree. Pressure to end the V.N. conflict came also from parents of middle class kids and the kids them selves who were draft eligible. Most enlisted troops today come from working class people who are less likely to question a war.

The more people question the basis for wars, the better off we will be.

Like I said, it was the particular war that was the problem, not the use of draftees.  The government should have known better.  Americans have never liked long wars.

tjohn said:

wedjet said:

An aside concerning the draft. The military will never permit another draft. They almost lost control of the army during Vietnam. Spoken as a 1969 draftee.

Yes, but that was because of the nature of the war and not, at that time, the draftees.  Still, having said that, I would prefer to go to war with a volunteer force.

I was in the first draft lottery and fortunately did not have to serve. I think we've seen the abuse of "volunteers" in our relative apathy vis a vis Vietnam. I'm conflicted but would like to see some method of getting all of us invested in what we do. It's too easy to ignore "volunteers," and I use the quotes because I think it's one of the only options for some folks trying to improve their lot in life.

I like the idea of a mandatory draft in the event of extended armed conflict but I would like to add one other requirement.  In the event of extended armed conflict all defense contractors shall be limited to 1% profit and no executive of those firms shall receive a salary greater than our military leaders.

Pass a law like that and we will be a very peaceful country.

With regard to to the Original Poster's query:

When the Powers-That-Be (which we elected) decide that military force is the appropriate course of action; and,

WE are willing to accept the cost in damage including HUMAN LIVES.

WAR is a horror show.

WAR is a HORROR.

My section leader told me to kill them; kill them all; kill all they send; kill them until they send no more.

Were the President to ask, I would tell them to not engage, unless they were willing to commit to a battle in which uncountable lives were considered acceptable losses.

One man's thoughts.

TomR

So what about Rwanda? Hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million, people were killed (estimates vary). Had the US gotten more directly involved, there likely would have been far fewer deaths. Was avoiding military involvement the right choice here?

PVW said:

So what about Rwanda? Hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million, people were killed (estimates vary). Had the US gotten more directly involved, there likely would have been far fewer deaths. Was avoiding military involvement the right choice here?

It was a mistake for the US, the UN and allies to sit back - and probably should have stepped in.  

Congresspeople who send other people's children to war can do so easily if they know their children will not be sent to war. If all eligible people have to go, they would not be so quick.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

tjohn said:

wedjet said:

An aside concerning the draft. The military will never permit another draft. They almost lost control of the army during Vietnam. Spoken as a 1969 draftee.

Yes, but that was because of the nature of the war and not, at that time, the draftees.  Still, having said that, I would prefer to go to war with a volunteer force.

I disagree. Pressure to end the V.N. conflict came also from parents of middle class kids and the kids them selves who were draft eligible. Most enlisted troops today come from working class people who are less likely to question a war.

Untrue. More educated than their non military peers to boot.

http://freakonomics.com/2008/09/22/who-serves-in-the-military-today/

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

Since the founding of the nation, all of the wars, maybe with the exception of WW II, had the economic interest of the wealthy as its purpose. Give the schlubs in the street some nationalistic, jingoist stuff to feel good about, then go on with the war.

I am still impressed with the life of General Smedley Butler. His book about his exploits is entitled, "War Is A Racket." 

To bring us up to more current times, Youtube has "The Shock Doctrine" which goes into detail about the U.S abuses in Chile and Argentina among others. 




Or if that doesn't work, google the current stuff about Saudi government sponsorship of the 9/11 attackers. This includes a gift of over $130,000 from Prince Bandar (A.K.A. Bandar Bush for is friendship with Shrub) to one of the 9/11 terrorists.




Get real clear. The stated reason for President Clinton's next war will also be bull*****.

I like the cut of your jib

Tom_Reingold said:

Congresspeople who send other people's children to war can do so easily if they know their children will not be sent to war. If all eligible people have to go, they would not be so quick.

One can naively assume all will serve equally. 

The reality is accommodations in the military can be done for children of the elite, such as the children of congress people or congress people themselves. 

The having "served our country" cachet can be useful. 

Just look at Bush II's illustrious military career or that of Sen. Lindsey Graham.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/opinion/lindsey-grahams-curious-military-career.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-lindsey-graham-years-of-light-duty-as-a-lawmaker-in-the-air-reserve/2015/08/02/c9beb9fc-3545-11e5-adf6-7227f3b7b338_story.html

One could even reason doing so may extend a war. The elite can say "Our kids are serving. We are all sacrificing and we're not complaining. Why are you whining about this war? Don't you love your country? Do you want to be a quitter after all this sacrifice? To dishonor those who have given their all?"

http://www.agreeley.com/articles/120106.html

BG9 said:

One could even reason doing so may extend a war. The elite can say "Our kids are serving. We are all sacrificing and we're not complaining. Why are you whining about this war? Don't you love your country? Do you want to be a quitter after all this sacrifice? To dishonor those who have given their all?"

http://www.agreeley.com/articles/120106.html

Our  politicians are not of a warrior class like the samurai or the Prussian junkers.  One may assume that they won't like having their own children come home under flags for some war of dubious necessity.

tjohn said:
Our  politicians are not of a warrior class like the samurai or the Prussian junkers.  One may assume that they won't like having their own children come home under flags for some war of dubious necessity.

Of course they're not a warrior class. 

But many are very ambitious. You can see that with Lindsey Graham, our warrior prince who broadcasts his "warrior bonafides", the I served. The reality is he sat in a South Carolina military office preparing wills or some other "no-show job granted to a politician with whom the Air Force brass was eager to curry favor."

Did you read the links I posted? Its all in there.

Don't assume our the children of the elite will be endangered in a war of dubious necessity if we have a universal draft. If they request preferment they will get it.

The military does what politicians tell them to do. Civilian control of the military is good but other side is there can be a corrupting influence. General grade promotions require senate approval. This means they have to hobnob with politicians. So if a politician invites a military officer to a party, he goes. Same if one is invited to complete a foursome golf outing. And so forth.