I have written elsewhere about the choice between doing something and doing nothing as competing strategies; that sometimes doing nothing is better than any of the proposed courses of action.
Well, the question is rearing its head again with Obama's recent decision to put 50 SOF personnel into Syria. Many commentators note that this is too small really to matter, just as the timid aerial campaign has been relatively ineffective.
Both seem to reflect the Obama's dilemma; his instinct tells him to do nothing while the country and probably most of his military advisor tell him to intervene with military force. The result falls between two stools. it is neither the clear statement of disengagement, key to getting the target off our backs, not will it make much of a difference on the ground.
As in Vietnam 50 pairs of boots on the ground could easily escalate to 500, or 5,000 (in Vietnam it was 500,000). Why is every change in direction a doubling down?
My guess is that the "Doctrine of American Exceptionalism", combined with the youthful self confidence of a fairly young nation leads to the hubris that there is nothing that America can't fix. Combine that with a certain impatience and a seemingly broad cultural admiration for direct action (violence) over diplomacy, and every time a foreign adventure needs a change of course, the hawks will accuse the diplomats of appeasement, and more dogs of war are unleashed.
No comments:
Post a Comment