What an Entangling Alliance is

What an Entangling Alliance is

We hear the repeated admonition from isolationists and Libertarians that America should stay out of entangling alliances. That what happens in Iraq or Georgia is an internal matter to those lands, of no direct concern to us, and something we should stay out of, treaties and supposed interests notwithstanding. Not only should we not extend NATO membership to Georgia, we should drop out of NATO as just one more entangling alliance.

What is an entangling alliance? The Founding Fathers were economical speakers. Had they opposed alliances as such, they would simply have said so, no need for the use of a gratuitous modifier in their admonition. But the Founding Fathers did not oppose all alliances. Indeed, according to the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate are "the highest law of the land." What do we know about the types of treaties that existed during the Revolutionary era which Americans may have wanted to avoid?

The precursor event to the American Revolution was the Seven Years War, fought between Britain and France. The war was one for control of colonial interests: Canada, India, islands in the Caribbean. Neither France nor Britain maintained at that time any serious claims to the homeland of the other. The war was one of proxies and mercenaries, fought overseas and - significantly - in the American colonies. Washington was a P.O.W. in that war. Pittsburg was founded as a military outpost. The American colonists suffered hardship and lost trade with France, yet supported the British cause and bore much of the burden of battle. But when the war was successfully concluded, the Colonies saw themselves as punished, rather than rewarded for their efforts. Taxes were maintained and even raised by the Crown which said that the Colonies must pay for their defense from France, which was expensive. Yet the American Colonies were also forbidden from further westward expansion, limited to settled lands east of the Appalachians - a limitation that had not existed before the war.

This war had not been one of self defense. It had been a competition over foreign possessions. Such wars had raged on and off between Holland, Spain, Portugal, Britain and France for two centuries. They were seen as little benefiting the colonials. They were not wars of self defense in the normal sense. And, importantly, they were waged in a context of shifting alliances, one colonial power after another being ganged up upon so that the allies might plunder their victims. Most of the islands of the Caribbean had been held by at least two European powers. Britain got into the colony game late, and used diplomacy to wrest colonies sometimes from France, sometimes from Spain, sometimes from Holland.

The support of France for the American colonies during this period was a cynical continuation of this gamesmanship. The King of France did not make it a habit of supporting the idea of revolt against monarchy in general. American independence weakened Britain. This was what mattered. France acted in its own perceived interests, and the Americans knew this. After the war was over, their was no natural interest in a further alliance with France or with Britain. America was not in any immediate danger of invasion. No alliance of mutual self defense was necessary or possible. America could not and need not help France defend her mainland from Britain, nor vice versa.

The opposition to entangling alliances was just that - opposition of levelheaded republicans from getting involved in the proprietary struggles of two self-interested European monarchies. There were plenty of radical partisans in America. Paine and others supported the French and la revolution. Many others harbored lingering British loyalty. America, secure then in her geography, and not interested in conquest, had no need of forming an entangling alliance of the European sort meant to serve not as self defense, but as a means of ganging up on a weaker power.

This is the meaning of entangling alliance. An alliance of mutual self defense, had one made sense, would have been an alliance - but not an entangling alliance. Those like Washington who advised against entangling alliances knew that there were partisans of the British Crown and of the French Revolution who would have had us form an alliance nlot of mutual dfense, but to support these foreign causes. Their context was clear. The Founding Fathers spoke clearly to each other. The conflicts of their day were not, to them, ancient history, but headline news.

Modern thinkers make a mistake when they use the language of the Founding Fathers without its meaning or its context. Their context was radically different from ours. The Founding Fathers did not oppose all alliances as entangling. They opposed all entangling alliances. This is the same as opposing stupid decisions, not opposing decisions as stupid. Understand the difference.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/07, 11:41am)

Post 1

Sunday, September 7, 2008 - 5:13pm

Ted points out that the founding fathers did not oppose alliances - not all alliances, but only entangling alliances. We allied with France in support of our revolution, because it was in our interest to do so and because it did not entail any obligation - that is it did not entail any entanglement.

The founding fathers opposed alliances that hooked us into struggles between two other parties. They oppossed alliances that entailed obligations and that did not rise to a level of American self-interest. We were not interested in alliances for the sake of power plays, or for ideological expression, or for sake of conquest.

Ted reminds of us of how serious alliances are - as understood by the founding fathers who wrote them into the constitution as the highest law of the land. He gives us the historical context of Thomas Paine and others wanting to intervene on behalf of the French in their revolution, but that our founding fathers saw that as an entangling alliance. It did not matter that we felt an ideological kinship with that struggle, it was not an obligation that met our national self-interest. We also had supporters of Britain and a common heritage, despite our war of independence, but that was not enough to ally ourselves with our mother country when doing so would entangle us in European squabbles.

