PDA

View Full Version : Selective Engagement



Peter1469
03-28-2014, 06:01 PM
Neocons try to paint those who aren't warmongers as isolationists. Clearly, this is not accurate. When we think of the grand strategy of a nation (the direction of national resources for defense) we typically only focus on the extremes: on the one hand we have the doctrine of Primacy and on the other hand, Isolationism.

Primacy is where the nation must dominate everywhere. Isolationism is where the nation draws in on itself and lets the other nations sort themselves out.

But there is a middle ground- selective engagement. This is my position, although I never used the term before.


A strategy of selective engagement emphasizes restraint and disciplined choice when it comes to foreign engagement. It recognizes the economic limits of U.S. foreign engagement—that the U.S. has finite political, military and economic resources and those should be deployed solely in defense of the national interest. Selective engagement also calls for a more narrowly defined national interest and the use of force only when those interests are explicitly threatened. This view differs widely from primacy, which encourages a broader use of the military to spread democracy and to serve in the role of world’s policeman. The problem with this approach is that it leads to overstretch—assuming more commitments than the U.S. can reasonably handle. This exacts a toll on U.S. personnel, technology, and political capital that has a deleterious effect on our national security. (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/grand-strategy-rand-paul-10147?page=1)


Give the article a read.

Peter1469
03-29-2014, 09:12 AM
This thread fits in with many of the ongoing threads about Ukraine.

Mainecoons
03-29-2014, 09:56 AM
Exactly. When you're broke and in decline, you have to pick your fights very selectively.

Of course, the reason we are broke and in decline is directly the result of bad, bloated, runaway government.

At all levels.

Peter1469
03-29-2014, 10:12 AM
Even when you aren't broke it makes sense to focus on selective engagement.

Adelaide
03-29-2014, 01:21 PM
Exactly. When you're broke and in decline, you have to pick your fights very selectively.

Of course, the reason we are broke and in decline is directly the result of bad, bloated, runaway government.

At all levels.

I don't even want to say this because it's so typically liberal, but Afghanistan and Iraq really did a number when the US couldn't afford it. Obama has been an idiot with campaign promises to move out and continual delays which really makes him no better than his predecessor. The US military does need to pick its battles better, and to execute them more efficiently.

Peter1469
03-30-2014, 05:42 AM
Both invasions (Iraq and Afghanistan) were short and wildly successful, and pretty cheap. It was mission creep into occupation that never could be won.

However, regarding selective engagement, Afghanistan would have been attacked after 9-11 to end the al Qaeda training camps and to punish the Taliban for harboring al Qaeda. And both of those goals were completed very early in that war.

Iraq would not have happened under selective engagement.


I don't even want to say this because it's so typically liberal, but Afghanistan and Iraq really did a number when the US couldn't afford it. Obama has been an idiot with campaign promises to move out and continual delays which really makes him no better than his predecessor. The US military does need to pick its battles better, and to execute them more efficiently.

Libhater
03-30-2014, 06:35 AM
Even when you aren't broke it makes sense to focus on selective engagement.

For the most part I agree with what you are saying. However, I do have a problem with some of your definitions as they apply
to our military presence overseas. First, I don't see Neocons as being warmongers per se, and they don't necessarily paint
others as isolationalists.
I don't know who these primacy people are, for I don't know of anyone in power or anyone from our past history who seeks
to dominate everyone. You talk as though these primacy people were imperialists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most of our military missions have had two objectives, either to stop the spread of imperialistic nations or to set up a form of
democracy in nations that have a dictator in charge and or a dictator who is performing mass genocide on his own people, ala
Saddam Hussein.
Would you call Ronald Reagan a warmonger?

Peter1469
03-30-2014, 06:44 AM
No, what nation, if any did Reagan invade and occupy?

The article is pretty clear on the definition of a primacy foreign policy. And in the OP, the words not in the quote box were my words, not the author of the article.


