How to Lose a War
John McCain is ditching the policy that defeated Communism

Steve Chapman | May 8, 2008

When it comes to the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Republicans like to harken back to the stalwart presidents of the Cold War. John McCain has invoked Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan as kindred spirits, and so has George W. Bush. Which raises the question: Why do they embrace those leaders while rejecting their policy?

The centerpiece of the U.S. approach to the Soviet Union was captured in a famous 1947 essay by American diplomat George Kennan, who rejected either war or retreat in favor of "a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies."

Some conservatives, regarding this as appeasement, advocated "rollback" to liberate captive nations from oppression. But even resolute anti-communists like Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon saw the risks and costs were too high. They kept troops to guard Western Europe, built a robust nuclear deterrent and employed prudent measures to block Soviet expansion. That was containment.

But in the months before the Iraq war, it became a dirty word. "Containment is not possible," President Bush insisted, "when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies." The only remedy for such regimes lay in pre-emptive war. McCain agreed, saying the only option in Iraq was "disarmament by regime change."

Amid all the war hysteria, it was easy to forget containment worked against Stalin and Mao -- both unbalanced dictators with nuclear weapons. They were far more formidable tyrants with dreams of world domination. Yet we managed to preserve our security without pre-emptive war.

For that matter, containment had worked against Saddam Hussein. In the 12 years after the first Gulf War, we kept him in a box, where he was no threat to us or his neighbors. In 2002, he even had to accept the return of United Nations weapons inspectors -- who found no weapons of mass destruction because, thanks to our efforts, he had none.

But as Yale foreign policy scholar Ian Shapiro noted in his 2007 book "Containment: Rebuilding a Strategy Against Global Terror" (just published in paperback), the Bush administration was dissatisfied. One reason was its unfounded certitude that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz also complained that containing Iraq had cost a staggering $30 billion over those 12 years.

Today, that sounds like a bargain. The long-term cost of the Iraq war, according to an estimate by Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, will exceed $3 trillion -- or 100 times the cost lamented by Wolfowitz.
Ronald Reagan took a different approach. In response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he continued President Carter's covert aid to the rebels, but didn't send American troops. Likewise when a pro-Soviet regime gained power in Nicaragua. The key to containment was finding affordable means to constrain and weaken the enemy, without bleeding ourselves down in wars we didn't have to fight.

Our policy in Iraq has been just the opposite. And Iran could be the next mistake. McCain says Tehran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons -- which implies he would go to war to prevent it, no matter what the price in blood or treasure.

The claim is that the Iranians are too crazy to be deterred from using nukes against Israel or giving them to terrorist groups to use against us. One common trait of governments and their leaders is an overriding desire to survive. If Iranian nukes are ever used for aggression, the regime can be sure Iran will be, as Hillary Clinton so vividly put it, "obliterated."

Shapiro told me he sees no evidence that Clinton or Barack Obama would return to containment. But the challenges we face are likely to push them toward it. Those dilemmas, after all, have prompted a reconsideration by none other than President Bush.

One member of the Axis of Evil, North Korea, has acquired a nuclear arsenal. Instead of launching a pre-emptive strike, the Bush administration has chosen to 1) live with it if we have to, 2) negotiate with Pyongyang to give it up, and 3) maintain strong defenses in South Korea.

That route is plainly the least bad option toward North Korea. But don't dare call it containment. And don't get the idea it could ever work anywhere else.

Warmachine, comparing the Soviet Union to Iraq is like comparing Apples and Oranges....the USSR had an extensive neuclear arsenal so there was no choice except for a patient contaiment policy, it was that or a full scale neuclear war.Second, yes a containment policy was tried in Iraq for 12 years and the result was obvious, Suddam horded all the money from the "food for oil program" to build extravagant palaces and fill his bank accounts while the people of Iraq starved. The corrupt burocrats at the UN and other foriegn countries made millions off this program and looked the other way when it came to Saddams tactics, All the while the coalition pilots were being shot at while enforcing this insane,money driven policy. Lastly the ONLY reason we are using a "patient containment" policy on North Korea is its close ties with China, if N. Korea was not a puppet of China I'm sure things would be handled much differently

The problem is America isn't allowed to do what it should do because of anti-american liberals who are too concerned about re-"hashing" the 60's again. The war in Iraq was handled terribly by a terrible president who couldn't lead anyone. The war was right politically. I know that all the peace and love hypocrite liberals would love to extend the olive branch to the Islamo-fascists but that wouldn't solve anything..Why can't people understand that these people are unevolved savages and they want you dead because you won't accept Allah as your god. They are like animals and honestly they need to be put in their place, not negotiated with. If you want to criticize the way the war was handled then I agree but keep your peace and love...I know Obama is going to bring peace and all creeds and colors will be able to live together in harmony...when he and all his blind followers wake up from the fairy tale...let me know.

There are only two ways to win a war. Either destroy the enemy's ability to wage war, or destroy their desire to make war. I equate it to simple person to person relationships. Example, if your hubby punches you, and all you do is cry, it is likely to happen again. But, if you rip his nuts off and hand them to him or take a baseball bat and break both his arms in three or four places, he will think twice about doing it again. JMAO

It amazes me ho0w almost everyone now wants to just abandon the Iraq situation and act like they have always been against us going in there in the first place and that there was no valid reasons for doing so. The FACT of the matter is the an over whelming majority of Americans were 100% behind us going into Iraq at the time that decision was made and almost every Congressman and Senator in our government voted to do so, and they voted to do so for many reason's and the fact that Saddam might have had WMD's as literally every intellegency agency in the world thought, was by far not the only reason EVERYONE thought we needed to go into Iraq, that was only one of the many reasons for doing so. But the bottom line is over 95% of normal American citizens as well as over 95% of our elected government officials all thought we should do so.... and our president told us that if we took this action, we would be entering into a war unlike any we had been into ever before because we are dealing with radical terrorist that do not exist in just one organized location or country and he correctly told us that this was going to be a "years long" type of war, maybe even a generation type of war, and he stated these facts correctly! And yet still EVERYYONE was still behind that decision to do so and to remove Saddam from power because after 911 him being in power was too great of a risk!

Yet today almost everyone acts like they were never for the war or going in and doing what we did, and almost every democratic member of our government now claims they were against it, even thought almost everyone of them voted to do exactly what we did, and they all now claim the ONLY reason they voted to do so was because of the WMD information and that they were lied to by the President... what a spineless and cowardly thing to say or do.... that is complete bull****, and anyone who was so irresponsible to have only voted to go to war for that ONE singular reason are complete idiots to begin with, and the reality is everyone voted to take the actions we did for all the reasons we had to do so and fact is that was the right choice! Yet now that the war has indeed turned out to not be easy and has indeed shown that we are fighting a "years long" war against the radical terrorist just as our President told us it would be, most everyone, citizens and elected officials have all forgot about all the reasons why we really went into this, acted like they never supported that decision, flat out lie about supporting it, and now just want to abandon it all together.

Than God there are still some men and women of honor who truly did understand all the valid reasons why we had to take the actions we did, and still understand we must prevail once we did enter into what we did... and thank God these honorable and brave men and women have the courage and wisdom to be strong and follow through on what we have entered into and will do everything they can to prevail against the most significant treat of this generations life time, and that they are strong enough to do this even now that it has turned into the long and hard battle that we knew it would when we made the choice to take this action which was supported by almost literally every American at the time! And thank God that some people have the character and integrity to stand by their choices and to honor the commitments we make when we make such major choices!

