Toward Sustainable Security in Iraq and the Endgame

[wm]

Like Rob, I don't think there's a "one-size-fits-all" answer for this stuff, because each situation is going to be unique in some aspects. We need to be able to tailor our goals and expectations and not try to fit a single template over each circumstance.

I concur. I am just a Cassandra or "voice crying in the wilderness," trying to remind folks that the quest for a silver bullet solution to foreign policy problems is very much like the quest for the Holy Grail. Seems to me American policy wonks and/or implementers of policy initiatives forget that too often.

[Ken White]

sure do forget it. Worse, there are millions out there (many of whom like to comment volubly on both sides of the political weblogs) who have never learned

"...the quest for a silver bullet solution to foreign policy problems is very much like the quest for the Holy Grail."

Too much effort is expended in attempting to achieve the impossible...

[Rob Thornton]

Steve - glad to have you and Ken on the thread

Steve said:

I think that, given the nature of our system, it's almost inevitable that we will have contradictory foreign policy goals. Each administration (and for that matter each iteration of the Senate and House Foreign Policy Committees) will have its own agenda (or agendas), and often bits of a previous agenda linger on in the minds of a group of staffers or others...and get slipped into current (or new) policy. Or, out of respect for a previous administration, a policy that has already started may be left in place...running almost on autopilot (Vietnam is to my mind a classic example of this...both with Kennedy and Johnson).

made all the more complex given the nature of political interaction in our domestic and foreign policies. Its not just our policy which is subject to change, but the policies of all the participants. This is the interactive nature of politics and people. This is why policy objectives require continued engagement - the interaction does not stop just because we say it does - or as Clausewitz remarked "In war the result is never final, the outcome is merely a transitory evil, for which a remedy may still be found in political conditions at a later date."

Wayne said:

trying to remind folks that the quest for a silver bullet solution to foreign policy problems is very much like the quest for the Holy Grail.

made yet more fun by our constant reinterpretation of what is "holy" and our redefining of what a "grail" is. As such getting consistency in our means and ways by which go pursue any policy objective is made all the more difficult. It is the policy equivalent of a self-inflicted GSW to the foot. The value each element (or party) places on its own political philosophies and and the way they devalue the other elements creates a self constraining bias. It creates conditions where policy objectives may be forfeited either because those policies or objectives do not fit their specific view, or because their bias and loyalties prevent them from realizing the significance. This seems to be true even when the goals are actually the same - but because the other party put it in motion it must be renamed, restaffed, redefined, etc. to put their brand name on it. Doing so takes time and interrupts funding and resourcing and generates undue fog and friction. We are powerful enough that our biggest impediment to achieving our policy goals is often ourselves. No good deed will go unpunished.

Best, Rob

[Steve Blair]

made all the more complex given the nature of political interaction in our domestic and foreign policies. Its not just our policy which is subject to change, but the policies of all the participants. This is the interactive nature of politics and people. This is why policy objectives require continued engagement - the interaction does not stop just because we say it does - or as Clausewitz remarked "In war the result is never final, the outcome is merely a transitory evil, for which a remedy may still be found in political conditions at a later date."

Quite so. I was focusing more on the internal considerations because I think there are too many "ghosts in the machine" within our system to allow it to quickly adjust to its own changes, let alone the outside factors. That and there is a tendency (aided by the addition to polls) on the part of some policy makers to focus on internal factors to the virtual exclusion of the other parties involved.

In keeping with Wayne's comment, I don't think there's a silver bullet for this problem. Far from it. Our system is somewhat tailored to respond quickly (or fairly quickly) to internal problems and doesn't focus much on what goes on outside the borders. As parties rotate through power, our policies become circular in a way...providing a sort of continuity provided one is patient enough to wait for the pendulum to swing back to his favorite corner. Sometimes those swings are radical, but I think that has more to do with the entrenched power structures in Congress than anything else.

Part of the key may lie in the Department of State, but I'm not sure if their infrastructure is sound enough to carry consistent policy evaluation these days. If current events are any clue, I would say that it is not...

[Ken White]

... but I think that has more to do with the entrenched power structures in Congress than anything else.

Part of the key may lie in the Department of State, but I'm not sure if their infrastructure is sound enough to carry consistent policy evaluation these days. If current events are any clue, I would say that it is not...

Me, too...

[Tom Odom]

Part of the key may lie in the Department of State, but I'm not sure if their infrastructure is sound enough to carry consistent policy evaluation these days. If current events are any clue, I would say that it is not...

I am more optimistic. The FS is changing and for the better. It has a ways to go but the demands placed on it in the past 5 years alone have done much to move its central ethos in a different direction. Used to be the FS saw the initial entry process as a validation of its elite status; we got in and therefore we are the best. The military offers the ethic you can come in and become the best. The new FS selection process is a step toward the latter and that is a good thing.

Now where I am not optimistic is in the political policy arm--those political appointees who are in because of their allegiance to a political party and its agenda. There is where inconsistent policy evaluation starts and as Wayne offered the search for a holy grail. Funny that I worked with these political wonks from the Democratic party camp and their goal in Africa was "democracy". The means they put forth to achieve that end were quite different from the means put forth by the current administration for the same goals.

Then again I have to say that my latter concerns apply equally to the political apparatus that gets installed in the Pentagon with every change in the White House so I am not at all sure we can just point to State for a lack of consistent policy.

Tom

[Steve Blair]

Then again I have to say that my latter concerns apply equally to the political apparatus that gets installed in the Pentagon with every change in the White House so I am not at all sure we can just point to State for a lack of consistent policy.

Tom

Tom,

I don't hang the whole thing on State by any stretch of the imagination. My point was more than we might be better served to look to State for something approaching a consistent view of foreign policy/direction than we might other areas in government. It's good that they seem to be changing for the better, and like you I have little faith in the political appointees that riddle the system. But a solid State might be able to influence those appointees and keep the system on something approaching a stable track.

One of the flaws, IMO, in our system is the constant shuffling that takes place in high levels any time there is anything approaching an election. Not sure if there's an easy solution for that (and if there is, it's certainly another thread).