Daniel Drezner Intervenes Intellectually Outside His Home Area of Expertise

Daniel Drezner writes:

danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: Bill Clinton is responsible for the Iran mess>: So I see Brad DeLong is intervening intellectually outside his home area of expertise, [writing]...

George H. W. Bush and his advisors worked like dogs to establish two principles: 1. Aggression and conquest across national borders would be rolled back by the world community. 2. Superpowers would not intervene militarily outside their home regions without the blessing and support of the entire U.N. Security Council. With these two principles in place, there was sound hope--well, some hope--that nonproliferation policy would succeed

Let's clear some brush here: 1) DeLong's principle number 2 has not and likely never will be a cardinal element of American foreign policy, and anyone who tells you differently is selling you something...

Well then, I guess George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft are selling you something. They explicitly write that--since the Security Council mandate given the U.S. and the coalition in 1991 was to liberate Kuwait--crossing the border to Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein and "unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish." On the one hand, Dan Drezner's opinions about the foreign policy of the George Bush I administration. On the other hand, George H. W. Bush's and Brent Scowcroft's opinions. Whose do you think are more reliable?

Viz:

George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft (1998), A World Transformed, pp. 489-90: Trying to eliminate Saddam [Hussein in 1991], extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.... We would have been forced to... rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy".... Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish...

Shouldn't Dan Drezner stick to his home area of expertise--not intervene intellectually in areas, like modern American diplomatic history, where he appears so out of his depth?

:-)

---

UPDATE: Dan Drezner responds:

look at p. 356, Brad!!: "We would ask the [Security] Council to act only if we knew in advance we had the backing of most of the Arab bloc and we were fairly certain we had the necessary votes. If at any point it became clear we could not succeed, we would back away from a UN mandate and cobble together a independent multinational effort built on friendly Arab and allied participation. The grounds for this would be the initial UN resolution condemning Iraq, the subsequent resolutions, and Article 51, along with a request from the Emir of Kuwait. In the end, if sanctions failed and it came to using force, [Richard] Haass and [Bob] Kimmitt reminded us that our ability to rally the necessary political support, with or without UN endorsement, would be enhanced significantly if we were seen to have tried hard to make diplomacy work [with Hussein]..."

To which I say, touche...

:-)

Comments

[Steady Eddie]

Even for otherwise credible scholars, when in full wingnut pontification mode, facts are stupid things. Truthiness is so much more satisfying.

[Tom]

How does the quoted material translate to "without the blessing and support of the entire U.N. Security Council." ? Drezner seems to have understand modern American diplomatic history better. Even if this is what Bush I intended, one event does not make policy.
Especially such a poor policy that allows any one member of the Security Council to veto our foreign policy. Bush I screwedup when he did not take Saddam out back then. Twelve years later it is a much larger problem, just as it would have been a signigicantly larger problem if we were to allow it to fester another twelve years.

[Arun Khanna]

I don't agree with your views on U.S. foreign policy. However Daniel Drezner is way off-base in saying, " Brad DeLong is intervening intellectually outside his home area of expertise..."
Send him a copy of Ed Lazear's Economic Imperialism paper.

[Lewis Carroll]

"Even if this is what Bush I intended, one event does not make policy."

Well, setting aside the prudential argument about whether such a standard was the right one to set, this sounds pretty much to me like a putative *policy*:

"precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish..." (from Brad's quote)

[Barkley Rosser]

Tom,

Well, the big mess that we have had since invading Iraq suggests that Bush I knew much better what he was dealing with than his idiot son. It is reputed that the most significant influence on Bush I was the Saudis. They wanted to keep Saddam in power but in a box, which he was fully in prior to our invasion, so as to keep the Iranians in line. Looks pretty prescient.

Drezner's recent pieces on diplomacy have been rife with outright factual errors. In one he claimed that Morocco has the second oldest royal dynasty in the world after Japan's, when Denmark's also predates Morocco's by nearly a millennium. The guy is out of his depth.

[Robert Waldmann]

I think that, Like Deborah Howell, Dan Drezner could have put it a bit better.

For "anyone who tells you differently is selling you something" write "anyone who tells you differently bought Bush I lies" or closer to the orginal "anyone who tells you differently is selling you outdated Bush I lies."

I think that Bush I used international law to help justify his decision not to occupy Iraq, simply because it was a weapon at hand. Now of course JBD might put it differently too, as in, unlike his son who wants to go mano a mano with the world diplomatic corps, H. W. Bush understood the importance of pretending to care about international law. I think the truth is somewhere in between and I doubt that even Bush I or Scowcroft really know how deep their devotion to international law is.