What is clear is that entanglement is tied deeply to some future sacrifice on the part of America. It is tied to something other than our national self-interest. An entanglement is an obligation that might come to pass, and that obligation would be to act against our self-interest. An entanglement could be an obligation to join in power struggles between other nations - perhaps over conquest, perhaps over differences of ideology, perhaps over long standing historical conflicts.

And when alliances are ratified as treaty they can only be violated at the risk of violating the rule of law, destroying our international credibility, and behaving as if we were a nation of no integrity.

These are all timeless principles applicable today. NATO used to be an alliance against a common enemy when the USSR made threats specifically against America. Now Russia is still a bully, but it is no longer a threat to our nation. NATO was intended as a temporary alliance. George Washington opposed all permanent alliances. NATO is in the national interest of all of Europe and certainly all of those countries that border Russia. Just as we did not want to go to war over conflicts between Britain and France - we don't want to be at war over Georgia and Russia. NATO is now an entangling alliance. There is a argument to be made that Russia's recent acts mirror those of the USSR and there may come the day when it is again in our interest to join NATO - that is true, and that is then. And the smart play would be for all of the European nations to join together and offer Russia membership in the EU for agreeing to respect the boundaries and requirements of EU members while making it clear that not going that direction will mean massive expansion of NATO, perhaps including China, and a European rearmament (which they have no reason to do while we play the policeman).

We have allies fighting beside us in Iraq. Leaving aside the issue of entering the war in Iraq, lets look at the alliances after war had commenced. It is clearly in our interest to have as many nations join us as possible. That is different from an alliance or treaty that would require us to go to war in the future, with or without allies, under conditions that might not favor our self-interest.

There is another issue that must be brought out into the open. Some people seek entanglements, even as they may deny that. There is one kind of entanglement that is good for our country - by being in our self-interest - and three that are bad for us. Our NATO alliance during the cold war days was an entanglement, because it obligated us to act when another nation was attacked. But this was an obligation that served our self-interest at the time. That is a good form of entanglement.

Another kind of entanglement that is sought on purpose is an altruistic entanglement. There are liberals and collectivist that want us to join in entangled alliances because we are rich and powerful and they expect the entanglement to be activated and the result will be that our wealth and power will come to bear in helping the world. Whether is about feeding the world, ending poverty, intervening to save lives, or to fight global warming, they abound.

There is another form of entanglement that sees international politics as a game board where you shift power this way and that to frustrate your enemy of the moment. The Metternich/Kissinger/pragmatic approach which abandons morality in politics and willingly arms the Taliban because it frustrated the USSR. We should be vigilant to not let game players get away with those discredited practices. They argue that it is national security and therefore our self-interest that is served but it is always a long chain of maybe's and if's requiring a crystal ball to prove their assertions. The passing of time has disproved their assertions

Still another form of purposely chosen entanglements are the ideologically based alliances where we put ourselves in harms way not to defend ourselves, but because we are ideological enemies with another country. This is what put us in Korea, in Vietnam, and put into dozens of treaties with hundreds of tripwires.

On taking my boat offshore, one simple rule of thumb was to never let three things be broken - make repairs as things break. If I didn't follow this rule, I would find myself fully occupied with some crucial task when a third or fourth thing would go bad and I could only watch in horror as each tiny defect became an unforeseen cause in a calamity that couldn't have happened if even one of them had been repaired. It was a rule of thumb that respected the fact that the future is unpredictable and that one can't always know the precise margin of safety needed.

We have the wealthiest of nations and the most powerful of nations and it is easy to think that we can get away with extending ourselves further and further. Not so. Again and again history has kicked the legs out from under the surprised front runner. We certainly wouldn't want to carry the load of obligations we have now if we weren't so rich and strong - the problem is that we have reached a point where we no longer have a margin of safety - and that is NOT in our self-interest.

I often look at Switzerland and think about the extraordinary benefits they reap in their tiny country by choosing not to be entangled under any circumstance. Each single citizen reaps actual benefits. They have not had periods, not in the last 400 years, where they had to see their young come home in body bags. They don't deal with emotional or the financial trauma of war. Their decision was that the purpose of their government was to defend their citizens and no more. And it is working really well for them. We on the other hand have entered into over 100 treaties with foreign nations since 1900.

Post 2

Sunday, September 7, 2008 - 9:27pm

What Steve said.

Ed

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 4:26am

I don't know Ed, you'll have to ask him.

Post 4

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 1:32pm

Steve, I understood Ted as trying to make a distinction between different kinds of alliances. From a historical point of view, it was clear that some alliances were prone to unnecessary wars. If the US had sided with one of the European powers back then, and the European powers repeatedly waged war for fortune and glory, we would have just been volunteering to get in endless wars that we couldn't benefit from.

From a logical point of view, we also can see that some alliances are troublesome. Defensive alliances can be restricted to if one of your allies is attacked, but if they initiate the war, the treaty is non-binding. More general alliances are more problematic because any ally can start a war and you're bound by treaty to participate.

So historically and logically we can see differences in alliances.