For the most part I agree with what you are saying. However, I do have a problem with some of your definitions as they apply
to our military presence overseas. First, I don't see Neocons as being warmongers per se, and they don't necessarily paint
others as isolationalists.
I don't know who these primacy people are, for I don't know of anyone in power or anyone from our past history who seeks
to dominate everyone. You talk as though these primacy people were imperialists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most of our military missions have had two objectives, either to stop the spread of imperialistic nations or to set up a form of
democracy in nations that have a dictator in charge and or a dictator who is performing mass genocide on his own people, ala
Saddam Hussein.
Would you call Ronald Reagan a warmonger?

Libhater
03-30-2014, 07:04 AM
No, what nation, if any did Reagan invade and occupy?

The article is pretty clear on the definition of a primacy foreign policy. And in the OP, the words not in the quote box were my words, not the author of the article.

Whether the quotes came from you or from the article, I'm having a hard time understanding 'YOUR' definition of 'warmonger' and of 'primacy' as it
pertains to your posting. What exactly is a warmonger?
The article says....'primacy' encourages a broader use of the military to spread democracy and to serve in the role of world's policeman.
Who exactly are you referring to when you use this world primacy? Are you saying that Neocons are these primacists if that's a word?
You make these primacists out to be warmongers or imperialists. Just looking for some clarification, that's all.
You said yourself that primacy is when a nation must dominate everywhere, and then went on to say that Neocons are warmongers or
primacists.

Peter1469
03-30-2014, 07:26 AM
Whether the quotes came from you or from the article, I'm having a hard time understanding 'YOUR' definition of 'warmonger' and of 'primacy' as it
pertains to your posting. What exactly is a warmonger?
The article says....'primacy' encourages a broader use of the military to spread democracy and to serve in the role of world's policeman.
Who exactly are you referring to when you use this world primacy? Are you saying that Neocons are these primacists if that's a word?
You make these primacists out to be warmongers or imperialists. Just looking for some clarification, that's all.
You said yourself that primacy is when a nation must dominate everywhere, and then went on to say that Neocons are warmongers or
primacists.

So where is your confusion?

Note, that is my opinion. I have no idea whether the author would equate warmongering with the theory of primacy in foreign affairs.

Necessarily, if a superpower is going to pursue primacy, other nations will either accommodate it, or there will be conflict. But I would rather that you focus on and understand the article as opposed to my opinion.

Libhater
03-30-2014, 08:11 AM
So where is your confusion?

Note, that is my opinion. I have no idea whether the author would equate warmongering with the theory of primacy in foreign affairs.

Necessarily, if a superpower is going to pursue primacy, other nations will either accommodate it, or there will be conflict. But I would rather that you focus on and understand the article as opposed to my opinion.

Stop the doubletalk. I am opposed to your opinion as well as opposed to the article's opinion on what determines a warmonger, and what determines a primacy
ideology(s), and how you have painted these Neocons as advocates of a primacy doctrine. Tell me in your own words what it means to be an advocate of this
thing you call a primacy doctrine? Tell me in your own words what or who you would define as being a warmonger? For instance, I'm a combat veteran, and as
such having fought in a war--would that automatically make me a warmonger?

Mainecoons
03-30-2014, 08:46 AM
I don't even want to say this because it's so typically liberal, but Afghanistan and Iraq really did a number when the US couldn't afford it. Obama has been an idiot with campaign promises to move out and continual delays which really makes him no better than his predecessor. The US military does need to pick its battles better, and to execute them more efficiently.

The U.S. military does not pick battles. The idiots in D.C. pick battles and basically every one since WWII could have been avoided.

Peter1469
03-30-2014, 08:53 AM
Stop the doubletalk.

I will try to type slower.


I am opposed to your opinion as well as opposed to the article's opinion on what determines a warmonger,

The article does not use the term warmonger.


and what determines a primacy ideology(s), and how you have painted these Neocons as advocates of a primacy doctrine. From the article:

Selective engagement is the grand strategy advanced by scholars such as Robert Art and Barry Posen which seeks to strike a balance between isolationism and primacy, the latter of which is championed by many in conservative and Republican foreign-policy circles. Primacy advocates define the national interest in much broader terms, and seeks to maximize U.S. foreign engagement and rely heavily on U.S. military intervention. For example, many advocated more expansive military intervention in both Libya and Syria.

