Due to current events, I've been rethinking how I was going to write my next few posts. It seems that (much though I was planning to avoid it) I actually have to write about some of my underlying thought processes.
Take the current situation with Russa, regarding Syria and the US elections. There are some Americans arguing that we need to be firm, that Russia sees anything less as a sign of weakness and will keep pushing unless or until we do stand firm. Others see the potential for the situation to escalate out of hand, and do not think we should risk starting World War III over Syria.
Historically, there's merit to both arguments. For a while there, some Americans thought Saddam Hussein misinterpreted a discussion with our State Dept as an indication that the US would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait. (Reading up on it now, clearly more information has developed since I heard about this in college...and it looks like this isn't actually what happened.)
On the flip side, historians say that Germany helped create the conditions for World War I because they had lost almost all their allies except Austria, and so had to demonstrate their firm commitment to their ally...which helped expand what could have been a much more local conflict into something global. (Otto van Bismarck allegedly believed that Germany was at risk of encirclement, and worked hard to maintain good relations with his neighbors. Kaiser Wilhelm wasn't quite so adept at foreign policy, and managed to alienate almost everyone.)
Given the articles I posted a couple of days ago, I decided to check around a bit online. One article said that Russia had to support Assad, because if Assad is overthrown then Iran is the only ally they have left in the region.
What's funny is that this article is discussing the decline of Russian influence (and paints the support for Assad as a sign of that weakness, much like Germany supporting Austria), whereas a lot of other articles are basically saying that Russia is standing strong and making the United States look weak and ineffective.
I don't know enough about the situation to say what's truly going on, unfortunately. It seems like there are two (or more) ways of analyzing the situation, and the recommended course of action for one scenario is the absolutely worst thing you could do if the second is closer to reality. And vice versa.
Anyways. The point of this post was to say I'm changing up what I was going to write about. I planned to discuss our relationship with Iran - I don't think anyone can say that our policies towards Iran have made us more secure over the past thirty or forty decades. Our involvement with the Iranian coup in 1953 was a factor in our hostile relations since the revolution. What's funny is that according to Wilsonian ideals we should never have done gotten involved like that.
Were the American individuals who supported the coup the realists? Or should they have expected and predicted the backlash we received? After all, we were once a colony ourselves. We fought our own revolution against imperial rule. If any great nation should have understood how resentful a nation can be when outside powers appear to be in control, it was the United States.
(What's funny is I came across an article that had the exact opposite take on Iran. That it wasn't our heavy-handedness in installing the Shah that hurt, so much as our making the Shah weak by pressuring him to liberalize. I didn't find the source very credible, especially considering they claim the West instigated the revolution against the Shah as well. I think the United States lost out too much to justify that theory...but I'm including it because I wanted to highlight how completely different historical analysis can be. FYI - the source has ties to the John Birch society, and I felt the article drew on the all too common 'realist' notion that ideals make us weak.)
Instead of delving into these topics more deeply, I'm considering what underlying beliefs are necessary to create a sound national security policy. I don't have anything solid yet, so I'll either wait until the ideas develop more or start writing a stream-of-consciousness type post to see what bubbles up. Haven't decided yet.
Take the current situation with Russa, regarding Syria and the US elections. There are some Americans arguing that we need to be firm, that Russia sees anything less as a sign of weakness and will keep pushing unless or until we do stand firm. Others see the potential for the situation to escalate out of hand, and do not think we should risk starting World War III over Syria.
Historically, there's merit to both arguments. For a while there, some Americans thought Saddam Hussein misinterpreted a discussion with our State Dept as an indication that the US would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait. (Reading up on it now, clearly more information has developed since I heard about this in college...and it looks like this isn't actually what happened.)
On the flip side, historians say that Germany helped create the conditions for World War I because they had lost almost all their allies except Austria, and so had to demonstrate their firm commitment to their ally...which helped expand what could have been a much more local conflict into something global. (Otto van Bismarck allegedly believed that Germany was at risk of encirclement, and worked hard to maintain good relations with his neighbors. Kaiser Wilhelm wasn't quite so adept at foreign policy, and managed to alienate almost everyone.)
Given the articles I posted a couple of days ago, I decided to check around a bit online. One article said that Russia had to support Assad, because if Assad is overthrown then Iran is the only ally they have left in the region.
What's funny is that this article is discussing the decline of Russian influence (and paints the support for Assad as a sign of that weakness, much like Germany supporting Austria), whereas a lot of other articles are basically saying that Russia is standing strong and making the United States look weak and ineffective.
I don't know enough about the situation to say what's truly going on, unfortunately. It seems like there are two (or more) ways of analyzing the situation, and the recommended course of action for one scenario is the absolutely worst thing you could do if the second is closer to reality. And vice versa.
Anyways. The point of this post was to say I'm changing up what I was going to write about. I planned to discuss our relationship with Iran - I don't think anyone can say that our policies towards Iran have made us more secure over the past thirty or forty decades. Our involvement with the Iranian coup in 1953 was a factor in our hostile relations since the revolution. What's funny is that according to Wilsonian ideals we should never have done gotten involved like that.
Were the American individuals who supported the coup the realists? Or should they have expected and predicted the backlash we received? After all, we were once a colony ourselves. We fought our own revolution against imperial rule. If any great nation should have understood how resentful a nation can be when outside powers appear to be in control, it was the United States.
(What's funny is I came across an article that had the exact opposite take on Iran. That it wasn't our heavy-handedness in installing the Shah that hurt, so much as our making the Shah weak by pressuring him to liberalize. I didn't find the source very credible, especially considering they claim the West instigated the revolution against the Shah as well. I think the United States lost out too much to justify that theory...but I'm including it because I wanted to highlight how completely different historical analysis can be. FYI - the source has ties to the John Birch society, and I felt the article drew on the all too common 'realist' notion that ideals make us weak.)
Instead of delving into these topics more deeply, I'm considering what underlying beliefs are necessary to create a sound national security policy. I don't have anything solid yet, so I'll either wait until the ideas develop more or start writing a stream-of-consciousness type post to see what bubbles up. Haven't decided yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment