Uncalled for and unwise

OP-ED: True or False: We Need a Wartime President, By Fareed Zacharia, Newsweek, July 7-14, 2008 issue

Agree wholeheartedly. For years now I've said that if we (national security community) do our jobs right, there is no need for war footing. Letting terrorists run our national security or our lives is going symmetrical with an asymmetrical threat. Uncalled for and unwise.

(Thanks: JFRiley)

Comments

[Louis Heberlein]

To me, a wartime president seeks to deal with an undesired conflict in a prudent and reflective way. Ike's handling of ending the Korean war, and his limiting our involvement in Vietnam to advisors fits that model.

A war president uses war as a tool to seek political and/or economic change objectives. Most will admit that TR did that when he took on Spain, meddled in Latin America and China, and used military power to open Japan to trade. However, Wilson also took us to WW I to end all wars, reorganize parts of Europe 'for peace' and establish the League of Nations to watch the new kids. In many ways the unintended consequences led to WW II and the Cold War and left American political leaders less able to deal with new problems.

So the problem with war presidents is not their intentions, but their insight on how unintended consequences can emerge. The wartime presidents value may rest in their insights on both existing problems that need quick action, and potential problems that require prudence.

[Gilbert Garza]

Within the terms of office of the next US president, additional/continued military action (planes in the air or troops on the ground, responsive or pre-emptive, current locations or new locations) with or without the help of others in the old core and new core is almost an absolute certainty. (For one thing what we have been calling the long war has not suddenly disappeared.) A good president should be able (must be able) to be a good president whatever the vital interests in a situation demand/permit in terms of military action/inaction. The intelligence and character to assume and deliver war time (meaning military) capabilities are at certain times more urgent and necessary than at other times but we must hope/demand/expect that this intelligence and this character are still there and applicable as needed during more ordinary times and for other more ordinary tasks required of the president.

[Bill C.]

In his last paragraph, Zakaria seems to agree with me.

To wit: the greatest threat that the United States faces today -- is not from an external/foreign enemy -- or from an external/foreign source or circumstance.

It is, instead, an internal/domestic enemy -- one which is best identified as: Our Decisions in the Post-Cold War -- And Our Decisions Of The Future.

At the end of the Cold War, we sat in the cat-bird's seat. If our position is more perilous now (economically or otherwise) -- or if it becomes more perilous in the future -- we can only blame ourselves.

In the middle of the 19th Century Century Great Britain -- and at the end of the Cold War the United States -- were the movers, shakers and rulers of the world. As in the era of the 19th Century -- and again today -- the decisions made by these entities (re: globalization, etc) determined/determines not only their own fate -- but that of the entire world.