The Different Doctrines Of War

Required reading from Ezra Klein.

The question:

David Brooks is right to understand Barack Obama's national security team as the maturation of thinking that began in Iraq and Afghanistan and focuses more on building civic capacity than destroying military capabilities. This is the post-Iraq consensus between liberals and realists, and it will hold as long as the question is Iraq. But what if the topic changes? If China triggers a confrontation over Taiwan or a threatening genocide cries out for a swift intervention? Where does Gates, or Jones, stand then?

There are many different standards by which America goes to war.

Self-DefenseThere's clearly a united consensus that if the United States suffers a direct attack, we will respond in some fashion.

Powell Doctrine:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

Unfortunately, Powell did not stand up for the Powell doctrine on Iraq (all of them except possibly 7 turned out to be wrong; 4 + 8 we knew wasn't there at the time without UN support; the intelligence community disputes most of the rest). But it is still a solid standard of going in to war, even if its architect let it fall apart.

Where do the members of the incoming Administration stand? This is a question that I would ask them if I got them in a serious interview. I think this is a standard that most of the Administration can agree upon, except with regards to the next standard.

Clinton Doctrine

"Genocide is in and of itself a national interest where we should act" and "we can say to the people of the world, whether you live in Africa, or Central Europe, or any other place, if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion, and it's within our power to stop it, we will stop it."

Although I think in President Clinton's mind, this is part of the Powell Doctrine (an extension of the term "national interest"), that's a fairly controversial stance--it is difficult, but not impossible, to allege that mass genocide in Sudan will lead to American deaths, or even American national interests being defeated.

Of course, I happen to agree with President Clinton about genocide being "just cause", but I don't think that's what the Powell Doctrine means. My personal belief is that the "national interest" in point one of the Powell Doctrine should be replaced, or abutted, with "Are many innocent lives at stake?" I think that should apply equally to US Citizens, French or Indian citizens, or Sudanese.

But, of course, we have to remember the rest of the Powell Doctrine. Somalia was a failure because we didn't understand what was going on; we didn't have the plans, the necessary force, etc.

The Clinton Doctrine, I think, will be most strongly represented by Susan Rice, and possibly by Hillary Clinton. No idea about anyone else.

Bush Doctrine: according to wikipedia:

1) Unilateral action, if required
2) Terrorist-sponsor nations
3) Preventative strikes
4) Democratic regime change

The foremost, I think, is not supported by almost any of Obama's incoming Administration, nor the second one. The third has been explicitly endorsed by Barack Obama (cross-border raids into Pakistan count). I think where Obama parts ways with Bush is whether full scale war is appropriate for the preventative strike, or whether surgical strike action is better. That one may become contentious in a future situation.

The last, I think, will only gain currency if it's attached to something else; humanitarian + regime change, or imminent threat + regime change.

The Obaminet: National Security

Three new names on the Obama rolls:

John Brennan. Actually, John Brennan isn't in the incoming cabinet, but I would like to point out his conspicious absence, and the letter that announced it. Now, I wasn't at the CIA, and I can't judge how disingenuous or not disingenuous his claim of being passed over because of his opposition to waterboarding is, but what is clear is that A) he did not fight waterboarding outside of the White House, and that B) he was in favor of other methods of torture.

There comes a time to resign. There is a point in a Presidential Administration where if you stay, you are responsible for the Administration's actions. Say what you will about Colin Powell dissenting in private: he stayed in the Administration, and therefore he bears the responsibility of the War in Iraq.

I'm glad that the Obama Administration understands that (I can't believe that the letter was published without Obama's staff knowing). The point is, at least someone had to pay something for their involvement in this terrible event in our history.

Robert Gates. This name has been on the list since the days of the campaign, and the only thing that may have surprised some people (who expected Obama to be a big turn to the left) is that the name is still on the list. I like the rumor I've heard that he may only stay for one year (read: he may only stay until we're out of Iraq). Although Gates has overseen a period of significant progress in Iraq (still not nearly enough), it's difficult to say how much he personally is responsible for that (although this is the reverse flip-side of the aforementioned institutionalized responsibility), and Afghanistan has most certainly not improved (see below).

Also, I do want to see a good solid Democrat replace this position once Gates leaves. I am a little frustrated that the appearance is of there being no qualified commanders on the left. I am very, very much in favor of the next Secretary of Defense being ret. Gen Wesley Clark; Clark is an extremely competent man, a very humble man, a great public figure (if not a very inspiring leader, in the political sense). He's also a Democrat, to prove that we Dems can run our own military.

But that's a consideration that should come second after "who is most competent." I only put forward Clark's name because I think he's very competent (to the limited degree that I, outside the military, can judge competence).

Adm Jim Jones. Another of the "very competent crowd," and someone who John McCain was looking to put in the same position--a nice touch on both scores. But what I find even more important than his position in the marine corps is his position as a former commander of NATO. Right now, our involvement in Afghanistan is going from poor to piss-poor, and part of the problem (or result) is an increasing strain among the relations of NATO nations. France and Germany want to avoid being heavily involved in the fighting, to the dismay of Canada, the UK, and the US. A former NATO Commander in the White House signals a greater degree of military cooperation; the President of the United States will be getting his advice from someone who has worked closely with the military of each of these countries, and as the new President looks to formulate a new plan in Afghanistan (the one thing I haven't heard from him), he's going to be hearing a lot about Europe's role in this.

This inclusion of Europe will apply to other national security issues. How does Europe play into the Israel-Palestine situation? How does it play into the Iran situation? India-Pakistan relations may be the new front to test Obama. No matter what, Europe will be involved in the future of our security. Walking away from that deeply historic bond was one of the greatest failures of the Bush Administration, and walking back will be Obama's first big improvement over our national security environment.


So far, my enthusiasm about Obama's picks have ranged from caution to applause. But Obama's picks are not going to be important based on his reasoning going in. They're going to be judged by what they result in. These three are fairly safe bets, politically; some of his other picks (Clinton most of all) are true political gambles. If they pay off, they pay off big.