Applied Smart Power by a SEAL

[Dayuhan]

I always shocked at the number of folks in the beltway that now advocate so called smart or soft power. This implies that prior to this outstanding idea we were advocates of stupid power?

I don't think the "Smart Power" term is meant to imply that we previously used stupid power... it's a buzzword, selected for immediate impression on an audience that's only half paying attention. What they are trying to communicate would be perhaps better expressed as subtle power vs crude power, but that would be too subtle for the audience.

One problem with the formulation is that power, crude or subtle, is only as smart as those who apply it, and I see no evidence that we're any smarter than we were before. You can apply crude power without being smart, and you can also apply subtle power without being smart, and make a mess either way. Try to be too subtle without an accurate and dispassionate assessment of what you're getting into and all you do is tie yourself in a series of knots.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but it seems to me that our ego causes considerable problems. In military units you hear our leadership state we're better than we ever were, "we" (read I) fixed the broken army of the Vietnam era, etc. Yet a more careful reading of history may reveal that the Army we had in Vietnam (prior to the large anti-war movement that undermined our force) was superior in many ways to the Army we have today.

Ego has always been an issue. Whether today's military is or is not superior to that of the early Vietnam years would depend on a number of factors, not least of which would be how we choose to define "superior". In any event I'd argue that the change in the US position relative to the rest of the world has more to do with political and economic factors than with military ones. I'm also not convinced that America has declined economically or politically: the situation has changed because the rest of the world has gained. That's not altogether a bad thing, in fact it's in many ways a good thing, but it does change the game and we have to change with it.

Furthermore do we have more less power today as a nation (and as the West in general) than we did during the Cold War?

You could argue that the West has actually gained power... but so has the non-west, and at a greater rate. Again, this is by no means entirely a bad thing.

Diplomacy is now defined by a perverse set of political correct rules that have little to do with reality or our national interests. One simple case in point the West's reaction to Sri Lanka's victory over the Tamil separatist movement, which they won with military power. Now the West is questioning if their methods were perhaps too harsh? Of course it is much more humane to drag a conflict out for years, because militarily decisive solutions are obviously not smart or soft, just effective (at times).

I dislike political correctness as much as anyone, but we have to recognize that the days when we could simply impose a solution that suits our interests are gone forever. Now it's all about seeking solutions that serve multiple interests, though none will ever be suited perfectly. It's analogous in some ways to the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. In a dictatorship decisions are quick, simple, and clear; in a democracy they are anything but... but in the long run, which is more stable?

Military power should need no further explanation, we can't effectively use it to deny safehaven to the enemy, or to wage a war of attrition even if we desired to (in addition to using other methods that some now call soft power, funny how much more effective soft power can be when you carry a big stick). In fairness there are good reasons in many cases (not all) that the military is constrained, but it is a fallacy in my opinion to simply assume that a more aggressive application of military power can't be effective in some situations.

All of our current fights are being conducted in other nations, and in each case we are trying to establish a government that will be seen as sovereign, not subordinate to us. This necessarily constrains our military options. If we wanted to run these places as colonies and call the shots ourselves, we'd have more options, but that would raise a new set of problems.

this is the first time that a non-state actor (except for perhaps the Catholic Church) has had this much economic power based on donations from the Sunni community at large and funds from organized crime.

I'm not convinced that AQ really wields significant economic power.