U.S. Interests and National Strategy

[Bob's World]

"threats" should be an overlay on a geo-strategic / interest focused foundation. We have to deal with threats, but it should always be in the context of a greater, more enduring focus.

"friends" similarly should be an overlay. I wouldn't recommend using permanent ink on either of these two overlays, as some key actors will alternate between the two over time.

(George Washington spoke to this best in his farewell address.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

So, if a "friend" is dealing with some "threat", ok, that is important. More important is the broader geo-strategic/interest foundation that both of those overlays rest upon. One may well see that where the "threat" comes from is of greater importance to us than where the "friend" resides; and that context is an important one to keep in mind while shaping how we would respond (or not respond) to the event in question. IMO American tends to hold grudges against those who best us (Iran, Vietnam, Cuba to name a few) and cling equally to "friends" long after such relationships become either irrelevant or dysfunctional beyond repair (Taiwan, Saudi Arabia in some regards, Israel also in some regards, etc).

A bit of strategic pragmatism, salted with some Washingtonian common sense, would help clarify many of the issues we frustrate ourselves with in our overly threat-centric pursuit of enduring enemies, while dragging a reluctant cast of enduring friends along behind...