On the other hand what is this nonsense about "outside [Brad DeLong's] home area of expertise," I've been looking for that mystery realm for 27 years, and, so far, I've detected a certain lack of appreciation for the concept of an FDA IND plus maybe Brad doesn't know what SNRPS do (but I wouldn't bet on it).

Oh yeah and Hastings Banda. Back some years ago Brad didn't know that Hastings Banda was then dictator of Malawi.

[KenS]

It is not just "one event": Bush I got UN Security Council approval for the Somalia intervention as well. In fact, the only significant use of force under Bush I that was not sanctioned by the UN was the 1989 invasion of Panama, which seems to fall under Brad's "home region" exception.

Of course, Clinton violated principle 2 before W did when he went into Kosovo in 1999. Granted, 12 of 15 of the Security Council supported the intervention, but two veto-wielding members (Russia and China) did not.

[save_the_rustbelt]

AS least he (Dan) is not spending half his blog space trying to reform journalism. :-))

[Daniel Drezner]

We would ask the [Security] Council to act only if we knew in advance we had the backing of most of the Arab bloc and we were fairly certain we had the necessary votes. If at any point it became clear we could not succeed, we would back away from a UN mandate and cobble together a independent multinational effort built on friendly Arab and allied participation. The grounds for this would be the initial UN resolution condemning Iraq, the subsequent resolutions, and Article 51, along with a request from the Emir of Kuwait. In the end, if sanctions failed and it came to using force, [Richard] Haass and [Bob] Kimmitt reminded us that our ability to rally the necessary political support, with or without UN endorsement, would be enhanced significantly if we were seen to have tried hard to make diplomacy work [with Hussein]. Bush and Scowcroft, A World Transformed, p. 356.

:-)

[Cal]

The Prof. forgot final taunting "beee-otch" at the end.

[Howard]

yes, but dan, the grounds you cite are all UN-based, save the Kuwaiti one.

It's like Clinton, in the end, using NATO.

The goal is the same: to demonstrate that the US is not acting as a unilateral great power, and that the issues it is addressing are of UN significance.

[Brad DeLong]

Touche...

[Brad DeLong]

Re: "The Prof. forgot final taunting "beee-otch" at the end."

Which Prof?

:-)

Point (1) was supposed to trump point (2), in my mind at least. So I'm not quite sure that his quote is as good as mine. I thought that states have the power to seek allies in repelling foreign invasion and conquest even if someone exercises a Security Council veto...

[Oskar Shapley]

The government of Kuwait asked for help. The UN resolution was helpful, but was it necessary at all?

[KenS]

"I thought that states have the power to seek allies in repelling foreign invasion and conquest even if someone exercises a Security Council veto..."

Article 51 of the UN Charter:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Maybe some international lawyer could chime in, but I take this to mean that the Security Council could try to stop actions taken in the name of self-defense, but it is unclear what happens if the UNSC simply fails to authorize such actions. Can they legally proceed anyway?

[SW]

Touche my ass. The United Nations approach was by far the superior and preferred approach precisely because it had the potential to serve as a new template for dealing with aggression in the post cold war era. The alternative, although do-able was vastly inferior because it represented a one-off, ad hoc approach that although capable of accomplishing the immediate goal, would have fallen fare short of providing the sort of sweeping new paradigm that they were hopeful might have been achieved. A new paradigm that was thrown out the window by the current crowd.

[Paul Gottlieb]

It's really a waste of time nitpicking "A World Transformed" to determine the difference between Bush Pere and fils. Philosophy isn't the issue here, execution is. Bush pere (and Bill Clinton, for that matter) deployed teams of reality-based experts to figure out what policies would be most effective; the boy king surrounds himself with a team of incompetent syncophants and bases his policiy decisions of which fantasy of omnipotence he prefers today.

[dearieme]

"Superpowers would not intervene militarily outside their home regions without..": ah, the Greater Superpower co-Prosperity Spheres?

[DOR]

The difference between President George HW Bush and Dubious is that George the First was sane.
.

[Movie Guy]

Clown Show Cage Match: Brad DeLong and Daniel Drezner (Yet Another Why Oh Why Can't We Have Better Blog Posts? Brad DeLong Edition)

Brad, you're a great guy, but you continue to astonish me with a few behaviors.

First, you raise total hell with the Washington Post for its stupid sloppiness in reporting. In that effort, you are relentless.

When someone of less stature corrects or tries to help you with one of your posts, you frequently ignore their points, hints, and general heads up communications. And it's a shame. The supposed 'little' people aren't worthy of your intellectual interaction? Even when they try to educate you or broaden your reasoning powers?