And shame on all of those false, cowards who were fully on board and supported this whole thing from the start who now lie about that and who now want to abandon everything that they once fully supported just because it now has become fashionable to bash our actions because it has indeed been a difficult thing to achieve! I, for one, pray that these cowards and liars are not going to be the same men and women that we choose to run our country next.... if so, my children's future will indeed be very bleak indeed. I just hope there are still enough brave and true Americans left in this country that has integrity and the strength to do what they know has to be done to prevail in this war on terror that we can finish the job and that we will choose leaders who has this same understanding of the treats we face and what MUST be done, despite the whims of the political and social environment that exist right now!

I agree with ^^^^^ sparks. It is just a thing of political expediency. In 2003 it was politically expedient to support it, now it is perceived as politically expedient to change beliefs on the issue. Most, if not all, politicians have no core beliefs, just cater to whatever perceived opinion floats around at the moment.

great post warmachine if this war had any morality at all the american people would naturaly support it. it is based on lies and deceptions and its fairly pathetic that more people havent caught on to it.

I know how to lose a war. Pull out before its over. Oh snap, you walked right into that one.

News flash the battle was won easily against a regime weakend by years of economic sanctions, it was a cakewalk. we have lost the political battle, much like vietnam being that it was immoral to begin with and most americans believe in a type of morality and fair play. So end this tragic mistake and bring them home.

typical of so many people today, when the going gets a little rough, they just give up and wait for someone to help them out of their tough spot. Never have the guts to see the fight through to the end. What a bunch of sick buzzards


good thing the libs were not around during the Revolutionary war or we would still be serving DKing George because they would have surrendered when the first tough winter came along....id, Valley Forge/crossing the Delaware era

What are they fighting for again???

the rights of oil companies

The war in Iraq is for all the liberal objectives: Human rights, equality for the sexes, freedom from constantly living in fear of a dictator, voting rights for men AND women, and the right to move about your own country freely without gov't control. Only problem with these objectives is that they are being "fought for" by a conservative republican president

sorry willy those were not the stated objectives of the war from the outset, they are the propaganda ones and most americans are how aware of this.

most americans??? skeptical...

Good lord, if you want to keep people in Iraq, then why don't you book your next vacation to the retarded disney style resort they want to build off of the green zone?

This article had nothing to do with whether or not we should bring the troops home, it had to do with an idiot listening to other idiots about how to defeat a militarily toothless dictator.
Yep, just reread it, I don't see a single call for troop withdrawal, instead it's entirely critical of the policies and orders that created the war in the first place. How many things about this war have the Neocons been wrong about, lets ignore the lies for now and just focus on what they've been wrong about?

It was going to be a slam dunk...
Iraqi oil benefits will pay for it...
Soldiers will be greeted as liberators, with children throwing flowers...



As far as, how to lose a war, pull out early, guess what, if we haven't won in over 5 years, the likely hood of ending the violence there is very slim. All our brave military personel is doing over there is barely keeping the place from erupting into an all out civil war.

5 years + and still no WMDS how many times can the Neocons push the goal posts back before even the most blinded followers of their policies will smell the crap for what it is?

Facts vs. political belief...unfourtanetly facts lose out to political beliefs. I agree with you warmachine, matter of fact I agree with a lot of your posts. Not because of the facts surrounding them but moreso because you are speaking out against your government when you feel they have done wrong, which is the foundation of which the country was built on: The ability to speak out when the country is wrong. I commend you warmachine.

Speaking out when you see something wrong is important, fortunately our 1st Amendment is not totally gone.

I am of the opinion that if we continue down the road we're on as a nation, this conversation can end with me taking a government funded "vacation" in the future.

Facts do win out over political beliefs and I try really hard not to post anything that I cannot source. I wish everyone followed that template, of truth first, political and personal leanings second. Which is why I was critical of the SONGBIRD McCain story, because it's a he said/she said story.

It sucks so bad to be a conservative, a real one, right now, because we have these fakes doing horrible crap and the fakes have the majority of the population convinced that they are truly representive of the Conservative movement.

I appreciate you're commending me, but it's not necessary, I'm doing what any American citizen should be, when their Government is out of control. It's my civic duty.