Abu Muqawama is one of the best sources out there on counterinsurgency and insurgency theory and practice (along with the Small Wars Journal). They are still prone, however, to the “Extremely Serious People” syndrome. This is the illness where being wrong about Iraq in 2003 is better than having been right about Iraq in 2003, because it reflects one’s deep seriousness about foreign policy. Symptoms include going on national television with a somewhat sincere apology, continued regular appearances on cable news shows, and (in its worst form), believing that the next six months will be crucial (aka the Friedman unit).
The syndrome manifested itself the other day at Abu Muqawama with the great surprise that a left-winger (and a female one, to boot) might, actually, shockingly, know what they’re talking about in the realm of foreign and military policy. Sample quote:
And out of nowhere, Rachel Maddow — Rachel bleeping Maddow! — calls my boss to task and asks him if being a strategic thinker means more than tweaking our operational design. Damn! When pressed, to be fair, John gives his fellow Rhodes Scholar a pretty good answer about the costs of failure in Afghanistan. But who would have thought that lefty smart-ass on MSNBC would be the one asking the key questions? (Rumor has it that Afghanistan is actually one of Maddow’s pet subjects. Good on her, I say.)
It was apparently such a shock that Rachel bleeping Maddow! might actually know something about matters strategic that multiple exclamation points were required. The consequences of this syndrome are numerous. For example–as Robert Farley highlights–the United States spends an insane amount of money on the defense budget compared to the rest of the world. The discussion of the defense budget, however, is funneled (by extremely serious people) into specific channels that allow little in the way of reality to intrude:
Today, however, debate over the defense budget almost never results from the question “How much do we need to spend?”, or even “Should we spend more or less?”, but rather “How much more should we spend?” And this is simply insane, given the massive advantage that the United States enjoys over any potential competitor, and the security gains that the United States has accumulated since the end of the Cold War.
It is, as Farley notes, an imperial defense budget, and rarely have those two adjectives been more paradoxical than they are at the moment.
The Edge of the American West 
30 comments
March 18, 2009 at 1:44 pm
herbert browne
Bless the (bleeping) nuevo “Divine Ms. M” (& her ilk). ^..^
March 18, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Anderson
A female *gay* leftie, at that. They were surprised she knew the word “strategic.”
March 18, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Marichiweu
The divine Dr. M, if I’m not mistaken.
March 18, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Cynic
Oh, I think you’re being a little unfair.
For one thing, Exum was a vocal supporter of (and, I’ve heard, adviser to) the Obama campaign; I don’t think that Anderson’s implication that he’s sexist and homophobic has even the slenderest correspondence with reality. He’s taking space on his blog to praise a distinctly left-of-center voice. Let’s celebrate this, not mock it – the insertion of voices like Maddow’s into the debate is a healthy sign.
For another, it *is* surprising that Maddow is as knowledgeable about military affairs as she is – such knowledge tends to decline as one moves leftward across the political spectrum. It’s been an obstacle, frankly, to the left making its case compellingly. It is indeed difficult to take seriously strategic pronouncements from people who know little about the actual capabilities of our forces. (That’s not the same thing as “extremely serious people” syndrome, which generally refers to the insularity of the foreign policy establishment.) The left has taken a while to find voices – Greenwald, Ackerman – who can engage this debate in as informed a fashion as their opponents.
As for defense spending, Exum actually shares your disdain for the expensive, bloated budget devoted to complicated weapons systems intended to wage high-intensity conflicts. But he’s very much a part of the new establishment – the CNAS mafia which is now running much of the Pentagon. This, of course, has the extremely serious people extremely worried – but should make the rest of us a little happier.
March 18, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Carl
Rock on Dr. M, but I’m still stuck on the notion that asking “if being a strategic thinker means more than tweaking our operational design” counts as a probing and decisive question in these circles; since it’s basically comparing Webster’s definition of ‘strategy’ to business as usual at the DoD. What kinds of questions are they used to getting, then?
March 18, 2009 at 3:33 pm
John Emerson
International Relations and whatever they call Strategic Planning might be the two areas where trained professionals are actually much more likely to be far wrong than the man on the street. They’re extremely practical, applied, careerist fields like law or accounting, with no real scientific or humanistic pretensions (otherwise they’d be in history or PolSci). But there aren’t big careers to be made keeping the peace or leaving well enough alone or peacefully making small, incremental positive changes. It’s sort of like a medical school that just offers surgery.
March 18, 2009 at 3:48 pm
silbey
He’s taking space on his blog to praise a distinctly left-of-center voice.
He’s doing it in a distinctly odd way, then.
