More Troops – What a Surprise… Do the Kagans EVER Say Anything Else?


Am I the only one who finds that the Kagans are relentlessly, almost ideologically, committed to US build-ups overseas, and the regular use of military power and military-related tools generally? I just read the WaPo op-ed from last week. It tells me nothing I haven’t heard from them whether on C-Span, Lehrer, or from their various websites/think-tanks for years. Certainly, Afghanistan may be worth the build-up they counsel. My own thoughts are deeply divided, so it’s not obvious that they are wrong in the op-ed. Nor are they incorrect that military leverage is the ultimate backbone for the exercise of national power. I agree there too. And I know they are a lot smarter, better travelled, and have better access than me. So I do read them usually.

But increasingly I don’t feel like I need to. I already know their answer – more soldiers, and more ‘will’ or ‘backbone.’ As Greenwald has said, these guys seems like robots. They always seem to suggest that more US force is the answer. If Russia misbehaves, we should threaten it implicitly and let southeastern Europe into NATO. On China, belligerence is the obvious way to save Taiwan. Iran should be bombed. Iraq was a great idea. Etc, etc.

It can’t be this easy. There are other tools of national power and influence – diplomacy, aid, sanctions – and these are wildly underfunded. (Compare the DoD and State budgets; the former is funded by 25-30x the latter. And forget about USAID.) I realize that soft power or whatever you want to call it is ‘soft.’ It doesn’t work too well. But counsels to war or war-like build-ups/advisors/military aid, etc, have their own massive costs that I never seem to hear about that from them or other ‘neo-cons’ (if that is where the Kagans lie). Walt has a nice 2- piece on the huge costs this sort of counsel implicitly carries. You can’t just war and war – it guts democratic freedoms at home, turns you into an imperialist abroad (whether you want to be or not), and breaks the domestic fiscus. (Not to mention that your country becomes responsible for a great deal of death and destruction, regardless of the cause it serves.) Do the Kagans ever blink for a moment when they read about the trillion dollar deficits for the next decade? I am sure they do. They are pretty bright. But is their answer simply to reflexively demand domestic program cuts to prop-up defense spending at the $6-700 billion level indefinitely? Again it just can’t be that easy.

13 thoughts on “More Troops – What a Surprise… Do the Kagans EVER Say Anything Else?

  1. It’s easy to advocate for war, war, war when your own kids don’t go to fight it, your paycheck depends on such advocacy, and you’re not ultimately responsible for reconciling evermorewar with other priorities.

    Like you, I’m hesitant to ascribe evilness to any of the Kagans. But when all they ever advocate, in any and all situations, is more aggression and war, you begin to wonder. It’s a triumphalist hangover from the fall of the Iron curtain, and the more discredited these people become, the more agitated for war they become. We beat the Soviets and the world is ours now, and when the world doesn’t do what we tell it to, the War Party becomes enraged. They don’t like brown people telling them to buzz off.


  2. Pingback: There’s No US-Israel ‘Crisis’ — It’s just Regular Old Alliance Politics « Asian Security & US Politics Blog

  3. Pingback: Just How Hard Will Afghanistan Be?: ‘We Issue Pens to Afghan Soldiers’ « Asian Security & US Foreign Relations Blog

  4. Pingback: South Koreans are not Neo-cons « Asian Security Blog

  5. Pingback: Cheonan Sinking Changes Nothing: Kor. Inst. of Defense Analysis (1) « Asian Security Blog

  6. Pingback: Nobel: Occasionally Reminding China about Human Rights is still Good « Asian Security Blog

  7. Pingback: A Defense of Obama’s Limited Commitment to the Libyan Campaign « Asian Security Blog

  8. Pingback: Retrenchment & Liberal Internationalism don’t really Fit Together (1) | Asian Security Blog

  9. Pingback: In Social Science, You’re always Under-read, so What do You do? (1) | Asian Security Blog

  10. Pingback: Iraq 10 Years Later (1): How Culpable is Academic International Relations? | Robert Kelly — Asian Security Blog

  11. Pingback: No More Neocon Faux-Cassandra Posturing: American Defense is not in “Decline” | Robert Kelly — Asian Security Blog

  12. Pingback: No More Neocon Faux-Cassandra Posturing: American Defense is not “in Decline” » Duck of Minerva

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s