Debating war: why arguments opposing American wars and interventions fail.

• Author: Benham, Jessica L.
• Position: Book review

Debating war: why arguments opposing American wars and interventions fail, by David J. Lorenzo, New York, Routledge, 2015, 233 pp., $41.87 (paperback), ISBN 978-1138926899

From the Revolutionary War to Vietnam to conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, American politicians and ordinary citizens alike have argued, often unsuccessfully, against American military interventions. David J. Lorenzo's book surveys the tactics of many of these anti-war advocates, providing not only an examination of the arguments employed but also generates constructive normative guidelines for advocates to consider how to fashion more successful tactics in the future. Lorenzo's work is divided into eight chapters, six featuring case studies of anti-war arguments.

In the first chapter, Lorenzo argues that understanding why oppositional arguments to war have generally failed is essential to understanding policy-making in general with regard to war. He writes, "In particular, understanding oppositional arguments sheds light on why policy-makers often do not accept them" (p. 3). He also argues for the use of an international relations perspective stating, "Understandings of international relations ... hold that the distribution of power in the international system is the real cause of events and actions on the international stage ... Understanding the context in which policymakers put US power in motion ... is important" (p. 4). Lorenzo also identifies his data sources: historical documents, contemporary anti-war arguments gleaned from think tanks and similar sources, and the works of Ron Paul, Chalmers Johnson, and Noam Chomsky. Lorenzo then provides an overview of relevant literature, beginning with Kant's, Holsti's, Mead's, and Dumbrell's work on isolationism and concluding with the development of a list of 16 types of arguments as identified within the literature. Lorenzo moves to emphasize the contributions his study makes to this literature, including the examination of opposition as a category of arguments, the global position of the USA, and the rhetorical function of argument. He concludes the chapter with an overview of previously hypothesized reasons why oppositional arguments generally fail, including difficulty overcoming security concerns, a lack of leadership accountability, the inability of critics to work together, a lack of criticism from those in power, and negative references to cultural ideographs. He tests these hypotheses in the case studies that follow.

In the second chapter, Lorenzo considers arguments opposing war beginning with Washington and Jefferson through the Spanish-American War...