by Matt Barr

Allies do matter

The Hezbollah-Israeli war is not World War II (it's not even World War III yet). At stake isn't the future of Christian civilization, as Churchill called it on the eve of the Battle of Britain. I know this and don't mean to imply otherwise. But having said that, if you wrote this piece entitled The Wisdom of Retreat as the Nazis were bombing London, people would think you had lost your mind.

If I may paraphrase: Diplomacy is a long shot because Nazi Germany has proven itself capable of subduing most of Europe and is unlikely to renounce its thirst for conquest. Anyone trying to enforce an armistice between Britain and Germany is likely to fail because the Nazis are powerful and have proven themselves difficult to beat back from England.

So we have to decide whether to support a cease fire that doesn't neutralize the Nazi threat. Doing so would spare Britain, at least (or at most?) temporarily, but would bolster Nazi prestige. It would encourage Nazi supporters and the like-minded that Britain and the U.S. are patsies.

But we should support this kind of arrangement anyway. First because while we often try to do the right thing by our friends, sometimes it's politically difficult and will make other foreign policy priorities more difficult later. When footage of downed Nazi planes is shown throughout the world Germany's allies get angry. We need to avoid that.

Second because although Europe hasn't had any luck containing the Nazis, this doesn't mean what we're doing is right. That is to say, it is not a reason to unflinchingly support Britain that Europe's approach to the Nazi threat hasn't worked. In fact we risk our policy avoiding scrutiny if we aren't careful. We can't just resolve to do the opposite of what Europe' done with Hitler and let that be the end of our self-examination.

Third because even if you successfully beat back the Nazis from Britain, you can't possibly exterminate them entirely, not without committing vast resources in an effort that would be politically difficult to pull off. There is no international support for liberating Paris. And just imagine if we had to fight a simultaneous war in the Pacific or something. We'd be screwed.

[T]he United States is supporting a war that is defensible in concept. Yes, it was Germany that provoked this fight. Yes, destroying this militant state-within-a-state would be a boon not just for British security but for European democracy. And yes, the diplomatic options for dealing with Hitler promise no quick progress. But ... wars must be more than defensible in concept. Wars are only defensible if they can be won.

Allies do matter, writes Mallaby, by which he means if our future partners in efforts to contain, say, North Korea don't want to support Israel, we should think about not doing it. But allies do matter, and if they're acting in self defense and not out to conquer somebody, we should be behind them morally. I find it hard to believe that if Britain were warring against a paramilitary group intent on destroying it anybody (sensible) would be arguing that it's going to be too hard to win, so let's lean on Britain to back down. Or supporting Britain is going to be unpopular in Europe, and we don't want our unpopularity to be so toxic we can't get anything done.

That last line deserves separate comment. What makes war the only thing in the world that is only defensible if you're guaranteed success? I suppose that's a separate post.

Browse books from Amazon.com: