Coined by Matthew Yglesias the theory provides me an easy excuse to talk about comics and politics:
The ring is a bit goofy. Basically, it lets its bearer generate streams of green energy that can take on all kinds of shapes. The important point is that, when fully charged what the ring can do is limited only by the stipulation that it create green stuff and by the user's combination of will and imagination. Consequently, the main criterion for becoming a Green Lantern is that you need to be a person capable of "overcoming fear" which allows you to unleash the ring's full capacities. It used to be the case that the rings wouldn't function against yellow objects, but this is now understood to be a consequence of the "Parallax fear anomaly" which, along with all the ring's other limits, can be overcome with sufficient willpower.
Suffice it to say that I think all this makes an okay premise for a comic book. But a lot of people seem to think that American military might is like one of these power rings. They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower.
In fairness to the Green Lanterns, Yglesias did leave off another key criteria "being completely honest." So most politicians, let alone neo-cons, wouldn't really qualify.
That aside, I think his description is basically sound. You see the idea in paeans to grit, such as the one reposted recently by James Kirchik who is guest blogging while Andrew Sullivan is getting married (best wishes to him on the marriage).
Grit used to be the Anglo virtue - absolutely
grim perseverance through long, terrible
reverses - though often laughing at oneself,
mocking one's political leaders, trying to
drown one's sorrows in warm beer and Glen Miller's music
- but just never wavering. Wavering was for the
Italians and French maybe, but not if you
were serious. The Germans didn't waver. The
Russians didn't waver. So for heaven's sake
why should we ? I mourn the loss of grit.
Hilzoy, another Sullivan guest blogger, had a great response (that's worth reading in whole).
I have never believed that the American people are unwilling to take casualties in war. I do think that they are unwilling to take casualties in a war they do not believe is justified, or that is being badly run. And who can blame them?
Hilzoy also argued that fundamental mistakes tend only to happen as a result of not caring about a problem, extremely difficult concepts, or simply spoiled entitlement. Knowing that occupation planning was needed in Iraqi isn't extremely difficult, so [she] attributed that failure to not caring (Rumsfeld and Cheney) and spoiled childish entitlement (Bush).
Kirchik replied including one quote I found particularly silly: "fear that this sort of sentiment--that the war against Islamic militancy is not really a war at all, and not nearly as potentially lethal as we've been made to believe--is gaining currency in America and certainly already has in Britain. Downplaying the threat that the enemy poses is, yes, a loss of grit." In other words, grit means that thinking every enemy capable of inflicting an atrocity on us is a mortal threat. Sure...
As Yglesias originally points out, the trouble with this will power theory is that it for superpowers it isn't falsifiable. It's possible to bleed the U.S. in an intervention, but outright military defeat isn't in the cards. It doesn't matter that persistence isn't the same as victory, victory can always be promised in the somewhat distance future. There's never a time to cut losses and always a time to call such loss cutting "a stab in the back" (the link goes to a good article on the use of the accusation in Harpers).
Beyond being unfalsifiable, the theory actively encourages lying and poor strategy. If all that's necessary to win is maintaining public support, then you don't have to care about things like planning for the occupation. Similarly, taking steps like accepting Iraqi refugees is counterproductive because it admits that there's a problem. Moreover, it can lead even honorable people such as Sen. John McCain to take trips to Baghdad marketplaces to show how safe they are while forgetting to mention his helicopter accompaniment.
A population willing and able to withdraw support for a war is a feature, not a bug, of democratic nations. Just because we're a superpower doesn't mean every war can be won at a remotely acceptable cost.
Bit for comic fans who want to skip the Iraq stuff: Which leaves me with this question. Have the Green Lanterns ever dealt with a situation where they had to fall back? I know they're certainly willing to self-sacrifice and often die, but that's not quite the same. Also, here's a link to a response to Yglesias's theory by Dennis O'Neil of Green Lantern/Green Arrow road trip fame.
[Update: Hilzoy is female. That's what I get for still harboring the default assumption that ambiguous handles on the internet tend to be male until I pick up contextual clues that the person in question is female. My bad. I"ll continue to work at expunging that assumption.]
Comments