Kinder, Gentler Superpower
Envisioned by Shawn Brimley, the Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security,* who says in this essay at Small Wars Journal we need to be willing to use force, yet not in ways that piss people off. There is of course a fundamental disconnect there, and Brimley’s opening Bush-bash fails to notice that a big part of how we got into this mess was all the decades of retreat and half-measures as we tried to avoid pissing people off.
America has been adrift for too long. The attacks of September 11th did not “change everything,” but exacerbated the difficulty of articulating a purpose for American power since the Berlin Wall fell nearly two decades ago. America has suffered from strategic whiplash: the nebulousness of the post-Cold War era was rapidly replaced by a post-9/11 myopia on Islamist extremism and the so-called “war on terrorism.” This myopia lay at the root of the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, and it remains the chief obstacle preventing the emergence of a reasoned and pragmatic debate over the purpose of American power in the 21st century. The absence of a true grand strategy imperils America.
Wacking Bush over Iraq is a cheap bid, but Brimley declares it’s not useful for us to get bogged down in tactical disputes. He doesn’t much want to get bogged down in a strategic one, either, as he makes a lot of claims that are absurd on their face without doing much to back them up. Brimley attempts to describe a forest … grand American strategy … that has been obscured by GWOT trees. The response to global terrorism being symptomatic of “post 9/11 myopia” is ridiculous in a pretty spectacular way, but there are more subtle perversities to delight in here. Bush is part of the post-Cold War failure to develop a new strategy, yet pushed “change rather than continuity.” OK, on to the new strategy:
Beyond the defense of the homeland, a grand strategy of sustainment would commit the United States to the pursuit of three vital global interests: stable balances of power in key regions, an open international economy, and continued access to the global commons.
Brimley fails to observe that Bush has in fact from the start voiced exactly that grand vision, to defend all three of those goals in the face of fierce resistance by state and non-state extremists, primarily Islamic. Unfortunately Bush has been less assertive with the Chinese or the Russians on those points. But Bush stated clearly at the start of these wars that the United States will be the advocate, enabler, bulwark and at times enforcer of freedom and security in the world. It’s just that the advocates of kinder gentleness never took anything Bush said seriously, taking him to be a puppet and a buffoon, and while they may philosophically approve of those broad goals, in the end they don’t care to do what it takes to accomplish them.
All the strategy in the world is worthless if you don’t plan to back it up with effective tactics, and Brimley fails to look seriously at what Bush has accomplished, the evolution of the war in Iraq and the necessity of a continuity of effort. Could be a good focus of further study for the Bacevich chair, given its namesake’s sacrifice in this cause. People not liking us, even if it were true … I’d suggest that’s a significantly more complex picture than some would have you believe … should not very high on anyone’s give-a-damn list. But polls consistently have demonstrated that people are impressed when we succeed. In the invasion of 2003, in the surge of 2007 in which Lt. Bacevich was killed, for example. They respond positively to success. Brimley appears to suggest respecting us will follow liking us. I’d suggest liking us will follow respecting us, which will follow (a) an understanding that our strength is not symbolic or academic and (b) an understanding that we will follow through to success, and not be deterred by challenges and loss. And those things being accomplished, who gives a damn if we engender a warm and cuddly feeling or not?
It shouldn’t be surprising that this essay is full of tautological nonsense, seeing as its thesis is tautological nonsense. Here’s a good one:
Arrogant talk of helping rising powers become “responsible stakeholders” should be replaced with words of respect derived in part from America’s enduring position of strength.
I think we know how much our very real, unimaginary adversaries — Saddam, Osama bin Laden, Iran — respected that strength that is unwilling to express itself. That applies to the Chinese, as well, who Brimley thinks can be a partner rather than an adversary. I’m willing to acknowledge that might be possible, at the point of a sword.
There’s more. “NATO must not be allowed to whither.” Memo to Brimley: kicking and screaming NATO members, faced with a dire threat to their own security from failed-state-based terrorism, can barely be kept engaged in the good war in Afghanistan. If NATO is whithering, it is because NATO, like the European Union and the United Nations, sees military and political strength as abstracts that must be respected for what they symbolize. If the semi-literate rabble fails to do that, well … get out! Cocktails at 7, somewhere safe!
Here’s a good one:
Finally, America must respect the rule of law and civil liberties at home in order to renew and sustain its role as an example of how a modern liberal democracy can function. The best way for America to promote the growth of democracy abroad is to refine and highlight its practice at home.
Conveniently unsupported by any examples of how rule of law and civil liberties have not been respected at home or anywhere else. Wise choice by Brimley, as that’s an academic debate that stumbles quickly in the face of fact, circumstantial particulars and historical precedence, no matter what Cindy Sheehan, MoveOn, and even Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have to say about it.
