@Future Challenges: Conflict is Here to Stay

My newest article at FutureChallenges, Conflict is Here to Stay, is now published. It explores the question of whether conflict and war can ever be eradicated. An excerpt:

On September 30, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain triumphantly returned home to tumultuous praise, having signed the Munich Agreement with Germany’s Adolf Hitler. The accord, which acknowledged Hitler’s territorial demands in German Czechoslovakia, was, in Chamberlain’s words, “a symbol of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war again… to ensure the peace of Europe.” Six years later, as World War Two drew to a close, 40-60 million people were dead—approximately 2.5% of the global population. Neville Chamberlain and the Munich Agreement, which many historians argue gave Hitler carte blanche to launch total war, became synonyms for ill-considered appeasement and timid passivity.

Chamberlain’s folly—easily apparent in retrospect—was that he believed that conflict could be avoided. In a parliamentary debate before the war he espoused that the accord “averted a catastrophe which would have ended civilization as we have known it.” Almost a year later, a bitter Chamberlain realized that not all conflict is avoidable. As Great Britain prepared for the second massive war in two decades, the British prime minister extolled, “[Hitler’s invasion of Poland] shows convincingly that there is no chance of expecting that this man will ever give up his practice of using force to gain his will. He can only be stopped by force.”

...

The rest of the article can be found here.

The Escape Clause

In light of today’s meeting between congressional leaders and the White House over the debt ceiling and entitlement cuts, two Republican senators have voiced strong support for a balanced budget amendment. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) state that:

A constitutional amendment to balance the budget is imperative if we are to provide continuity of fiscal responsibility, and ensure we never return to the recklessness of the past and present. It's time Congress passed the amendment and gave the states—and "We the People"—their say.

The senators’ argument not only has wide support amongst the base and Republican politicians; all 47 GOP senators have endorsed such an amendment; but is sound and well articulated. The irresponsibility of continuous spending beyond our means is ruinous for the economic future of the United States. As Snowe and DeMint argue, “the only way to compel lawmakers to maintain their [fiscal] responsibility forever is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.”

However while the merits of such an amendment are clear to nearly all on the right and the more sensible on the left, there is at least one potential drawback that needs to be considered in the language of any acceptable proposal. While in nearly all instances there really is no reason to maintain an imbalanced budget, there are a few possible exceptions to the rule. Any balanced budget amendment must include an escape clause in order to prevent hamstringing future leaders (or daresay lead to a repeal of this amendment).

The most obvious exception is the case of major war or national catastrophe. It would be extremely difficult for any country to wage a large scale war, like WWI or WWII, without resorting to debt. Not only would such a restriction be impractical, but it would arguably be immoral to prevent our leaders from taking necessary measures to protect the country.

Concomitantly, there is an argument to be made that the costs of such a war (WWIII) should be spread over multiple years, if not multiple generations. After all, the sacrifices of those who fought in WWII were not just for the benefit of their generation but their progeny as well. It may be impossible for future generations to shoulder past sacrifices in terms of lives; however, it is possible to spread the financial costs. Utilization of debt is a prime tool to balance the costs of such conflicts over multiple years and generations.

Obviously, such instances are exceptionally rare and thus the use of an “escape clause” would only be warranted under extreme circumstances. Nevertheless, the point remains that debt or even a deficit is not always a bad thing. In certain other instances such as significant national projects (how to define the worthy ones is a tough issue) and severe economic decline, deficit spending might have beneficial uses. Just like the responsible use of debt by the individual – a homeowner who takes on a mortgage or a student who takes out loans to pay for college – there are instances where government debt is acceptable, even beneficial.

Debt isn’t intrinsically bad. The excessive abuse of it is the problem. Funding programs (and entitlements) that the government should not even be involved in is bad. The current mentality of spending more than we produce on a yearly basis even goes beyond the Keynesian economics it purports to be based on (Keynes argued for deficit spending during economic downturns with surpluses in upturns, not deficit spending every year). Such a mentality needs to be eradicated and the balanced budget amendment is a fabulous way to do so. Politicians should just be careful that in their haste to solve a serious problem they don’t create a new one by failing to consider the potential benefits of debt. It is a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Time to Support Obama

As the far-left has assumed its normal, although currently somewhat subdued, opposition to war, many Republicans have begun to position themselves against the administration’s actions in Libya. Seemingly, much of this opposition on the right comes from politically- not ideologically-motivated origins. While budgetary concerns are certainly high in the minds of many Tea Party-infused congressmen, the GOP should be careful to avoid opposing a policy just because Obama initiated it.

A number of Republicans have begun speaking out against the mission. Some of this questioning is certainly appropriate. For instance, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) was correct to press Obama on the objectives of the mission in a recent letter sent to the president. However, like many Republicans, Boehner walks a fine line between assisting the war-wary president to define the United States’ goals and commitments and, on the other hand, fomenting an unwise charge against the intervention in Libya.

As outlined in the letter, there are a number of tactical considerations that must be publically clarified. Presumably some of Obama’s hesitation is due to the image of the anti-war president that he assiduously crafted as a candidate. But while questioning these tactical and even broader strategic concerns is valid, the underlying need and motivation for intervention should be off the table.