Reread the first line, by the way, for my general opinion of the blog.
It is indeed difficult to take seriously strategic pronouncements from people who know little about the actual capabilities of our forces
Yeah, I do wish Dick Cheney would stop.
March 18, 2009 at 4:02 pm
eric
Wait, is she of the Buckinghamshire Bleeping-Maddows? Because they’re a military family from way back. Osbert Bleeping-Maddow was at Khartoum.
March 18, 2009 at 4:15 pm
silbey
Wait, is she of the Buckinghamshire Bleeping-Maddows?
Cadet branch. The Buckinghamshire wing never liked to acknowledge them, and they lived in genteel poverty.
(We jest, but on my research trip I found a Colonel Robert Francis Gartside-Tipping, son of Gartside Gartside-Tipping. Say that three times fast.)
March 18, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Standpipe Bridgeplate
I’d always thought that making up stories about Gartside-Tipping and Hunter-Snipe was something historians did for fun before they discovered methamphetamine.
March 18, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Cynic
Yeah, I do wish Dick Cheney would stop.
Let me put it this way – knowledge of the structure and capability of the military is a necessary, but hardly sufficient, condition for engaging in debate on strategy. Cheney is a case in point – he possesses vast knowledge about the military, built up over a long career, and yet displayed a catastrophic cluelessness regarding broader strategic questions. It’s his absence of sound judgment, not his ignorance, which ought to disqualify him from the debate. Conversely, there are any number of people who have judgment far superior to Cheney’s (not a particular distinction, of course) but lack the sort of detailed knowledge necessary to translate that into meaningful strategic guidance.
Maddow, and a handful of others like her, stand out on the left for having taken the trouble to master the terms of the debate. That really does matter. It’s the difference between someone reading the works of the Dunning School, and pronouncing them mistaken, and someone like Foner creating a new synthesis. It’s not that hard to dismiss a historical school; it’s a lot more arduous to master the sources, marshal them in support of a compelling rebuttal, and then deploy them to advance a new interpretation to displace the old.
I’d suggest that one of the reasons voices opposing our various recent military adventures were given so little credence is that they had not mastered the terms of the debate. That’s not just unfortunate; it proved tragic. They had valid points to make, but pitted against members of the military or foreign policy establishments, the gaps in their knowledge were painfully obvious. It’s partly the legacy of Vietnam, partly the turn to an all-volunteer force, and partly ironic – that those least disposed to be deferential to authority or attracted to the use of force are accordingly least likely to be in a position to credibly oppose it. So, like Exum, I’m both surprised and delighted every time I encounter a prominent left-wing pundit who’s really gotten down into the nitty-gritty. We’re seeing more and more of that. It’s my hope – and indeed, my expectation – that these conflicts will produce a new generation of left-wing activists who can engage in robust debate on matters of military policy. Lord knows, we need the balance.
March 18, 2009 at 6:00 pm
rea
knowledge of the structure and capability of the military is a necessary, but hardly sufficient, condition for engaging in debate on strategy. Cheney is a case in point – he possesses vast knowledge about the military, built up over a long career, and yet displayed a catastrophic cluelessness regarding broader strategic questions.
LOL at the notion Cheney knew anything important about the capability of our military. It’s like saying that Custer on the basis of his experience as Maj. General and divisional commander, knew the capability of a battalion of cavalry matched up against a couple of thousand Indians–in both instances, the outcome refuted the assumption.
March 18, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Walt
God that’s funny, eric.
March 18, 2009 at 6:50 pm
John Emerson
It’s my hope – and indeed, my expectation – that these conflicts will produce a new generation of left-wing activists who can engage in robust debate on matters of military policy. Lord knows, we need the balance.
Yes, maybe the next generation of people who are right will find ways to persuade the people who are always wrong. Wouldn’t it be easier to cozen them with sexual favors, or infect them with terrible diseases, than to learn their bloody vocabulary? (Alternatively, maybe we could gain control of the airforce, bomb the Pentagon, and start from scratch.)
It’s so hateful and presumptuous when people who are right venture to speak without learning the terms of the debate. They usually wear the wrong shoes, too,
*************
More seriously, this being a serious site, the main reason why the opponents of the Iraq War weren’t taken seriously has nothing to do with the terms of the debate. It was because PNAC and the neocons had the Executive Branch, most of the media, and much of Congress locked up.
Did Ledeen know the terms of the debate? Addington? (….?, etc.?, etc.?] If they did, what does that say about the terms of the debate?
March 18, 2009 at 7:01 pm
politicalfootball
They had valid points to make, but pitted against members of the military or foreign policy establishments, the gaps in their knowledge were painfully obvious.