When someone of stature - blog/news media/academic/publicly acknowledged expertise - corrects you and factually proves a point, you normally respond. You offer up the acknowledgement, "Touche". This isn't the first time, as you know.

Do you believe that "Touche" is an adequate professional, semi-professional, or important blogger journalism response for the WaPo hellraiser? The individual who demands accuracy and perfection from others? The journalism correction hobbyist? A leader among mere mortals?

Come on, Brad. You put your trousers on like other people. Post something of more merit than a "Touche", even if you added the text of a message from another poster of 'stature'. Hell, some people overlook that word in your posts or comments section. The headline is in bold, loud print, and "Touche" is either buried in the comments section or popped up as a standard print one liner on the main post.

"Touche" really doesn't get it, except among young colleagues on a college campus. Or with a co-worker.

You should go back to your January 23, 2006 post, Fareed Zakaria Gets One Wrong..., and UPDATE IT. Why mislead your readers and followers with such misinformation?

You noted the correction to your 24 January 2006 post at 4:17 PM in the comments section. Eight hours later, there's still no correction to your original post of January 23, 2006. This takes on the appearance of a Deborah Howell WaPo maneuver.

I am thinking that WaPo's Deborah Howell should send you an email that just says "Touche" the next time you rip into her side. That should suffice. It's your personal standard.

How many individuals attempted to give you a heads up on the January 23, 2006 post? By my rough count -- rd, January 23, 2006 at 03:44 PM; Craig Ewert - January 23, 2006 at 03:52 PM; Pithlord - January 23, 2006 at 04:46 PM; RT - January 23, 2006 at 05:23 PM; Arun Khanna -January 23, 2006 at 06:18 PM; Sebastian Holsclaw - January 23, 2006 at 10:42 PM; Movie Guy - January 23, 2006 at 11:53 PM; tom f - January 24, 2006 at 09:24 AM.

How many individuals attempted to give you a further heads on this January 24, 2006 post prior to Dan's individual post in the comments section? Tom - January 24, 2006 at 02:37 PM; and KenS - January 24, 2006 at 03:19 PM. Thereafter Dan Drezner posted his text quote, Daniel Drezner - January 24, 2006 at 03:23 PM.

I trust that you will accept this comment post in the spirit intended.

I award you the first Deborah Howell Award for Journalism Inaccuracy.

[Robert Waldmann]

I too stand corrected by Dan Drezner. Brad's area of non expertise includes FDA INDs, SNRPS (notice no reply to my challenge) Hastings Banda and p 356 of Bush and Scowcroft.

On substance, I think Drezner is right that no US president has ever allowed international law or the UN security council to stop him from doing what he has decided to do. Some bow to the US constitution, US law, Congress and the Supreme court. All have treated international law as a proposal without authority, to be judged by them and not to govern them.

The differences between Bush I and II and US Iraq war I and II are that Bush I managed to build a coalition. The reason is probably not because he is a good diplomant (though he is) but because the policy wasn't totally crazy. I think Bush II's problem is that he is a nut case and the whole world (except for 52% of US voters in 2004) knows it. This makes it hard to build and lead a coalition.

Oh Movie guy, "touche" from Deborah Howell would have been plenty. The controversy exploded because she and colleagues refused for days to acknowledge an error of fact.

[Patrick (G)]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned General Noriega and our foray into Panama to grab him, under George H.W. Bush.

I don't recall that being U.N. Mandated.

[walons]

Robert Waldmann,

Since we are sticking for accuracy, the difference between Bush I and Bush II is that the former managed to build a bigger, or rather better paying, coalition. There were coalitions in both cases, and in both wars fighting itself devolved primarily on the US military.

[Tom]

"The differences between Bush I and II and US Iraq war I and II are that Bush I managed to build a coalition. The reason is probably not because he is a good diplomant (though he is) but because the policy wasn't totally crazy. I think Bush II's problem is that he is a nut case and the whole world (except for 52% of US voters in 2004) knows it. This makes it hard to build and lead a coalition."

Another difference: In 1991 Saddam had not paid off a significant number of influential people to oppse the US. Interesting reading on Galloway today.

[Retief]

Let's get back to the point: Iran.

Whether Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, or Reagan, or Carter, or Eisenhower & Churchill are responsible for the mess that is our relationship with Iran. The fact that we have no option but to haplessly watch from the sidelines and offer empty protests while Iran goes nuclear is directly attributable to George W. Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq, and to do it so badly that we are still stuck there three years later. So too is the Iranian belief that Nukes are the only thing that will keep them safe from Bush.