I read your post, and you seem to be arguing that any alliance (i.e., a treaty that lasts into the future), is necessarily entangling because it requires action on our part in the future. If we wanted to act in the future, we don't need a treaty to force it. If we didn't want to act in the future, we have to violate the treaty. And then you give examples of it.

It's true that from that perspective, all alliances are "entangling", since they demand future action on our parts if certain conditions arise. But Ted's point was that the qualifier wasn't redundant. "Entangling alliances" describes a subset of alliances. There's a distinction made.

Furthermore, I would argue that just because an alliance creates a future obligation doesn't mean it is sacrificial. If you focus only on the part where we end up committed to actions we might not want to participate in, of course it appears that alliances are by their nature sacrificial. But that's ignoring the fact that the other nations in the alliance have an obligation themselves. It's not simply a burden that we're accepting, but an exchange.

I've noted in the past that libertarians tend to view the US as omnipotent and alliances as wholly unnecessary. This creates the impression that alliances are necessarily sacrificial since we actually gain nothing from them, and it costs us. But this "omnipotence premise" is flawed.

On top of that, treaties are far more complicated in practice. An interesting book titled "The Treaty Trap" shows a history of treaties around the world. The conclusion is that most nations (including the US) simply ignore any treaty that violates their own interests. The US started this in the Revolutionary War, where we allied with France. We were obligated not to sue for a separate peace, as this would leave France in a difficult position. The US broke that treaty as soon as the British offered peace.

While treaties are not always followed, they can have other effects. Having a treaty can dissuade others from attacking an ally for fear that their allies may decide for whatever reason to respect the treaty. It can also give a nation a bias towards intervening. If we had a treaty to defend Georgia, for instance, the debate wouldn't be about whether we should come to their defense. That would be the default. The burden would be on those arguing for breaking the treaty.

Post 5

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 3:09pm

Joe,

I appreciated the point that Ted made on entangling alliances being a subset of all alliances.

I mentioned the alliance with France during our revolution as an example of an alliance that benefited us and was not entangling - I wasn't aware of the clause to not accept a separate peace - or that we violated that agreement. I also mentioned that we benefit from the alliances that exist in our war in Iraq and we also had allies in Vietnam. Whether minor in their aid, or major, and even if those wars should not have been entered into, it is none the less a benefit to have someone on your side when fighting. And the best example of this is WW II. And there are many treaties that have nothing to do with war. For example, there are treaties that lock in agreement on commonly accepted international laws.

As to entangling alliances, I mentioned that NATO was an entangling alliance during the days of the cold war, because it obligated us to go to the aid of other nations. But I argued that it was a GOOD entanglment because it directly aided our self-defense during those days. I went on to say that we should NOT be in NATO now, because it is still entangling, but it is no longer tied to our self-defense (at least no where near directly enough).

You said, "I read your post, and you seem to be arguing that any alliance (i.e., a treaty that lasts into the future), is necessarily entangling because it requires action on our part in the future." Yes, that is correct. But I took the examples of entanglement that Ted pulled from history and added others that were good, like NATO during the second world war. We chose to have that entanglement as a deterrent to USSR aggression at a time when we needed to defend against that threat. We weighed the options, the possible consequences and decided that net-net it was a good entanglement. So I am using the word entangling to mean possible future obligations, but going on to say that a particular entanglement might be good or it might be bad.

The founding fathers were using the term in a slightly more restrictive fashion, as Ted pointed out. The entanglements he mentioned should be avoided.

At this point, you can see that I never implied that all alliances, even those with future obligations, were necessarily sacrificial.

You mentioned some Libertarians viewing the US as omnipotent and not needing alliances. I have been called a "Libertarian," as if it were a bad name, on some of the threads where I argued against certain specific criteria given as justification for military intervention. But in fact I don't refer to myself or think of myself as a Libertarian for two reasons: 1) There are too many anarchists and too many Libertarians without a firm grasp of the proper ethical reasons for advocating free markets, and 2) Because I'm agreement with all of the basic principles of Objectivism, which makes it more accurate and more comfortable to refer to myself that way.

I see treaties and alliances as valid ways to further our goals and only ask, as I do with all laws, that they not reduce our national sovereignty in dangerous ways, and that they be made in pursuit of rational self-interest of the nation, that they arise out of some aspect of individual rights (as all laws should). We also need to be aware, that like debt, they are cumulative, so we need to be aware of the danger of adding more obligation than we can or should be willing to pay.

You said, "If we had a treaty to defend Georgia, for instance, the debate wouldn't be about whether we should come to their defense. That would be the default. The burden would be on those arguing for breaking the treaty." The argument as to whether or not it is proper for us to be Georgia's protector would still occur, it would just occur at the time the treaty was proposed. If we had such a treaty, Russia might never had attacked Georgia and the treaty would have served it's purpose. On the other hand, if they did attack anyway, we would have to go to war or dishonor our obligation - and neither might be in our interest at that time.