OK, I’ve already spent too much time on this drivel. It’s just that this is the kind of thing you can expect to hear more of as we head into what many people fervently hope will be an end to war, an enlightened post-Bush era when all this messiness can be swept under the rug. Start of an interesting discussion in comments at Small Wars Journal. Abu Suleyman makes a great point:
I would argue that invading Iraq was one of the best things that we could have done to improve our standing in the world, especially among the rogue states.
Ucko says yeah but:
Saying that the invasion was great, but the occupation, well, less so is to separate two inseparable parts of the operation … It’s like raving about a jump off a building and then lamenting the inevitable fall.
I’d say, yeah but, what the Obama/Clinton camp is advocating is more like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because you’ve hit a storm. The point is, we’ve remade the map of the Middle East with some significant positive effects, if at great cost and with some difficulty. The job isn’t done yet but scuttling off won’t win anyone’s respect. My own thoughts on all that here.
* CNAS is a new moderate think-tank that includes local faves Nathanial Fick and Robert Kaplan. The Bacevich Fellowship is named for Lt. Andrew Bacevich, KIA last year in Iraq, the son of Boston University’s Prof. Andrew Bacevich, an IR specialist and former armor colonel who is a big advocate of kinder, gentler U.S. leadership in the world.
Topics: America, GWOT, Iraq, academia
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:46 am on Saturday, March 22, 2008
7 Responses to “Kinder, Gentler Superpower”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
I’d argue that we should not care if we piss someone off in the course of using our military force.
By definition, we want our enemies pissed; that clouds their judgment.
If our allies are they who are pissed off, it’s possible that they aren’t genuine allies. If they get over their problem, fine. If not, oh well.
Neutral states can whine all they want……so long as they don’t support the enemy.
Frankly, applying force to another human being generally results in an angry human being. It’s human nature. If the feels-good element of the world want this to abate, they need to focus their ire and intellect on the not-so-pleasant people of the world.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
I had to read it a few times to get (I think) what he’s saying. It’s full of flowery rhetoric, which makes it hard to boil down. I’m not sure if that’s just how he writes, or if he’s purposely trying to disguise the raw elements of his “grand strategy.”
Here’s how I read it, though. It’s essentially an argument to maintain and extend the Pax Americana, primarily by maintaining military supremacy on paper. No preemptive force, no matter how provoked. Reactive force only when trade or regional balance of power is threatened. A strengthening of global interdependence through the use of international organizations , trade and defense agreements. Said agreements to be pursued even with the most tyrannical governments imaginable. In other words, all interdependence among nations is good, as long as we’re at the top of the food chain. Change is bad. Sustainment good. Promotion of democracy limited to setting an example at home, through refining our own democracy (whatever that means).
We’re also supposed to strengthen our ties to allies, rebuild our reputation, and “renew our legitimacy” (again, whatever that means), but presumably the actions (or non-actions) above will take care of that part.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Seems like so much wishful thinking to me.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
In the post Bush era, President Obama will strengthen our ties to our Allies by renegotiating NAFTA and taking the Tanker Contract away from EADS.
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 am
“…a reasoned and pragmatic debate over the purpose of American power in the 21st century.”
No debate is needed. Our Declaration of Independence states what the purpose of our government is, namely to protect the rights of those it governs. That’s what American power must be used for.
Government has no other purpose.
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 am
“…a big part of how we got into this mess was all the decades of retreat and half-measures as we tried to avoid pissing people off.”
To put it bluntly, for years the attitude of the people running our government was that it was more important to appease the Saudis (mainly) then to destroy the people who were kidnapping and/or killing our people.
They forgot what the purpose of our government is. The government exists to protect the lives and freedom of our citizens, not to kiss Saudi ass to get oil.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:36 am
Dave, they didn’t forget the purpose of government. They’ve done all they can to wipe it out of existence. They prattle on about living in peace with the rest of the world, while forgetting everything it takes to have a genuine peace. They do this by ignoring the purpose of the concept of individual rights, which is the only basis of equality before objective law. They’ve perverted the concept of objective law, indeed, they deny that objectivity in any area is even possible. What is left upon which to determine the proper principles required to differentiate between those who initiate force, and those who defend against the initiation of force, whether it is on a personal level or on a national level? Without a clear principle, upon what are we to found our actions concerning those who murder individual members of our society? Hell, upon what are we to even discuss the required actions?
This puts us in great peril. If we cannot stand up and tell the world that, on no uncertain terms, if they initiate force against us, murdering one citizen or many, they will face the full force necessary to put an end to any further such actions. This includes citizens who back attacks against us, whether actively, or by passive consent. Let their own citizens understand their peril when they don’t control the criminals among them. Right now, we have shown the world nothing to respect, and given them no reason to stop attacking us.
This, by the way, also applies to those confidence cartels, like the UN, who commit fraud on a grand scale against the world, by sanction of our government, and the financing of our tax-payers.
Instead, we get some variation of the above article’s theme.