See the bolded for the author's definition of primacy, as used in foreign relations.


Tell me in your own words what it means to be an advocate of this thing you call a primacy doctrine?

I don't call it the primacy doctrine. Scholars and experts do. Primacy is advocating for the nation to be the prime controller of global affairs. When people define US national security interests loosely enough to justify military intervention to resolve many foreign problems, they rely on primacy. But the author of the OP says it better.


Tell me in your own words what or who you would define as being a warmonger? For instance, I'm a combat veteran, and as such having fought in a war--would that automatically make me a warmonger? No, you can't tell whether a soldier serving in combat is a warmonger only by evidence of that service. Odd that you should ask that.

Warmongers are people who think military force is the better option for solving problems with foreign countries. They are also the people who claim that everyone who do not agree with them are isolationists.

Max Rockatansky
03-30-2014, 08:57 AM
Even when you aren't broke it makes sense to focus on selective engagement.

Agreed 100%.

This grand strategy rests on a national interest comprised of three pillars: (1) the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States, (2) the safety, security, and liberty of United States citizens, and (3) the ability to conduct trade and engage in commerce. It acknowledges that American military power will remain the ultimate guarantor of U.S. national security and will remain the most important instrument of grand strategy but recognizes that force should only be used in defense of America's national interests-not for the purposes of nation-building, peacekeeping, or democracy promotion.

Great article by Rand Paul and, IMO, a slight departure from his previous stance on foreign engagements. I agree with this strategy. The last sentence quoted, especially "peacekeeping" can come into conflict with points 2 and 3. History is full of hot wars inside one country spilling over into another. Syria is doing this now with some instances of combatants going across the borders.

Libhater
03-30-2014, 10:31 AM
From the article:

Selective engagement is the grand strategy advanced by scholars such as Robert Art and Barry Posen which seeks to strike a balance between isolationism and primacy, the latter of which is championed by many in conservative and Republican foreign-policy circles. Primacy advocates define the national interest in much broader terms, and seeks to maximize U.S. foreign engagement and rely heavily on U.S. military intervention. For example, many advocated more expansive military intervention in both Libya and Syria.

This definition which you seem to agree with is factually wrong in that Conservative/Republican foreign affair policies do
not seek to 'MAXIMIZE' our engagement. Any and all military interventions to date seem to have as its main objective to
oust the dictators and to set up some sort of democratic society. The Iraq affair had as a bounus the failure of Saddam
to agree to the 19 U.N. Resolutions as being another reason for our intervention. No Republican or Conservative administration
that I know of intervenes into a foreign nation with the intent to maximize a lengthy stay, and it certainly doesn't intervene
with the intention of 'Dominating' another nation, i.e. in an imperialistic manner as the 'primacy' label would suggest.





Warmongers are people who think military force is the better option for solving problems with foreign countries.

Wrong, I doubt these people you call 'warmongers' have as their sole reason or for a specific reason to war against
a foreign nation in solving international problems. I would still like to get an example or two of who you might label
as a 'warmonger'. You know, sometimes applying sanctions to these rogue nations just doesn't do the job; military
might or at least the underlying vision by these rogue dictators of America using military force will often be sufficient,
i.e. with Ronald Reagan's Star Wars initiative in helping to bring down the Iron Curtain.

While I appreciate you favoring a non aggressive approach to these foreign affairs, the fact that others prefer
to use military might when needed should in no way be construed as to suggest them being 'warmongers'.

Libhater
03-30-2014, 10:35 AM
[QUOTE=Libhater;562090][/I]

This definition which you seem to agree with is factually wrong in that Conservative/Republican foreign affair policies do
not seek to 'MAXIMIZE' our engagement. Any and all military interventions to date seem to have as its main objective to
oust the dictators and to set up some sort of democratic society. The Iraq affair had as a bounus the failure of Saddam
to agree to the 19 U.N. Resolutions as being another reason for our intervention. No Republican or Conservative administration
that I know of intervenes into a foreign nation with the intent to maximize a lengthy stay, and it certainly doesn't intervene
with the intention of 'Dominating' another nation, i.e. in an imperialistic manner as the 'primacy' label would suggest.