Right now, we are not at risk from Russia - is just isn't the old USSR and we not go back to cold war days. We aren't on the border with Russia. Europe and the neighbors of Russia would benefit from a treaty that deterred Russian aggression. But what would induce us, that is make it in our self-interest to join that treaty? If we are to be their international policeman, to risk the lives of our military and our fortune and even risk the escalation to nuclear war to protect them, it is reasonable to ask more than is currently at risk for us or that we are offered.

I think the point that I made in my post above that I liked the best was that entanglements can be categorized in different ways that resemble there true purpose:
1) The good ones that are in our national interest,
2) those that are altruistic - they are really just a commitment to expend our wealth to aid another nation,
3) The amoral or immoral 'balance of power' moves - the Metternich/Kissinger pragmatic approach to foreign policy, and
4) The ideologue's commitment where we are entangled in a way that could cause us to make sacrifice to serve a political ideology - like those where we will guarantee the safety of any nation that is opposed to Communism.

Post 6

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 3:45pm

Steve,

First, I think the point Ted made, and I agree with it, is that people who use the "entangling alliances" phrase are substituting their own meaning for it (i.e., every alliance with future possible obligations), and trying to claim support of the founding fathers. In fact, that's not at all what was meant. Their use was better and made the policy rational. Those people who want to hijack the phrase to mean any alliance at all are not only improperly attributing their meaning to others, but they're also wrong about the rationality of such a policy.

On a different point, you mentioned that the argument for whether we had a treaty would still occur, but it would happen earlier. That may be true, but there's a significant difference.

As an example, writing a Constitution to limit your government is useful, not just because you have a debate, but because you have a debate before the situation arises. If we have a first amendment that protects our freedom of the press, we don't have to wait until the government wants to violate it to have that debate. This is useful for a few reasons:

1.) It may stop the government action from occurring in the first place. Just as a treaty might stop another country from attacking.

2.) It establishes a principle ahead of time that people can agree on, without getting biased by the particulars of a case. For instance, without a clear principle of freedom of speech, the first case that might occur could involve very offensive speech. In that case, people may go with their emotions instead of with a principle. Same goes with treaties. We can decide what is in our interests while we're clear-headed about it, and not wait until the event occurs. If we had decided that protecting Georgia is in our interests (ignore whether it is or isn't), it could be decided ahead of time. If we wait until we Russia has attacked, it will be harder to make that decision. This is true because of fear and because deciding then will feel to many like we're choosing the fight, and thus we'd be the ones at fault instead of Russia.

3.) By writing a law down ahead of time, it's easy to consolidate opinion for it. If the government tries to violate our freedom of speech, we all know it's off limits to them and we can react strongly against it. If they try to violate one of the implicit rights from the 9th amendment, it's very difficult for everyone to immediately recognize the problem and the fact that the government has overstepped its boundaries. Same with a treaty. Without it, people may feel as if we are the bad guys for creating a confrontation with Russia, when in fact they are the bad guys.

So laws and treaties have benefits for establishing them early and clearly. Some people ask what good is a piece of paper anyway (like the Constitution). Paper can't stop the government from doing whatever it wants. But the answer is that the paper articulates the principles and boundaries, and acts as a method of focusing opposition to government abuses.

A treaty has similar powers of focusing attention and action. Without a treaty, it's very easy to sit around and ignore unpleasant choices. With a treaty, it becomes clear that we have to make a choice, and ignoring it is a choice.

As for whether Russia is a threat, I think the question is clearly how much of a threat, not whether they are. If we dismiss any threat that is below the level of destroying the US as a country, it's easy to imagine the whole world is one big peaceful place. But its clear that Russia is on a path to being disruptive and causing problems. Will any American's die because of this? Will our rights to trade be infringed? Will Russia support other governments who more directly attack us? I don't believe the criteria of threat should be elevated so high that anything short of annihilation is acceptable.

Post 7

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 6:38pm

Joe,

I spoke to the concepts involved in the issues of alliance. Both those with future obligations and those that are ad hoc and temporary. If it makes communications of the issues more efficient, I'll happily drop the word entangling and use some other phrase or adjective. I don't think it should be necessary, but my goal is find agreement where possible. I have no intention of trying to win points or sway arguments via a confusion on the terms. When you say, "Their use..." you are clearly indicating the founding fathers, but when you say, "Those people who want to hijack the phrase to mean any alliance at all are not only improperly attributing their meaning to others, but they're also wrong about the rationality of such a policy" it would help me to know if this includes me and what I've written on this thread, otherwise it is hard for me to know how to reply.

On the next point, that it is an advantage to write the constitution ahead of time, first to have the debate, and then to lock in the results of the debate such that they will be there for us, in writing, ahead of time, to settle conflicts - I agree completely.