This cries out for illustration. The idea that superior military or foreign policy knowledge won the day in the Iraq debate seems … odd.
Anyway, it seems to me that there were plenty of people in the military and foreign policy establishments who knew what a clusterfuck Iraq was going to be. They just weren’t the deciders.
March 18, 2009 at 7:11 pm
silbey
Let me put it this way – knowledge of the structure and capability of the military is a necessary, but hardly sufficient, condition for engaging in debate on strategy.
Actually, I suspect that you would have a hard time defending historically the idea that those expert in military matters were any better at predicting or evaluating the future courses of wars.
Does it give them a particular insight? Sure. Does it give them a privileged insight? Very dangerous conclusion, indeed.
March 18, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Amos Anan
Maddow probably enjoys the “bleeping” ‘citation.’ After she had been dumped from the Air America radio morning show she shared with two others (Chuck D. and Lizz Winstead) and somehow given a small slot at 5AM she was thrilled by a slight directed at her by Rush Limbaugh. She used to play the Rush quote regularly. “Who is Rachel Maaaad-doooouuuuw?”
March 18, 2009 at 7:39 pm
foolishmortal
re: IR:
IR people did tend to be against the war at the time. Realists’
heads exploded trying to explain how a rational unitary actor could pursue such a policy (hint: it was the Jews!).
March 18, 2009 at 7:41 pm
andrew
Clearly not enough people were reading the profiles of Maddow that appeared around the time her show started up:
That’s from The American Prospect but I remember it coming up elsewhere as well. (Clearly, I spent too much time reading profiles.)
March 18, 2009 at 8:11 pm
eric
I’d always thought that making up stories about Gartside-Tipping and Hunter-Snipe was something historians did for fun before they discovered methamphetamine.
Clearly these historians have not yet discovered methamphetamine.
March 18, 2009 at 8:20 pm
andrew
–Charles Royster. The Fabulous History of the Dismal Swamp Company: A Story of George Washington’s Times, 416.
March 18, 2009 at 8:42 pm
foolishmortal
Reputedly Competent Historians Fail to Discover Methamphetamine in 21st Century Central Valley
March 18, 2009 at 10:07 pm
TF Smith
This “…”I think that structural changes in American military, government, [and] politics over the past two generations have brought us to a place where we have drifted into essentially becoming a militarist country,” she says. …” sounds well worth reading, but isn’t Andrew Bacevich covering this same ground currently?
Much less PAC Kostinen, William Appleman Williams, etc?
Wasn’t there an entire school of historical thought (or two, if you go back to the Beards) that sort of turned on these same questions?
As far as quadruple-barrelled names go, the ultimate has to be that of Sir Reginald Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax….
March 18, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Michael Turner
I’m no relation to the Page-Turners. A possible Bleeping-Turner link, OK, maybe.
There was always something about Maddow I couldn’t put my finger on, but just now learning of her academic/army-brat stripes made it tangible for me. I once knew an Air Force colonel’s daughter who had a graduate degree in physics. Very similar vibe, even though the intellectual orientation is quite different.
If the world portrayed in Starship Troopers–the Paul Verhoeven satire series, not the Heinlein original–had broadcasts featuring biting social commentary, one could do worse than casting Rachel Maddow for the part. She could be given lines like, “You ask me, Do I believe our society has become over-militarized? Do the Bugs shit on asteroids? I mean, look at me. You think I’d be wearing these fake battle decorations if my producers weren’t thinking about the ratings?”
Just a cameo, Paul, that’s all I ask.
March 18, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Vance
Wikipedia points one onward to the quintuple-barrelled Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenvilles — check the quarterings.
March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am
Linkmeister
I see Maddow cast in one of the Miles Vorkosigan books, possibly as the fleet commander.
March 19, 2009 at 5:50 am
ajay
Elena, or Bel Thorne?
March 19, 2009 at 6:00 am
Chris
Well, if he’s talking about a “fleet commander” other than Miles himself, I would interpret that as Elli. But the expression is somewhat underspecified.
March 19, 2009 at 7:12 am
Barry
Cynic: “For another, it *is* surprising that Maddow is as knowledgeable about military affairs as she is – such knowledge tends to decline as one moves leftward across the political spectrum. ”
Cynic, as you get your muscles back in working order (an 8-year coma must atrophy them something terrible), you should also acquaint yourself with 21st century history. Many things will be different from when you were last conscious.
March 19, 2009 at 7:13 am
Barry
I usually don’t like blogs which require registration, but in Abu Muqblahblahblah’s case, it’s clearly needed. Right now its a bunch of mouth-breathing right-wingers.