Afghanistan: Falklands edition

I was surfing the internet instead of studying for my exams (a noble practice indeed) and came across an image that made me think of your recent posts on the war in Afghanistan:

http://www.justicewithpeace.org/files/images/ghosts-of-presidents-past…

Erin: Thanks. I may well use this. Its truth makes me sad, although even some of the rest of the "progressive agenda" seems to be going down the toilet, too. Could be worse. Could be a McCain Presidency. But that's cold comfort.

p.s. Good luck on your exams!

Stupid War?

The first thing the Argentinian junta did when they invaded the Falklands was round up 'political' people (people just like you Revere) and lock them up in a camp.

The British victory in the Falklands brought down the fascists in government, and Argentina has now had a quarter of a century of democracy and freedom as a result.

kagiso: What makes you think I was referring to the British? It was a war that didn't need to be fought, on either side.

@kagiso: well, it is true that the British victory was determinant to bring down our fascist government, but the United Kingdom was under Margaret Thatcher's rule, who hardly could care less about it.
Also, the military didn't have to lock more people afterwards, the invasion had popular support at the beginning so it wasn't needed. Thus, even if the war was beneficial in some sense, I don't think it was for the reasons you imply.
Cheers.

All wars are stupid if all you need to call it stupid is to find fault on one side or the other.

Was invading the Falklands stupid? Sure. Was defending the people there from what they regarded as the invasion of a idiotic foreign military dictatorship stupid? I don't know.

Was the fact that the war ever happened stupid? Yes. But, again, I'd say that about any war. Wars are proof of our stupidity. Imprisonment is proof of our stupidity, too, but I'm not going to suggest we never do it. We don't become smart by just rolling over to someone else's stupid rather than fighting it. We have to make a case-by-case decision.

You may be right: the Afghan war may be stupid and it may be pointless to extend our engagement, but you have to deal with particular cases, not comparisons that may or may not apply.

You don't get to choose not to colonize the Falklands 200 years ago or not to have elected a bellicose woman PM or not to have countenanced stupid military dictatorship; you get to decide what you want to do in present circumstances. I'm really not sure the British did wrong to fight the Argentine invasion.

Will there be more dead John Browns under Obama's plan. Yes, absolutely. But John Browns aren't the only people that count in the world--we now have some responsibility to all the Zafar Khans as well, regardless of whether folk singers here end up singing about them.

Oran: You get to choose you policies today and you get to learn from history. It sounds to me that you live in the Best of All Possible Worlds, whatever is at the time. The idea that "folksingers" are irrelevant may be your view, but they are no less relevant than bloggers (you and I) or columnists (David Brooks) or manhy politicians. We are still singing their songs. We aren't reading the old columns. Or being inspired by them. Or taking strength and comfort from them. There are choices to be made and not just choices to be accepted.

Just happened to dip into the Falkland/Malvina War segment in Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine earlier today, where she argues that Thatcher's "victory" over Argentina ratcheted up the Thatcherites' popularity to such extent they could impose serious union-busting and "neoliberal" rightist economic actions. She makes a good point. The real winner was Argentina, as the war helped finish off the junta--still, hundreds of Argentines and Britons died in the fighting.
Revere, since there's only dial-up out in the sticks here, let me ask you (I thus can't hear the wonderful songs), is this the ". . .Falkland Is-lands/ . . . my-lands" tango parody that KPFA played in '82? It was a great song.

Paula: No. It's the Dire Straits song Brothers in Arms (cover by Mark Knopfler) originally written about the Falklands at the time, this one with images that look like they could come from Iraq or Afghanistan.

"Didn't need to be fought"? You think that the government of Argentina would have withdrawn without fighting? That Britain should have abandoned the Islanders after the invasion? or that they should have spent six months talking while the Argentine forces built up their defenses?

No, war is horrible, but this was the right thing to do.

@Revere, I was referring to the British.

