The Israeli Option in Strategy
I wanted to pick up an idea I tossed out in another thread and elevate it to it's own. I've kind of been playing with it for a few years.
Here's the gist: one of the foundation assumptions of current American strategy is that most people around the world like us hence we can and should work through local partners to win "hearts and minds." We realize there are "evil" people who don't like us but we figure we can counter them with strategic communications or information operations, and by "empowering moderates" (largely defined as people who ARE favorably inclined towards us). This may simply be a false assumption.
I'm moving toward the conclusion that our problem is NOT that people don't understand us (and hence the problem is NOT poor strategic communications or information operations). Most people do have a reasonably good understanding of us. They just increasingly don't want what we want and plain don't like what we stand for.
These two alternative assumptions suggest very different overarching strategies. The first suggests our current strategy--empower moderates, use strategic communications and information operations, strengthen local partners and win hearts and minds. The second would certainly take friends where they exist, but not try to pretend that they exist everywhere. Instead it would basically say, "You don't want to be our friend, fine. But if you generate projectable power that might be used against us or our friends, we're going to drop out of the sky, bust it up, then leave. Many times across many decades if necessary. If you, on your volition, change your mind and want to be our friend, give us a call."
As Tony Soprano would say, it's just business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JJackson
Fair or was I a little harsh?
Hey JJackson: You want a thought? I'll give you a thought.:wry:
Looking back through the pages of the history of empires, I'd say the US is pretty mild, by comparison. America has been the world's leading imperial power for only three or four generations. It took over from the British in WWI. Since then, American military and commercial power have dominated the planet.
But the empire business, like any business, has its good points and its bad points. On the good side, you get to boss people around and feel important. On the bad side, it can be costly - especially if you don't know what you are doing. And on the really bad side, it almost always ends in bankruptcy and military disaster. Empires - like other grand public spectacles - make the news twice, coming and going. Whether U.S. empire is on the coming or going side, you make your own call.
The empire business is fundamentally a protection racket. The imperial power provides political stability and military protection. In return, the tributary or vassal states pay. But that is the fly in America's imperial ointment. No one pays. The United States invaded Iraq. Cynics say it did so to get Iraq's oil. At least, that would have made sense from an imperial finance point of view. But no, this whole thing is deep in red ink up to your neck.
How to pay the expenses? Typically, an imperial power either forces subject nations to render up some form of tribute - gold, slaves, wheat - or, in the more modern variety, it insists on certain favorable trading terms. But America never got the hang of empire; it invades countries but forgets to steal the treasure. It is so impressed with its own claptrap - "making the world safe for democracy"…"fighting terrorists" - that it forgets it has to pay the bills.
We could unilaterally disarm tomorrow, or the whole continent of North America could sink into the ocean like the island of Atlantis. I doubt you would see a universal era of peace and prosperity in the wake of that move, though. I suspect you would see quite a few wars break out in short order.
I never ceased to be amazed by how many people
cue in on one, to them, hot button word and then allow that to skew or even derail their comprehension of the actual point of a written piece.
Sigh. As they say, the internet is not a perfect medium...
Perhaps. We'll never know...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Odom
The short answer is the same if it had incorporated the same material. regardless of title...
Where's Harry Turtledove when we need him... :D
Quote:
...the strategy at least as I read it said we--the US--are the stand alone imperial power in the world. I think anyone would have much trouble selling that inside the US and we got a pretty good slice of what the world reaction would be from JJ.
Interesting. I read JJs comment with interest also. FWIW, I didn't take Steve's premise that way -- perhaps because I'm in broad agreement. In any event, I have no doubt many could and some would desire to take it that way as the Great American Empire, Act II. I just don't see that happening nor do I believe that most in the world, given a little reflection time would.
The British -- like most in Europe -- after all are basically Arab centric and goodness knows we've given them enough provocation to dislike us intensely so JJs reaction was unsurprising . It was also essentially fair; I could quibble a bit about events and interpretations but on balance, I understand where he's coming from.
Quote:
It would I suspect be somewhat different if it had incorporated more of what you put into it. A measured response is essentially a middle of the road strategy and one we are fairly comfortable with although we have had aberrations.
Possibly my error as I assumed given what I know of Steve's background and his writing, it was sort of implied...
As for middle of the road, yep -- and most Americans are essentially moderates; that's why it's acceptable...
Quote:
I do not, however, agree with the blanket assessment that everyone hates us and always will. That is a simplistic and flawed assessment. Everyone one does not hate us. Steve Blair is correct that we often want them all to love us. There have been periods where anti-American sentiments have run high. We are in one now. We have had periods where pro-American sentiments were strong. What really counts is when and where our interests and our pursuit of those interests are acceptable or in favor with other players on the strategic stage and where and when they are not.
Hate is a bad word, Penta used it and I did not. However, I didn't correct his over statement to a more accurate "while a very few hate us, many more are in a state of mild dislike, distrust or envy and the majority of the world doesn't care much unless we do something that effects them personally. the bad news is that due to our size, sometimes our minor efforts create a ripple effect that can exacerbate their perception into a state of active dislike..." or words to that effect. I'm wordy enough without over editing someone else's basically correct comment. :o
You are, of course, correct in saying that we are not resoundingly hated -- I've said here and elsewhere that dislike of the US today is not nearly as bad as it was during and directly after Viet Nam -- and there are some American who want "them to like us" (though not many IMO, most could care less). Still, other than that, Penta's points were valid, I thought.
To you too -- do you have an alternative?