"Weakness Invites Aggression"

Matthew Yglesias criticizes the conservative trope that our aggressive military posture serves as a deterrent to attacks on the United States.

The entire “weakness invites aggression” worldview is something that’d really be worth looking into at some length. Presumably the truth of these dictum explains why Canada has been subject to so many more terrorist attacks than has the United States. Or it explains why France took advantage of the ongoing political crisis in Belgium to invade and conquer the Walloon portions of that country. And, conversely, it explains why Bush’s belligerence and militarism have managed to convince North Korea and Iran to give in to our non-proliferation demands. I dunno.

I think this is a bit more complicated issue than he makes out - there are plenty of cases to disprove the idea that nations which abstain from state-sponsored violence abroad are immune from terrorist attack. The Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attack, for example, was carried out in Japan, which is constitutionally forbidden from using its military outside of its own borders.

I do wonder, though, at a mindset that essentially has come to the conclusion that a preemptive invasion that leaves millions displaced, in poverty and with dead friends and relatives that can be blamed on America's actions can result in there being fewer people in the world desperate and angry enough to carry out terrorist attacks against us. The violent installation of democracy in a foreign country seems hopelessly destined to be the cause of more trouble than it could ever hope to prevent.

I have an idea. When we see that the big, scary guy at the other end of the bar doesn't seem to like us, let's try not kicking him in the nuts until he decides that he really wants to be more like us. I get that diplomacy isn't nearly as emotionally satisfying, but shouldn't our foreign policy be a bit more than the executive arm of the nation's id?