The British had to fight the war to free British subject from the tyranny of a fascist dictatorship. Only a person who has lived all their life in a free country could be so cavalier as to describe guaranteeing other people's freedoms as stupid.

@hazur, la guerra estaba para libertar la gente del Malvinas de las fascistas Argentinas. No otro razon. Yo recuerdo estos anhos, y esta guerra muy bien. Los Britanicos tiene ocho siglos de libertad, y por nosotros libertad es algo muy importante, mas importante que la patria, mas importante que la tierra.

Did I miss something in Oran's post? I can't find any mention or implication that folk singers are any more irrelevant than bloggers or columnists, yet that is what you responded to. What I read is pointing out that our narrow vision, as illustrated by what our folk singers sing about, cares about our John Browns and ignores the "Zafar Kahns". Now while getting rid of oppression of others, be it the Argentinian military junta or the Taliban's tyranny, may be a nice side benefit, I do not personally think of getting rid of oppression in another country as enough by itself to justify going war (I'd require human rights violations on the scale of genocide to trump sovereignty and to justify the potential horrors of war) and it wasn't why Great Britain went to war either, but misrepresenting his point seems an unfair means of debate.

I am still trying to get a better understanding of when you think a military response IS justified. Perhaps this specific case can flesh it out some. Was Great Britain justified in their responding to the Argentinian military "re-occupation"/"invasion" of the Falklands with military force?

I've attempted to articulate what standards I would use to judge by in another thread by applying them to the Afghani situation (along with documenting that many of Dr. Nagy's "facts" were falsehoods). I am sure that you disagree with my conclusion but I wonder if your disagreement is about the individual parts of the assessment or with the process. If you think that the military response by the British was "stupid" in the Falklands then can you please use it as a case to help me understand what principles you use to judge by? Yes, I ask again because I really want to understand this POV different from my own. Even though you think my being a bit dogged at trying to gain that understanding is badgering you.

So far all I've been able to get from you is that you have been part of the anti-wars movement for years and folk songs about how bad it is that people die. You have been quick to deride that there must be a principle more than "it feel right" but slow to articulate what those specific principles should be. Dr. Nagy attempted to articulate some principles but unfortunately made up his facts to fit his already held conclusions.

Oran's point was very much that we need to learn from history and make our choices. His suggestion is that we learn enough to make case by case assessments on each case's specific circumstances, not on the basis of forced analogies. And you responded to his reasoned analysis suggesting that we make these choices by being inspired by old folk songs?

Please share the more to your thought process that I know you must have.

The immediate background to the conflict was a defence review that sought to save money by cutting down on the Royal Navy's expeditionary capability. This was taken as a sign that the UK was not serious about defending the Falklands, and the rest is history.

No money was saved, of course - though lives were spent.

Don; You missed something in my response. I did comment on the folk singer part of his comment because the post was a song and it seemed pertinent. I think my response to him was relevant. I also responded to the first part. I think the Falklands was a stupid war. There were incitements on both sides but probably the heavier blame falls on the Argentinian government, although both governments used this military adventure for political purposes. My bigger point to Oran was that he appears to accept whatever has happened as at least rational to some extent and that may be true of some wars but certainly not all and maybe, on analysis even most. Wars which have no rational substance and were wars of choice I would identify as the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, World War I, Grenada, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan and probably a bunch of others. World War II had such complex causes it is hard to say it was preventable, although if World War I (the paradigm of stupid wars) hadn't happened and the Peace hadn't been handled the way it was it is arguable there would have been no World War II (this claim is, however, a counterfactual so it will no doubt be argued every which way without resolution). The Civil War, likewise may have had too complex a cause to say any set of identifiable decisions or choices by decision makers made it happen. Oran did not seem to leave open that there are stupid wars, only that one side or the other was stupid. I addressed that. He can respond. I don't think you understood what we were arguing about (or at least what I was arguing about).

