Foreign policy experts, for the most part, focus on realism (though one person's realism is not the same as another). There's a peculiar sort of logic to it, in that experts are not concerned with what is morally right or wrong...the only true test is whether or not you achieve your aims. On behalf of your nation.
I deliberately made that a little vague. Most of those aims are, to be sure, to make your own nation strong and prosperous. Or secure. Or somesuch. All are nicely covered by saying "achieve your aims".
That's part of why figures like Cardinal Richelieu and Otto von Bismarck are such complex and fascinating characters. Not saints, no. Yet masters of their time, and mostly in service to their state. (For good or ill).
It's hard to judge characters like this, as they are definitely not 'nice', or 'good', or necessarily people we should admire or want to follow. They managed to do great things, though.
I brought this up because if we're using Raison d'Etat, or realpolitik, or some other form of realism to determine our own policies than (using that logic) the only way to judge the decisions made is by their results.
It's a harsh method, one that allows no wiggle room for error. Nor for good intentions.
And by that rubric, American policy in the last 60 or 70 years has not been all that great.
Yes, we saw the end of the Soviet Union. Yes, we're a very powerful nation. Our policies haven't been a complete disaster, though how much of that is because of our innate strengths I don't know. We're a large country, with fairly secure borders (comparatively speaking), a well educated populace and a lot of resources. We're also dealing with all sorts of turmoil and change. Globalization, the Information Age, nationalism, multi-nationalist corporations, environmental change...there's been all sorts of challenges. People have been doing the best they know how, and this isn't meant to point fingers and condemn anyone.
At the same time, can anyone look at Vietnam and say that the United States came out of it stronger? Can anyone look at our history with Iran and think we're safer, or more secure?
Can anyone look at the financial crisis, the recession, Syria, rising tensions in the South China sea, tensions with Russia and China (and the Philippines) and think we've been doing well?
Again, I'm not trying to call anyone in particular out. It's just...
It's just that foreign policy, national security, and the Washington consensus has fads. Just like businesses, and fashion, and just about everything else. People aren't ever going to be thrown under the bus for being wrong, if everyone else was wrong too. So even though 'nobody' saw the fall of the Soviet Union coming when it did (as one example) nobody was going to be penalized for that failure. After all, everyone made the same mistake.
And nobody was going to be penalized for failing to predict the financial crisis, since hardly anybody credible saw it coming.
Again, this is hard to do. Like predicting 9/11. Once you know something happened you can go back and pick through the pieces, figure out which clues foreshadowed the event. But figuring it out in real time? Sorting out those pieces, putting them together with the other pieces, and figuring it out in time to actually act on it?
Very, very hard.
And something that's absolutely essential.
I deliberately made that a little vague. Most of those aims are, to be sure, to make your own nation strong and prosperous. Or secure. Or somesuch. All are nicely covered by saying "achieve your aims".
That's part of why figures like Cardinal Richelieu and Otto von Bismarck are such complex and fascinating characters. Not saints, no. Yet masters of their time, and mostly in service to their state. (For good or ill).
It's hard to judge characters like this, as they are definitely not 'nice', or 'good', or necessarily people we should admire or want to follow. They managed to do great things, though.
I brought this up because if we're using Raison d'Etat, or realpolitik, or some other form of realism to determine our own policies than (using that logic) the only way to judge the decisions made is by their results.
It's a harsh method, one that allows no wiggle room for error. Nor for good intentions.
And by that rubric, American policy in the last 60 or 70 years has not been all that great.
Yes, we saw the end of the Soviet Union. Yes, we're a very powerful nation. Our policies haven't been a complete disaster, though how much of that is because of our innate strengths I don't know. We're a large country, with fairly secure borders (comparatively speaking), a well educated populace and a lot of resources. We're also dealing with all sorts of turmoil and change. Globalization, the Information Age, nationalism, multi-nationalist corporations, environmental change...there's been all sorts of challenges. People have been doing the best they know how, and this isn't meant to point fingers and condemn anyone.
At the same time, can anyone look at Vietnam and say that the United States came out of it stronger? Can anyone look at our history with Iran and think we're safer, or more secure?
Can anyone look at the financial crisis, the recession, Syria, rising tensions in the South China sea, tensions with Russia and China (and the Philippines) and think we've been doing well?
Again, I'm not trying to call anyone in particular out. It's just...
It's just that foreign policy, national security, and the Washington consensus has fads. Just like businesses, and fashion, and just about everything else. People aren't ever going to be thrown under the bus for being wrong, if everyone else was wrong too. So even though 'nobody' saw the fall of the Soviet Union coming when it did (as one example) nobody was going to be penalized for that failure. After all, everyone made the same mistake.
And nobody was going to be penalized for failing to predict the financial crisis, since hardly anybody credible saw it coming.
Again, this is hard to do. Like predicting 9/11. Once you know something happened you can go back and pick through the pieces, figure out which clues foreshadowed the event. But figuring it out in real time? Sorting out those pieces, putting them together with the other pieces, and figuring it out in time to actually act on it?
Very, very hard.
And something that's absolutely essential.
No comments:
Post a Comment