But it doesn't apply to the example of Georgia and Russia. The purpose of the constitution was to limit the power of our government and to proscribe it's structure. The debate was completed. With the treaty, the debate has barely started, and whereas a constitution is absolutely necessary the treaty isn't. Where the constitution flows out of the very purpose of having a government to protect our rights, the treaty protects someone else's rights. Each of the three points you list make statements about the Russian situation that are debatable: Is it our job to stop one government from attacking another - and under what conditions and at what costs. Still under debate. People may feel like we are the bad guys for confronting Russia, but that shouldn't be a deciding concern, or a primary issue of self-interest. The necessity and nature of a confrontation with Russia is still under debate.

Laws and treaties do have great advantages if written early. And ratified treaties actually become law. But to say that the a treaty that impelled us into a confrontation with Russia is the same, or as done with the needed debate stage, or necessary as the constitution doesn't hold.

I agree that it would be wrong to see Russia as no threat at all, and it would also be wrong to see it as a grave and imminent threat right now. It would also be a mistake to think that confrontation with our military is either the only or the best approach.

If we don't have a clear, reasoned, proportional understanding of just what our current threat is from a specific country, we are very likely to either not act, to over-act, or to act in ways that don't efficiently steer that country away from being a threat.

Post 8

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 7:42pm

Steve, I haven't followed most of your posts on foreign policy, mostly because I disagree so frequently that I feel it would be a waste of time. So whether you use the phrase "entangling alliance" is something you can answer. But Ted's point, if I understood him correctly, is that it is a misuse that only serves to disparage all alliances while falsely claiming to be a view supported by our founding fathers. While you or others may view ad hoc alliances as the only form that aren't entangling, it isn't what was meant.

My example of Russia and Georgia wasn't aimed to suggest we should have an alliance, or that it has been debated, or that it's in our self-interest. I was making a narrower, more abstract point that there is a further benefit to forming a treaty while debate is clear and emotions are not dominating. Also, that if the treaty was formed before the situation occurred, it would have practical differences.

While I agree with you that we need an informed and reasoned understanding of the threat another country may hold, I don't agree with your phrase "grave and imminent". I find that phrase, and others, are geared towards dismissing threats to American lives and rights by dismissing any threat that doesn't reach the level of immediate and hopeless doom. If Iran is building nuclear weapons, it isn't "imminent" enough, despite any declared intentions of using it. Only when the missile is on the way will libertarians be willing to do something, and then only if it doesn't hurt any innocent civilians in their country.

If you want to have a clear, rational, and proportional understanding of a threat, you should avoid language that seeks to dismiss most threats.

Post 9

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 9:20pm

Joe,

I said I'm happy using language that is true to the concepts involved. I am not wedded to "entangled."

I am for alliances that come with future obligations when they are in our interest. And I said so.

I am for alliances that are ad hoc and temporary when they are in our interest. And I said so.

My posts discuss the attributes of alliances and the many ways they can not be in our interests.
-----------

You said, "I haven't followed most of your posts on foreign policy, mostly because I disagree so frequently that I feel it would be a waste of time." I'm sorry to hear that. If not disagreeing was a key consideration in making posts, many of these threads would be really empty - I often think I should not post where I disagree and only post where I'm in agreement (for my own happiness) - but many of these disagreements revolve around issues of importance to me. I don't mean to sound snippy, because I appreciate that I'm disagreeing with you on a forum that you have provided. A generosity that I appreciate. But I will say that I make an effort to read what I'm disagreeing with and I hope that those who take the time and trouble to disagree with me will read what they are disagreeing with.
----------

You said, "If Iran is building nuclear weapons, it isn't "imminent" enough, despite any declared intentions of using it. Only when the missile is on the way will libertarians be willing to do something, and then only if it doesn't hurt any innocent civilians in their country." I have posted, several times, recently, that we do not need to wait till Iran builds a bomb before taking military action. I said in this post, in reply to you, that I'm not a Libertarian, but rather an Objectivist.
-------------

I don't believe that we can have a clear, rational, and proportional understanding of a threat without naming the specific threat and its time frame and its magnitude and its likelihood. When we do that with Iran and a nuclear weapon, I immediately see that they have threatened us, that they support terrorists, that they are building the capacity to manufacture weapons, they don't respond to reason, their long term goals and moral concepts support the use of the bomb, they are not deterred by mutual destruction and that our time frame is not immediate, but also not too far out. That is a threat that can be taken seriously and we can understand what must be done and what the time frame is for trying to effect change.

What I see some of the people doing is floating vague descriptions of threats of in some hypothetical future and labeling them in horrific fashion to induce immediate military action against all government deemed to be illegitimate. That isn't a principled or practical approach.
---------------

If you prefer that I don't post on this, your web site, I'll respect that. If you want to tell me what you disagree with in any specific post I've made, I'll make the effort to explain my reasoning. If you prefer to just to agree to disagree that's fine too - I understand the time constraints a busy life imposes. Up to you. It just wastes your time and mine to disagree with what you haven't read.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 9/08, 9:23pm)

Post 10

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 9:54pm

Hoist on His Own Petard

But that's the problem with Steve's reaction here isn't it. He is not posting in mere self defense. I did not attack him or accuse him of being the one to use the term entangling alliance. Yet, allied ideologically to those who do use that phrase, seduced by the glory of their Atlas Point tribute, he feels obliged to take up arms. Steve is entangled in an alliance which causes him to object to the unobjectionable, and to confuse and obscure the issue, when no comment was necessary. He could have remained neutral, but sensing that I have attacked his ideological allies, he jumps in with what amounts, in this context, to jingoist abandon.