Wrong, I doubt these people you call 'warmongers' have as their sole reason or for a specific reason to war against
a foreign nation in solving international problems. I would still like to get an example or two of who you might label
as a 'warmonger'. You know, sometimes applying sanctions to these rogue nations just doesn't do the job; military
might or at least the underlying vision by these rogue dictators of America using military force will often be sufficient,
i.e. with Ronald Reagan's Star Wars initiative in helping to bring down the Iron Curtain.

While I appreciate you favoring a non aggressive approach to these foreign affairs, the fact that others prefer
to use military might when needed should in no way be construed as to suggest them being 'warmongers'.

I doubt you would have called FDR a 'warmonger' for having engaged in WWII or calling JFK a 'warmonger'
for having stopped the buildup of commie missiles in Cuba.

Peter1469
03-30-2014, 10:37 AM
maximize engagement isn't limited to military force. Notice the bolded above - the and in between maximize U.S. foreign engagement and rely heavily on U.S. military intervention.




[/I]

This definition which you seem to agree with is factually wrong in that Conservative/Republican foreign affair policies do
not seek to 'MAXIMIZE' our engagement. Any and all military interventions to date seem to have as its main objective to
oust the dictators and to set up some sort of democratic society. The Iraq affair had as a bounus the failure of Saddam
to agree to the 19 U.N. Resolutions as being another reason for our intervention. No Republican or Conservative administration
that I know of intervenes into a foreign nation with the intent to maximize a lengthy stay, and it certainly doesn't intervene
with the intention of 'Dominating' another nation, i.e. in an imperialistic manner as the 'primacy' label would suggest.






Wrong, I doubt these people you call 'warmongers' have as their sole reason or for a specific reason to war against
a foreign nation in solving international problems. I would still like to get an example or two of who you might label
as a 'warmonger'. You know, sometimes applying sanctions to these rogue nations just doesn't do the job; military
might or at least the underlying vision by these rogue dictators of America using military force will often be sufficient,
i.e. with Ronald Reagan's Star Wars initiative in helping to bring down the Iron Curtain.

While I appreciate you favoring a non aggressive approach to these foreign affairs, the fact that others prefer
to use military might when needed should in no way be construed as to suggest them being 'warmongers'.

Ransom
03-30-2014, 10:43 AM
The U.S. military does not pick battles. The idiots in D.C. pick battles and basically every one since WWII could have been avoided.

We could have avoided each and every war including ww2.

Max Rockatansky
03-30-2014, 10:47 AM
We could have avoided each and every war including ww2.

Appeasement and running away from a fight is a temporary measure at best. Eventually we would have had to confront either Germany and/or Japan (probably both) and the USSR.

The Xl
03-30-2014, 10:53 AM
The only time we should be engaging anyone militarily is when they are a legitimate threat to the nation who has started a combat related issue with us.

Those variables haven't been met in a long time.

Ransom
03-30-2014, 11:06 AM
I would still like to get an example or two of who you might label
as a 'warmonger'......

Don't forget Pete, to offer links and quotes if you're going to example observing members here on tpf. You know I've often asked for libhater's request here, you often cough and spat at 'warmongering' yet never provide an example. Telling.


While I appreciate you favoring a non aggressive approach to these foreign affairs, the fact that others prefer
to use military might when needed should in no way be construed as to suggest them being 'warmongers'.

The attempt to focus on others, the labels given them are actually a deflection of Pete's own record. Current events and endeavors call for an immediate review in policies moving forward to cut our military. They prove that calls for withdraw and a smaller footprint have resulted in more not less chaos as foretold. Pete is on record claiming Syria doesn't even rate as on the interests of national security while at the same time offering the US use nuclear weapons there in the event of wmd proliferation by forces there he himself warned had become increasingly radicalized. And organized. He's called for regional powers(the nation of Turkey his example given there.......I know.....the same Turkey facilitating these....increasingly radicalized extremists who we would supposedly nuke given they try to move captured Assad wmds)....while arguing Assad be left in power. I know...very confusing....this all of course under his umbrella argument that more chaos there....somehow "makes the West safer." A virtual all over the board salad of bullshit he doesn't elaborate on because he knows it will make him look the village idiot.