Let me ask you. Under what circumstances is a military response the appropriate one and under what circumstances isn't it? I wouldn't frame the question that way because it presumes there are discernible general propositions about this rather than context dependent ones, but since you think so I'd like to know what they are. I gave you examples of what I thought, to a first approximation, were stupid wars of choice or just stupid (World War I is the poster child for this). Now it's your turn. Feel free to dispute my examples but I want the refutations in terms of general principles since by asking that of me it is clear you believe they exist and I'd like to get a better idea of what you are thinking falls into that category.

Revere,

you evade Don's points with obfuscation and impugned complexity. You restate that the Falklands war was stupid, you apportion some of the stupidity to the British, and you state that the British carried out incitements.

Some straightforward questions for you:

1. Given that the Argentinians invaded the Falklands, I believe that the British had only two options, A. launch a military invasion to regain control, of B. leave the Falkland islanders living under a fascist government that had already locked up many of the islanders solely for their political beliefs. Do you agree? If not please could you state a third option that would have allowed political freedom and democracy for the Falkland islanders.

2. Given 1. above, do you think the British should have left the Falkland Islanders to live under a fascist dictatorship? Yes or No.

3. Given 1. & 2. above, do you think the British were stupid to invade the Falklands? Yes or No.

4. Please could you state what were the British 'incitements' that justified the Argentinians invading a democracy and imprisoning a portion of the population for the political beliefs.

Apologies for the strength of feeling. But I was and remain a strong supporter of the British actions in removing the Argentinians from the Falklands. As your posts stand to date, you clearly state that I am therefore stupid. I would like to debate this point further and rationally until we can come to a clear agreement as to who is stupid here. As I stated before, if you had been living in the Falklands at the time of the Argentinian invasion, you would most certainly have been imprisoned along with other politically active people.

kagiso: I appreciate the depth of your feeling. You are entitled to them. But I believe you both mischaracterize my points and you paint them in black and white terms (a characteristic of all of us who have strong feelings about things). In your version. something is either right or wrong and all questions have correct "yes" or "no" responses. The history of the Falklands dispute is long and came to a military outcome because of a miscalculation by an Argentine government looking to gain political domestic advantage. They whipped up patriotic feeling (which in my book is almost always stupid) and made a disastrous (and stupid) miscalculation as to what the Thatcher gov't would do. I would characterize a war with those premises as stupid. Was there anything on the run-up to it that the British could have done to avoid it? In the decades before the war there could well have been open and urgent efforts by both governments to promote sovereignty. The dispute between the two countries has gone on for many centuries and British use of the island off the Argentine coast for a military base and for commercial exploitation and colonization has been a sore point. When the Argentine junta took over, conditions were ripe for the kind of bilateral political exploitation that took place. That's my view, in any event. Whipping the Argentines into a patriotic frenzy had real roots, despite the politically exploitative character of the government. I consider my own government to have acted wrongly, often stupidly and sometimes evilly in the provocation of wars, too (and I named several of them). I fully expect you to disagree, with strength of feeling. That's also how wars start.

Well I guess I am still missing the points you think you made in your response to Oran but so be it.

And I still have not read a direct answer to how the British should have responded to the circumstance that was presented to them, albeit I can appreciate with the rear view mirror of history how previous actions may have prevented it from reaching that point.

You have given me a list of what you thought was stupid and what perhaps not but still no articulation of the principles that you use to judge that .. excpepting perhaps that it is stupid if something could have been done sometime in the previous history that in retrospect could have avoided it. A hard standard to use when presented with choices that exist in face of a history already extant.

I have articulated my standards already and applied them to the decision that was made to respond militarily in Afghanistan.

In contrast Iraq did not meet that standard. Even accepting the now apparent lie that Iraq was working on WMDs, Iraq presented no immediate threat to us while inspections were ongoing, therefore non-military approaches could continue. There would have been no deleterious outcome likely from waiting until those options had been fully played out and there was significant likely consequences to taking military action - to our country, to regional stability, to our standing in the world, to the Iraqi people.