"The founding fathers opposed alliances that hooked us into struggles between two other parties." Well, not quite. All alliances are about struggles. This is a distinction without a difference, a definition by non-essentials. The Founding Fathers opposed specifically the type of European alliance which led to "war waged repeatedly for fortune and glory." They did not merely oppose all treaties because treaties impose obligations. Making this distinction was the sole point of my essay.

What is necessary here is some fact based research on the part of the "treaty opposers" into the nature of the European alliances that had preceded and led to the Seven Years War. Read about the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756. Alliances between the great powers had not been about mutual self defense. They were about seeking advantage in control of provinces and minor kingdoms. The Holy Roman Empire and the states of Italy were seen as ripe pickings by the major dynasties. Alliances were not about preventing an attack on the homeland, a devastating attack on a populace, the prevention of ethnic cleansing, the annexation of entire peaceful sovereign states by dictatorial neighbors. They were about who would succeed to the throne of Lower Slobovia - a Hapsburg or a Hohenstaufen.

Modern Western alliances such as NATO are not about conquest or annexation. They are not about whether the ruling house of Bavaria is related to the house of Hanover or Savoy. National sovereignty and internal determination are respected, not manipulated. Respect for history and facts as primary, rather than an ideologically driven motive to attack the very idea of alliance, would lead to an acceptance of valid distinctions, and avoid judgments based upon predetermined floating abstractions.

It is possible to make the proper distinctions, yet to disagree on the advisability of specific proposed treaties and their terms. Such arguments have to be based upon a proper understanding of concrete realities in order to be useful. Being bound by preconceptions that drive one to ignore real distinctions and to draw false ones is an entangling intellectual alliance with disastrous consequences.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/08, 10:45pm)

Post 11

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 10:47pm

What I see some of the people doing is floating vague descriptions of threats of in some hypothetical future and labeling them in horrific fashion to induce immediate military action against all government deemed to be illegitimate. That isn't a principled or practical approach.

These "some" people don't exist. No one ever said that.

Post 12

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 10:57pm

Steve, I don't feel obligated to agree with everyone who posts on this site, nor do I demand that they agree with me. If someone makes a bunch of posts I disagree with, and I don't have time to challenge thoroughly, I stop reading them.

If you'd like me to point out more problems I have with your posts, I can do that, although I don't have the time to continue debates. I personally think that would come off as just sniping or insulting since I wouldn't be able to follow up on it, but if you prefer that, I'm flexible.

In this last post, I criticized your use of "grave" and "imminent" as criteria for recognizing threats, and I pointed to why those terms only serve to ignore threats, not seek a deeper understanding of the threats and the possible choices in the face of those threats. Since you use roughly the same criteria as the isolationist libertarians who think that only if the nation is in peril can we contemplate action, I'm suggesting you shouldn't use that criteria or those terms if you want to be understood, and if you think really do disagree with them.

What I see some of the people doing is floating vague descriptions of threats of in some hypothetical future and labeling them in horrific fashion to induce immediate military action against all government deemed to be illegitimate.

Immediate military action, aye? This is one of the reasons why I stopped reading your posts. Nobody said that except you, and nobody believes it.

Personally, I agree with the others who have posted. In the long term, we should have a policy that is supportive of free nations and opposed to despotic regimes. Just as in domestic policy, we should support those citizens who support the harmony of interests and society, and oppose the criminals. And I mean that we should do that as individuals, not just ask our government to do it. But I also don't think individuals must always throw their life on the line whenever a threat arrives. If someone puts a gun to you and tries to mug you, you aren't obligated to fight them there and then. But you should work to arrest them, prosecute them, and protect others.

The world we live in is pretty messed up, so anyone who thinks principles means acting blinding is going to be stuck assuming we have to invade everyone or we have to invade no one. If we lived in an anarchic society at an individual level, what would we do? We'd find some friends. We'd form alliances so we wouldn't get trampled on by the thugs. We'd seek to grow our numbers, and reduce theirs. We would allocate our resources for this job with priorities in mind, and understanding the costs and benefits. Maybe we'd kill the biggest thug. Maybe we'd have an uneasy relationship with particular gang because they're not as bad as the others. And if another town managed to form with peace loving individuals, we'd try to support them as best we could. It wouldn't be a sacrifice. It wouldn't be altruism. We'd know that civilization is in our interests, and the violent anarchy is a disaster around every corner.