Libhater
03-30-2014, 12:28 PM
Don't forget Pete, to offer links and quotes if you're going to example observing members here on tpf. You know I've often asked for libhater's request here, you often cough and spat at 'warmongering' yet never provide an example. Telling.



The attempt to focus on others, the labels given them are actually a deflection of Pete's own record. Current events and endeavors call for an immediate review in policies moving forward to cut our military. They prove that calls for withdraw and a smaller footprint have resulted in more not less chaos as foretold. Pete is on record claiming Syria doesn't even rate as on the interests of national security while at the same time offering the US use nuclear weapons there in the event of wmd proliferation by forces there he himself warned had become increasingly radicalized. And organized. He's called for regional powers(the nation of Turkey his example given there.......I know.....the same Turkey facilitating these....increasingly radicalized extremists who we would supposedly nuke given they try to move captured Assad wmds)....while arguing Assad be left in power. I know...very confusing....this all of course under his umbrella argument that more chaos there....somehow "makes the West safer." A virtual all over the board salad of bullshit he doesn't elaborate on because he knows it will make him look the village idiot.

Yeah, I just can't seem to get my message across to Pete that his view along with the view from the article suggesting that
Conservatives/Republicans take a war mongering/primacy approach to foreign affairs is dead wrong, that is according to what
I believe them to mean is war mongering or primacy, for neither Pete or the article has made it clear.

Peter1469
03-30-2014, 04:01 PM
Yeah, I just can't seem to get my message across to Pete that his view along with the view from the article suggesting that
Conservatives/Republicans take a war mongering/primacy approach to foreign affairs is dead wrong, that is according to what
I believe them to mean is war mongering or primacy, for neither Pete or the article has made it clear.


And I don't think that you understand the article's use of the term primacy in foreign relations. I shouldn't have tossed in my language in my intro about warmongering, as it got you off the critical track. That was my fault.

Green Arrow
03-30-2014, 04:09 PM
Selective engagement. I like that. It's non-interventionism, just without the stupid knee-jerk reaction our opponents have to the term.

donttread
03-30-2014, 04:42 PM
Neocons try to paint those who aren't warmongers as isolationists. Clearly, this is not accurate. When we think of the grand strategy of a nation (the direction of national resources for defense) we typically only focus on the extremes: on the one hand we have the doctrine of Primacy and on the other hand, Isolationism.

Primacy is where the nation must dominate everywhere. Isolationism is where the nation draws in on itself and lets the other nations sort themselves out.

But there is a middle ground- selective engagement. This is my position, although I never used the term before.




Give the article a read.

I believe we and all other countries should be held to the same self defense standards as citizens are .

Peter1469
03-30-2014, 05:14 PM
Selective engagement. I like that. It's non-interventionism, just without the stupid knee-jerk reaction our opponents have to the term.

It merges reality (the strength of the state, economic, socially and military) with actual national security interests. States ought not go off tilting at windmills because it is the moral thing to do.

Peter1469
03-30-2014, 05:15 PM
I believe we and all other countries should be held to the same self defense standards as citizens are .

Nation states are sovereign powers, so there isn't a valid comparison.

Blackrook
03-31-2014, 10:16 PM
The United States cannot defend Ukraine and we should never have encouraged them to disarm their nuclear weapons and conventional military in return for a promise that Russia would respect their borders. We never had the ability to enforce that agreement, so we shouldn't have made it. What we should have done is encourage Ukraine to keep its nukes and join the small group of nuclear weapons, and then given them a seat on the security counsel equal to the other nuclear nations. A nuclear Ukraine with a permanent seat on the UN security counsel would have been a powerful ally to the West.