War and image

In a zero-sum game, if one side loses, the other side gains, but according to Matt Yglesias at TPM...

War is typically a negative sum endeavor that leaves both sides worse off than they would have been had the war not begun. Think of Iraq -- the US seriously damaged our interests by invading, but Saddam Hussein didn't benefit at all from the war.

It sounds sufficiently dippy that I hesitate to express the view, but the simple fact of the matter is that going to war is rarely a good idea. The benefits of international cooperation -- or simple lack of active conflict -- are sufficiently large that there are almost always alternatives that would have been more conducive to both sides' interests.

That should be obvious, don't you think? Yet people keep advocating war at the drop of a hat. Go figure...

Matt also shares some thoughtful analysis of "the centrality of 9/11 to Bush's political persona". When all is said and done, the attacks succeeded on his watch and the evidence shows that there was ample warning that were going to occur. Afterwards all Bush did was give a few speeches.

Providing inspirational rhetorical leadership in a time of panic is legitimately part of the president's job. But it still doesn't add up to very much. A speech is just a speech. It's not, moreover, like this was a DeGaulle or Churchill type situation where the disaster struck and then a new leader stepped forward to take the reigns of authority from those who had failed and gave a speech to mark a new beginning. His popularity skyrocketed because, having failed to foil a serious terrorist plot, he made a series of pleasing remarks about the plot. And ever since that day, I think this dynamic has been infecting our national strategy. The main goal, in essence, is to do things that signify the adoption of an appropriate attitude toward hostile elements in the world rather than to evaluate possible courses of action in terms of their effects.

The debate on Iraq is just awash in this. The war gets discussed as if it's a metaphor of some kind. A good opportunity to demonstrate resolve or commitment, or else the lack thereof. A place where our stick-to-it-iveness will show how strongly we feel that democracy is good. A shadow theater wherein we send messages to al-Qaeda or Iran or what have you have. But, of course, Iraq is a real place. The soldiers and civilians in that country are real people. They shoot real bullets and detonate real explosives. And so the question has to be, what, actually, is being achieved? What more might realistically be achieved? What are the consequences -- not intentions, not desires, not hopes, but consequences -- of our policies?

Poor Matt... he's stuck in the reality-based community. He doesn't understand that in GWB's world, image is everything -- his reality is a photo-op.