And if we wanted to prioritize these, we might formulate some principles. We might decide losing a natural ally is expensive, as friends are hard to come by, and we should work hard not to lose them. We might decide that consistently siding with our natural allies sends a clear message and discourages enemies. We might decide that entering a war on their behalf may seem sacrificial if we just look at that particular conflict, but by setting a firm line we discourage future conflicts and so it isn't sacrificial at all. And there's a lot more we could come up with.

But then there would be a small camp of people who would characterize our long term approach as demanding "immediate military action against all" of our enemies.

Post 13

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 11:13pm

Steve:

I am for alliances that come with future obligations when they are in our interest. And I said so.

I am for alliances that are ad hoc and temporary when they are in our interest. And I said so.

It's actually very hard to follow what it is you are for when you keep amending and altering your previous words. You said to me in one of your posts:

"There is a world of difference between an ad hoc, temporary alliance of any sort that falls inside the parameters of the constitution, is not in violation of our national self-interest, and, obviously, does not commit us to engaging in military attacks on nations that have not attacked us. What kind of nonsense is John saying when he says, "...it was nothing short of moral hypocrisy for Thomas Jefferson to decry the folly of alliances with other nations while having had solicited the military support of France during the American Revolution." Excuse me, but we were defending ourselves, it was a request for a temporary alliance, it did not commit us to fight for them, it was about self-defense and in our national interest and, again, it was not "entangling" since it carried no commitment."

Here you obviously give a clear definition of what is entangling, any alliance that gives a future commitment to act. You never made a distinction over whether that commitment would be in our self-interest or not, just that intrinsically, making a commitment (obligation) to act in the future should just mean it is an entangling alliance.

And...

John, I didn't say alliances shouldn't be permanent... Read what is written - George Washington said it. The key point that I make clear and you refuse to address is the difference between an ad hoc alliance, like WW II or our rebellion against Great Britain. They were NOT treaties that committed us to make war in the future. And they were not alliances that where we had to bear the burden of great losses without being attacked. WE WERE ATTACKED - can't you grasp that simple difference.

Here again, you seem to imply no such future commitments can be in our possible self-interest unless "WE" are attacked, but you start off saying you don't think alliances shouldn't be permanent. The only examples of legitimate alliances you give were ad hoc ones during the Revolutionary War and WW2. Is it me or is this just double-speak?

When have you ever supported any alliances where there were any future obligations to them? We were never "attacked" by the Soviet Union, ever, yet you said they were a threat and worth confronting. Odd that you think that since your own criteria for an alliance should only be IF we are attacked.

Post 14

Monday, September 8, 2008 - 11:14pm

Damn! Ted, I have no idea what set your tail on fire, but it shouldn't have been anything I wrote in post 1. I agreed with almost everything you said. I took to heart the historical references you provided and I examined them and I didn't end up disagreeing with you.

I did go on to extrapolate based upon what makes "entangling" alliances bad, to offer suggestions for categories of bad alliances. What is wrong with that? I pointed out alliances that were decidedly in our national interest - I have to assume that doesn't upset you?

You say, "I did not attack him or accuse him of being the one to use the term entangling alliance." Who said you did? Not me - I just went back and read my post from beginning to end. It only mentioned your name to give you credit for the points I was repeating. For example, "Ted points out that the founding fathers did not oppose alliances - not all alliances, but only entangling alliances." And, "Ted reminds of us of how serious alliances are - as understood by the founding fathers who wrote them into the constitution as the highest law of the land."

You said, "Yet, allied ideologically to those who do use that phrase, he feels obliged to take up arms." I'm only allied ideologically with the founding fathers on that phrase, and trust me, if I took up arms, it would be obvious. There are no arms being waved about in my simple little discussion of the properties of alliances.

Ted I love your command of the language but am saddened when its used as an empty wrapper - look, there is no truth to be found inside of this statement: "Steve is entangled in an alliance which causes him to object to the unobjectionable, and to confuse and obscure the issue, when no comment was necessary. He could have remained neutral, but sensing that I have attacked his ideological allies, he jumps in with what amounts, in this context, to jingoist abandon." I took a simple look at entangling alliances and alliances in general - Who are my allies? What is the unobjectionable I objected to? What did I confuse and obscure? No comment was necessary? I just had some observations, what sin is that committing? Neutrality is only rarely a virtue and minor one at that - I was just examining a concept - I wasn't even attacking or defending (are you sure you are reading my post - post number #1?) I don't know what to do with the description of my "jumps in with... jingoistic abandon" - it is such an elegant put-down - it makes me smile :-)

You quoted me as saying, "The founding fathers opposed alliances that hooked us into struggles between two other parties." Yes that is what I said, then you said, Well, not quite. All alliances are about struggles. This is a distinction without a difference, a definition by non-essentials." The distinction was about alliances revolving around the interests of other parties - not ours - and it wasn't an attempt at a definition. It just me working on uncovering the nature of "entangling" - none of which disagreed with what you had said, or what the founding fathers said.

