Does weakness cause terrorism?

Dick Cheney things so.  In fact, it's a favorite Republican (and not just Republican) clichee.

Juan Cole takes a look at Cheney's latest warmongering rant and does a reality-check.  Cole points to the example of Lebanon in the 1980s, in which Israel's exercise of strength in intervening there in 1982 would up giving birth to Hizbollah, the Shiite terrorist group.

On the other hand, he notes that the exit of the US from Lebanon in 1983 after a terrorist attack and from Somalia in 1993 after the "Black Hawk Down" incident are used by Osama bin Laden as examples showing that the US is a paper tiger.

The lesson I take away from all this is that the US should not get involved in places that it may get thrown out of, because that projects an image of weakness and vulnerability to the country's enemies. There was no way the United States could possibly have maintained a presence in Lebanon in the early 1980s, and Reagan was foolish to put those Marines in there, and even more foolish to put them in without pilons around them to stop truck bombs. The country was embroiled in a civil war, and it would have taken a massive commitment of troops to make a difference. In the wake of the Vietnam failure, the American public would not have countenanced such a huge troop build-up. Likewise, Bush senior was foolish to send those troops to Somalia in the way he did (which became a poison pill for his successor, Bill Clinton).

I have never understood why Bush thought it was necessary to send US troops into Somalia in 1992.  I've always suspected he did to distract attention from European pressure to intervene in the former Yugoslavia.

Cole also cites Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island expressing concern over the progress - or lack thereof - in the Iraq War:  GOP Senator Criticizes Bush for Iraq War  (AP) Kansas City Star 07/27/04.  As well as concern about the saber-rattling on Iran.

Chafee took issue with Bush's "harsh words" for Iran in recent weeks, and said the administration needs to work more closely with that country, Jordan and Syria.

The United States believes Tehran is developing nuclear weapons, a view reinforced by Iran's recent decision to resume construction of centrifuges - a key step in the development of a uranium-based bomb. Iran said its nuclear program has nothing to do with weaponry and is meant to meet domestic electricity needs.

"I feel there's been a whole host of mistakes," said Chafee, a moderate in the GOP. Among them, he said, was insufficient troop levels.

Washington is spending $1 billion a week in Iraq, according to Chafee. Yet the senator said he has heard electricity does not work in some places, some schools are not open, and water treatment plants remain out of commission. The senator said the country is more dangerous now than when he visited in October. (my emphasis)

Part of the potentially destructive logic at work here is that war critics wind up looking at the way the military and reserves are stretched to the limit and say, we need more troops.  Which is true - if we're going to be a long-term military presence in Iraq and if we hope to win the guerrilla war there.

This also provides them political cover by letting them be "tough on defense" while criticizing the current policies.

The danger in this is that we can wind up with majority support in Congress for more troops and for massive military-spending boondoggles like Star Wars anti-ballistic missiles, instead of making long-term strategic decisions that would avoid Iraq-style wars in the future.