OTOH Bush Sr.'s military response was appropriate. Diplomatic options had been tried and rebuffed. Regional stability was threatened. Unchecked aggression would have resulted in more and bigger military actions by an emboldened Iraqi government and larger conflicts yet. Bush Sr was wise enough to know that the need was limited. Accomplishing that goal did not require toppling the regieme or occupation and the consequences thereof. Our exposure was restricted.

Lord Chamberlin's attempted appeasement of Hitler was an example of stupidly avoiding war and utilizing diplomacy when the conseqences of inaction were great and the probability of success with diplomacy was small. America's choice to engage in WW2 was wise and the isolationist/pacifist view of the time was stupid and shortsighted.

So again, what are your guiding general principles? - not just a list of stupid choices

I just need to point out that Dire Straits is Mark Knopfler's band. Saying this is his cover of a Dire Straits song is like referring to a Paul McCartney cover of a Beatles song.

Matthew: Yes, I guess you're right. The band did a version, too, which is why I referred to it that way. I liked his video better although I think I liked the band's version better.

Don: Well I guess I missed your principles. Please spell them out for me in a short, concise comment. Did Vietnam meet them? World War I?

So as I understand yours and kagiso's principles, it's ok to invade if a fascist (or communist or some totalitarian) regime invades one of your colonies (sounds like Vietnam, as do your arguments about Bush I, although without seeing your principles I'm not sure; I apologize if I missed them. Just repeat them concisely for me for my reference).

kagiso's civil liberties points (that the Argentines arrested people for political reasons) doesn't hold much weight for me. It's regrettable and the Junta were despicable. But so are the Saudis and Karzai and the Egyptians and the Israelis and a lot of other regimes, including Juntas whom we supported and even helped put in place (Chile, for example). Our country and his country and just about every country jails people for political reasons in wartime and also in peace time. I don't think it's germane, but for the record I've been jailed for political reasons. It's very, very unpleasant and frightening but it happens. If that were a reason to go to war we'd be at war with everyone and every one with us.

In the Nobel thread I wrote:

"The issues include how much we have fully exhausted other tools as options and/or how effective they might be, how much our own vital interests and future safety are at stake, how much damage may be caused by the action versus how much is risked by inaction, the need to respect other nations' sovereignty vs the need to intervene when some human rights lines are crossed (such as genocide)."

And then I applied those standards later - after some goading - to Afghanistan. That post can be read there.
It is a bit unfair for me to apply these standards in retrospect, knowing how things turned out it is easy to say that Chamberlin was a fool, that WW1 was stupid, etc. That said Viet Nam did not meet my standards. I have discussed how I have applied them to a few that I was around for as an informed adult and what I thought as they happened without the benefit of knowing how it played out. I also, for illustration, believe that Israel's responding militarily to rockets tossed incessently from Gaza was justified, but that the sort of action was a Bush Jr. response when a Bush 1 was called for - a small quick somewhat proportionate response and then back out. IOW that Israel needs to be more fully engaged with diplomatic solutions (pulling out of the settlements for a start) but failing that succeeding it should take on the position of a snappinig turtle: maintaining a good defensive posture as much as possible (in the shell) but when poked with a stick quickly give a quick snap and get back in. No sticking necks out too far and trying to destroy that which poked you. Beyond that is not likely to accomplish good for Israel (in fact is likely to cause harm) and cause disproportionate harm to civilian populations. The prinicples: try nonmilitary options if they have a reasonable chance of acceptable outcomes; respond to a degree that relates to vital interests and safety; assess what damage action and inaction may each do and try to come up with a formulation that minimizes the damage to the potential benefit to all involved; balance sovereignty vs human rights - apply. Now given that none of us have the crystal ball we may (nay will) each make different assessments as to how likely non-military options are to succeed and what likely outcomes of each action are. But if we agree that those are reasonable principles then we can then debate those points as specifics and understand how and why we disagree.