You go on to say, "They did not merely oppose all treaties because treaties impose obligations. Making this distinction was the sole point of my essay." Now that is a legitimate argument to put in front of me. An honest disagreement as opposed to all of that happy horse-pucky about jingoistic abandon and objecting to the unobjectionable and implying all kinds of alliances with mysterious others and attacks on you that no one could find with a microsope.

You are saying that entangling alliances were not entangling in the eyes of the founding fathers because they created obligations and you think that I am disagreeing with that. Did I get that right? Or is this jingoistic confuser and arch "treaty opposer" once again taking up arms and attacking the unobjectionable?

You say, "Respect for history and facts as primary, rather than an ideologically driven motive to attack the very idea of alliance, would lead to an acceptance of valid distinctions, and avoid judgments based upon predetermined floating abstractions." All bullshit. Sorry, but it is - not the different bits and pieces like 'respect for history and facts,' or that ideologically driven motives could lead a person to attack the idea of alliances, or that predetermined floating abstractions are not the foundation we want for our judgments. Those bits are all sound by themselves, but when you string them together and imply that's what I did, then it's just bullshit - because I didn't. If you want facts, it is best to start with what a person actually said, that's the first bit of history you should actually treat as a primary. And it isn't a bad idea to offer an opponent a modicum of respect until their acts make it inappropriate, and I haven't. As for the mind-reading bits on my alleged ideological motives... give me a break!

Now, here is the real kicker - I did NOT disagree with your entire thesis. You said you were making the point that entangling alliances, from the view point of the founding fathers, were not just about future obligations. Well, look at what I wrote, "What is clear is that entanglement is tied deeply to some future sacrifice on the part of America. It is tied to something other than our national self-interest. An entanglement is an obligation that might come to pass, and that obligation would be to act against our self-interest. An entanglement could be an obligation to join in power struggles between other nations - perhaps over conquest, perhaps over differences of ideology, perhaps over long standing historical conflicts."

If you want me to say that it isn't strictly required that the obligation be in the future, or that it be certain - fine. But if there is no obligation at all then an alliance isn't about struggle and wouldn't be onerous - it would be like sister-cities declarations. It must ask something of us. I just pointed out that the real distinction is national self-interest. My whole thesis was to understand the nature of "entanglements" so as to apply the concept intelligently to current debates.

Post 15

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 11:51am

I deleted this post.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 9/09, 12:25pm)

Post 16

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 11:57am

Joe,

In post 12 you quote me where I say, "What I see some of the people doing is floating vague descriptions of threats of in some hypothetical future and labeling them in horrific fashion to induce immediate military action against all government deemed to be illegitimate."

You reply, "Immediate military action, aye? This is one of the reasons why I stopped reading your posts. Nobody said that except you, and nobody believes it."

I wrote about immediate military action when people were calling for just that in Georgia claiming that eventually Russia will be threatening our country and we need to intervene now. And Michael Dickey's argument is that we can not stand by and wait while some dictator may be creating WMDs.

Post 17

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 12:17pm

John,

Congratulations, you have refuting things not said.

You ask me, "When have you ever supported any alliances where there were any future obligations to them?"

Yes, John, like I've said many times - NATO during the cold war.

You say, "We were never "attacked" by the Soviet Union, ever, yet you said they were a threat and worth confronting. Odd that you think that since your own criteria for an alliance should only be IF we are attacked."

No, John you have it wrong again. I responded to this before - I said that the USSR did attack us with proxies in Vietnam - they called them advisors, they tried putting missiles into Cuba, the explicitly threatened to bury us, they exercised military might to gain territory around the world, they sunk submarines of ours, they had missiles targeting US cities all this time, etc., etc.

After all this time, after all the times I've written it out, are you telling me that you are still unaware of my position on creditable threats to attack?

Post 18

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 12:57pm

Steve that is incredible that you concretely show us examples of where the Soviet Union meets your criteria of attacking us yet for some reason Iraq never met that criteria? You wonder why you think I keep misstating you. It's because you never consistently apply your thoughts to reality and you have this ever changing definition of what is legitimate national self-defense. So, attacking proxies and explicitly threatening us means we are attacked? Sure I agree, but did you forget Saddam Hussein plotted to kill George Bush Sr., shot at our jets in the no-fly-zone, funded Palestinian terrorists that killed our proxies and American citizens?

And NATO was no longer valid after the end of the Cold War? Even though NATO countries have been attacked by al-Qaeda and other Islamic jihadists themselves? All of a sudden there are no common threats faced by America and her NATO allies? Is Iran a threat only to America and not anyone else in Europe? Is a NATO missile defense system, which will one day effectively end the threat of nuclear war, not a worthy venture?

Keep talking Steve, the more you keep weaseling out of your own words and the more you think your opponents on these issues want to militarily attack every dictatorship and label them militarists, the more you reveal how little credibility you have.

Post 19

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 2:35pm