Not only would such partisan attacks smack of raw politics but they would establish a huge contradiction within Republican ideology. Republicans have spent over a decade defending the need to promote democracy across the globe. While there have arguably been missteps in the implementation of this mission, the underlying goal is sound. For a few partisan points in their political battle with Obama, it would be foolish to throw all of this away.

Instead, Republicans should jump on board with the no-fly zone, throwing their support behind the president and showing America that when the Democrats choose to do the right thing, bipartisanship can prevail. Not every policy initiated by the current administration need be opposed; fighting across the aisle is only warranted when the other side is grossly out of line, for instance as the Democrats were on Obamacare. Americans want to see this country moved in the right direction; they do not want to see consistent bickering.

The call, by some Republicans, including Utah’s congressmen, Jason Chaffetz, for congressional authorization of the no-fly zone is a prime example of this misguided policy. Relying upon Obama’s own asinine comments made to this effect while a candidate, Chaffetz argues that the president must turn to Congress for approval. This argument, though, is a straw-man, used by the opposition party for decades. Congress has not officially declared war since World War II, while numerous military actions have been initiated by presidents in the years since. The ability of the president, as commander-in-chief, to send troops into battle has been a long-settled issue. While Congress should undoubtedly be consulted prior to military action and should maintain certain controls and inputs into its execution, the current criticisms are nothing but transparent attacks on the office of the president.

Republicans should not join the far-left in this attack. That ground should be left to Dennis Kucinich and his loony friends who are mulling impeaching Obama. Instead, if the GOP feels the need to separate itself from the administration, it could look to some of the mistakes made in the implementation of the no-fly zone, in particular the long delay in its initiation. Jonah Goldberg, at National Review Online, makes the most poignant argument in this regard. While fully supporting the mission, he argues that the delay in getting it started has added some considerable difficulties. Goldberg blames this on Obama’s desire to be a multilateralist and fear of “too much unilateral hot-dogging” if the United States had taken the lead. His analysis is quite astute and correctly separates the tactical blunders made by the administration from the strategic necessity of intervention.

For Republicans who cut their teeth on opposition to this president, throwing their weight behind him will be a bitter pill to swallow. But doing right, by American interests, their principles, and the Libyan people, is far more important than partisan brownie points. Republicans need to show their principles and their mettle and support the president.

An Assault on Petraeus and Free-Speech

Recently at Georgetown University, General David Petraeus, current CENTCOM Commander, was shouted down by student protestors when attempting to give a lecture. This is relatively unsurprising as it is all too common at elite American universities for students to attempt to prevent those they disagree with from talking. A New Republican discussed a similar incident that occurred at UNC last April. Predictably, many rushed to defend the protestors in the name of free-speech. In an editorial in The Hoya, Georgetown’s school newspaper, one of the senior deans in the School of Foreign Service, James Reardon-Anderson, called the incident “one of those learning moments that makes campus life more interesting.” Such defenses trash the concept of free-speech and make a mockery of everything America and these universities are supposed to stand for.

Reardon-Anderson’s argument is simple. Freedom of speech means minority groups have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. He states, “Freedom of speech must allow for a minority to annoy and discomfort the majority….” But freedom of speech does not work this way. Freedom of speech prevents encroachment on the individual’s (or group’s) ability to speak its mind. The concept exists to prevent the quashing of dissent, to facilitate the free flow of ideas, and to promote discourse that will better the lives of all. This is the liberal principle which our nation is built upon.

The Georgetown protestors are decidedly illiberal in their approach. Their actions are not about promoting free-speech, but about silencing a perspective with which they do not agree. Reardon-Anderson tacitly acknowledges this by refusing to condemn the students’ removal. In fact, he applauds the success of the system:

Happily for those who found these interruptions improper, the system worked: The offending parties were warned to stop and — when they failed to heed the warning — they were removed from the hall or they left of their own accord. There was no threat to the health and safety of anyone. The event proceeded without further disruption.

The fact that he acknowledges that their removal was appropriate signifies that the protestors were not behaving in accordance with the concept of free-speech. If they were, any attempt to silence them should be castigated. The error that Reardon-Anderson and so many like-minded supporters make is that they confuse speech with noise. Free-speech prevents restrictions on the contribution of ideas to the community; it does not allow individuals to create noise to drown out others speech. Silencing Petraeus by talking over him is tantamount to duct-taping his mouth closed.

While it is the opinion of ANR that the constitutional right to free-speech is (or should be) only applicable to the government’s ability to limit speech and is not necessarily a restriction on private institutions ability to limit speech, we do support the voluntary commitment to this principle that institutions such as Georgetown profess. It is important to note that tyranny need not just come from the majority (if Petraeus is even part of the majority) or the government. Tyranny comes from anyone who unjustly abrogates the rights of another. Free-speech, as a principle, protects against this injustice. In this instance, the protestors are committing the highest form of tyranny by silencing another. They should have every right to present and discuss their perspectives, but only if they allow others to dialogue as well. The irony is that they are defended in the name of the very principles they cease to respect.