Dissent in wartime and strategic costs: Weighing the results

David Adesnik recognizes that dissent and criticism are important parts of a functioning democratic government. We start with Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker:

[Sen.] Lieberman asked what effect the resolution [disapproving of the surge] would have “on our enemies in Iraq.”[Gen.] Petraeus said that, as a soldier, he had put himself “in harm’s way” to protect the right to free speech, but added, “A commander in such an endeavor would obviously like the enemy to feel that there’s no hope.”

Lieberman, fortified by this response, said, “A Senate-passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that—well, some clear expression that the American people were divided.”

“That’s correct, sir,” Petraeus said.

In that case, Lieberman said, he would “make a plea” to his colleagues on Petraeus’s behalf to defeat it. “If, God forbid, you are unable to succeed, then there will be plenty of time for the resolutions of disapproval.”

As Lieberman spoke, [Sen.] Clinton’s mask of equanimity seemed to slip for a moment, until she could assimilate the idea that Lieberman had, in essence, accused the Democratic Party of encouraging America’s enemies…

Three days after the hearing, I went to see Lieberman in his office. He was cheerful and easygoing and more convinced than usual of the essential rightness of his vision. I asked him if he thought that Democrats who voted for the resolution would truly be giving encouragement to the enemy. “The enemy believes—Ahmadinejad has said this repeatedly—that we don’t have the will anymore for a long battle,” he said, referring to the President of Iran.

When I asked him if he understood why Hillary Clinton might have reacted the way she did, he said, “I can’t explain why she did that.” Then he shook his head, apparently in sorrow.

Whereupon David reacts:

Clearly, Goldberg has had enough of Lieberman’s self-righteousness. And shouldn’t a long time supporter of civil rights like Joe Lieberman know that dissent is essential to the preservation of democracy, especially during times of war?That much is true, but it is only half the story. Both Petraeus and Lieberman are correct that there is a direct relationship between domestic dissent and enemy morale in counterinsurgency warfare. In Iraq, just as in Vietnam, the enemy’s fundamental strategy is to undermine American support of the homefront, rather than defeating it on the battlefield.

The problem with Lieberman’s approach (as described by Goldberg) is that it seems to allow no space at all for dissent in wartime. The result is a chain-reaction of self-righteousness in which the dissenters pose as heroic defenders of free speech while their critics launched veiled attacks at the dissenters’ patriotism.

But there are other ways to think about this problem. First of all, I suspect that the insurgents are moderately capable of looking at opinion polls and discovering that Americans are deeply dissatisifed with the President’s war effort. I also suspect the insurgents recognize to what extent journalists and expert observers consider the war to be a bloody stalemate (at best).

Thus dissenting resolutions in the House and Senate represent little more than a bit of extra fuel on the fire. Or one might even say they are just a byproduct of public opinion, which turned both houses of Congress over to the dissenting party.

Another drawback to the anti-dissent approach is that it rules out the possibility of constructive dissent forcing the executive branch to wage the war more effectively. Has Democratic dissent played this kind of constructive role during the war in Iraq? It’s hard to say.

But one of the reasons it’s so hard to say is because the debate about dissent never seems to get past the old cliches about dissent being patriotic on the one hand and encouraging the enemy on the other.

I think that is mostly right. I would however say two things with a bit more firmness.

As Lieberman spoke, [Sen.] Clinton’s mask of equanimity seemed to slip for a moment, until she could assimilate the idea that Lieberman had, in essence, accused the Democratic Party of encouraging America’s enemies…

Isn’t that a true charge? It is and Joe, however unpleasant it is should point that out, self righteous or not. It in no way means one doesn’t believe in dissent to point out its costs.

Has Democratic dissent played this kind of constructive role during the war in Iraq? It’s hard to say.

Personally I would suggest little of it was constructive, but obviously we can all have different opinions about that. What I cannot imagine is how a non binding resolution of the sort discussed above can possibly be considered constructive. It harms the war effort (no matter how minor that harm might or might not be) while doing nothing to actually end the war, unless contributing to the struggles of our forces counts. Therefore, the effort was disgraceful and I think Joe Lieberman was absolutely correct to point it out. He may be wrong on whether we should continue our efforts in Iraq, I obviously disagree with that conclusion, yet I acknowledge the possibility, but he was definitely right in that case.

I have made my position on this clear before. I understand dissent, I understand criticism, but let us not be in any way unclear about the fact that it does make a difference, and it does turn into an agent helping to cause exactly what dissent uses to justify its existence. That is especially true in a war that is all about the will of either side to continue. Lying to ourselves that it does not lead to stronger and longer resistance, that it doesn’t sap our own troops morale doesn’t make it not true.

Dissent is a precious commodity in this world, it should be done with eyes wide open and a full understanding of its consequences. Once you make that decision there should be no whining complaints when people point out the costs.

For more on this, I recommend what Jim Webb used to say about this kind of thing for context.

Technorati Tags: Dissent, David Petraeus, Jeffrey Goldberg, Joe Lieberman, New Yorker, Jim Webb

powered by performancing firefox