A Defense of Calibrated Warfare: the Obama Doctrine

President Barack Obama gave the best defense of calibrated warfare in decades (perhaps ever) last night. That is not, perhaps, as much of a compliment as it sounds: I can't think of a previous justification for calibrated warfare. Since Vietnam - a major failure of calibrated war - a series of smart U.S. policymakers has elucidated a clear repudiation of the concept.

Calibrated warfare is military action that falls short of full commitment. It implies that we might be willing to lose the war if it becomes too costly, a dangerous precedent for a superpower. The Weinberger and Powell Doctrines reject this approach, stating U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed. We have violated these doctrines frequently, mainly under President Clinton, whose disastrous decisions in Somalia cost thousands of American and foreign lives by convincing our enemies that America would give up once enough G.I.'s had been killed in any given conflict. It took President Bush's ugly subjugation of Iraq to convince the world that America can still handle death.

Calibrated warfare is a dangerous game; clearly, however, it is the right approach to Libya. Obama did an excellent job distinguishing between military and political goals in Libya. Like everyone else, Obama wants Qaddafi ousted. But that goal is beyond the scope of military action, precisely because the cost could match Iraq's. However, the goal of preventing a wholesale slaughter of Eastern Libyans was and is a worthwhile goal for intervention, according to the Obama Doctrine. Thus, he is committed to exercising American power only to meet that goal. If it helps topple Qaddafi, all the better, but we won't be putting Marines into Tripoli to capture the Colonel or to mediate with force between opposing Libyan factions.

This is an important step in formalizing ideas about America's role in the world. We said "never again" after the Holocaust; we said "never again" after Cambodia's killing fields; we said "never again" after Rwanda's genocide; we said "never again" after ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. The use of force for humanitarian ends was clearly the only way to stop similar atrocities. Iraq and Afghanistan, however, made it clear that nation-building is beyond the capacity of our military. What's a superpower to do? Clearly stated, sharply delineated goals allow us to step in, stop a madman's military machine, and then step out - even if the result is dictatorship or low-level civil war. We're not trying to give the Libyans a democracy by force, just removing the imminent threat of Qaddafi's military.

Obama's approach is still riddled with problems, however. What happens if an even worse tyrant arises in Qaddafi's place? What if the Benghazi government carries out reprisal killings in the tens of thousands? How do we deal with low-tech massacres like Rwanda, where air power would be pointless? As much as Obama wants to avoid it, the Pottery Barn rule still applies: if a U.S. Air Force-created power vacuum results in the reign of a homicidal maniac, nobody is going to let the U.S. off the hook.

Taxation and Equality

High tax rates combined with a Byzantine system of credits, breaks, loopholes, and shelters are one of the best ways known to reward big corporations and punish little ones. General Electric, with politicians in its pocket, can get away with getting a $3.2 billion payment from the IRS at tax time, in a year in which it earned $14 billion worldwide.

Lower taxes and simpler taxes level the playing field for businesses and citizens who can't afford to hire a small army of (sleazebag) tax attorneys.

Oh, and next time you're shopping for lightbulbs or appliances? Skip G.E. Buy another brand - which probably has to pay taxes - and support America.

Earnestness and Culture

Check out the WSJ's review of In Search of Civilization by John Armstrong. Armstrong appears to have a classical view of civilization, updated to 21st-century relevance.

Tax the Rich? We do.

Using well-respected OECD data, economists at the Tax Foundation found that the United States depends on its highest 10% of earners for a larger share of taxes than any other rich country. Looking only at income and payroll tax, the top 10% of U.S. earners pay 45% of taxes while earning 33% of all income.

Since European countries have higher tax rates than the U.S., for the most part, what this means is that we "undertax" our middle class relative to other rich countries. The difference is even starker when you consider that the U.S. has low sales taxes (which hit the poor and middle class hard) and will have the highest corporate income tax as of next month.

Next time somebody claims that the U.S. has a less progressive tax structure than Europe, Canada, Japan or anywhere else, ask them for data.

The Arab Revolt is in Dera'a

Syria's protesters are not going quietly. Do we need any more evidence that the yearning for freedom from government oppression is universal?

Kudos to the commenter who knows whither the title of this post is drawn; no searching.

Mt. Morris

For those of us who enjoy stopping in the town of Mount Morris on our way to Letchworth State Park, the town has become a more and more welcoming place, an emblem of small-town sensibility and charm. It's not an accident.

The NYTimes profiles the efforts of Queens businessman Greg O'Connell, a SUNY Geneseo alumnus, in remaking the town.

Things began to change in Mount Morris in 2007. That was when O'Connell quietly began buying up buildings — he now owns 20 — on Main Street... He restored the historic storefronts and interiors, cleaning the tin ceilings. He renovated the apartments on the second floors, bringing in fresh paint, oak and maple floors, new windows, nice bathrooms... O'Connell charges these businesses as little as $100 a month in rent, but he asks for things in return... O'Connell's leases require businesses to leave their lights on at night, to change their window displays at least four times a year and to stay open one evening a week. "If this place is going to make it," he says, "it’s going to be a community effort."

O'Connell became famous for developing Red Hook, Brooklyn, an area previously known for drugs and prostitution. There, he gained a reputation as a "socialist" - because he didn't build luxury condos on the cheap or flip buildings - while earning millions.

O'Connell says his wife won't give him permission to "do another town" - but if you've got a cool million lying around, visit Mount Morris and wonder if you could emulate the model elsewhere.

Year of the Weird

This year is boggling the minds of those who have followed international organizations for any length of time. First, the Arab League voted to call for the use of force against one of its members for violently suppressing protest (while using force in another country - Bahrain - to suppress protests). Now, according to Drudge a crazed dictator in the throes of a civil war immediately ceased military operations IN RESPONSE TO A U.N. RESOLUTION!?!?!?!?!

Prior to this, no dictator has ever done anything in response to a U.N. resolution. The U.N. matters? What's the world coming to? And why can't I still be involved in Model UN and Model Arab League - they finally became cool!