National Security - More Musings

When discussing our national security strategy, I wanted to make a couple more points.  One is something I ponder, though I don't have any firm conclusions:

In Gladwell's book Blink, he talked about thin-slicing and the way that first impressions shape a relationship.  It reminds me of something Lois McMaster Bujold said in one of her science fiction books - start as you mean to go on.

I do think our initial reactions are important.  They set the tone, shape how relationships (personal or professional) play out.  I think you can change those patterns after the fact, but it's significantly harder.  Which means I think it's important to be true to ourselves at the very beginning.  Start as you mean to go on.

I think about this with regards to national security and our policies towards human rights.  We have said that we think human rights are important, but in practice we haven't acted as though it's true.  We'll compromise if it seems too difficult.  Push for human rights with an ally who controls a critical resource?  Not so much.  Hold firm when it might mean losing trade deals and risking war? Again, not so much.  Intervene when a nation is committing genocide? Just look at Rwanda, or any of the other historical examples.

There's a danger in saying that we should act differently.  It means we would have to commit to interventions abroad that we aren't really willing to do. Yet there's also a danger in compromising on this too much.  It makes us seem like we're all talk and no action.  Hypocritical.  That we don't really take it seriously.

This is the cognitive dissonance at the heart of our foreign policy.  In some cases, certain interest groups will push for action...they see how powerful we are and know we can influence things for the better.  But when it comes to putting troops on the ground and risking American lives, not so much.

It reminds me a bit of the American Civil War, actually.  Abolitionists wanted to end slavery - and who can blame them?  What compromise is worth letting one person suffer slavery a second longer than they have to?

But moving to act on that, to force an end to slavery in the South?  Not so much.  In some ways, the Southern fears of exactly that led to the Civil War.  We tried compromising a lot before the war came. As the United States expanded and new states were formed, there was a big debate over which ones would allow slavery and which ones wouldn't.  The Missouri Compromise was created to get around that, in the attempt to ease the fears of the slave-holding South by ensuring that half the new states would also be slave states (so that the slave states weren't outnumbered and wouldn't face the risk that the majority of free states would impose an end to slavery).  The compromise may have delayed the onset of the Civil War, but at what cost to existing slaves?

What's interesting is how it all ended, though.  The South basically let their fear of what might happen prompt them to secede from the Union in 1861 when Abraham Lincoln (who supported ending slavery) won the election.  Whether or not Lincoln could have ended slavery without the Civil War is something we will never know.  The attack on Fort Sumter kicked off the Civil War, and in the course of the war Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation.

I previously pointed out that we don't have to share the same values to live together comfortably, but there really was no middle ground between accepting slavery and believing that slavery should be eradicated. 

Human rights are kind of similar, in that you can't really agree that human rights matter AND agree that ignoring human rights is acceptable in certain situations.  We can overlook situations we don't want to deal with, deny that something is a problem, pretend that we can support human rights and at the same time support nations that don't share those values...but that's more a reflection on the human capacity for cognitive dissonance than any real room for compromise.

Could we have ended slavery without the Civil War?  If the South hadn't attacked Fort Sumter, if Lincoln tried ending slavery using our democratic political processes, could the (most likely slow) method of doing so truly be considered better, when it meant allowing people to continue living in slavery?  Would it have meant freedom without Jim Crow laws? 

I am not writing this to provide a clear answer, but because this is in the back of my mind as I consider what sort of foreign policy the US should use to support our ideals.  Compromising on these issues may help prevent war (or secure a critical resource), but it's done by overlooking real human suffering.  War might seem worse to a Union soldier who never suffered as a slave, whereas it probably isn't any worse to the ones still living in slavery. (Though we must consider Iraq when discussing this.  The argument I laid out is rather close to the neocon point of view, at least with regards to military intervention, which didn't seem to pan out very well.  Was that because Saddam's human rights violations weren't as bad as war?  Or was it because we executed the war so poorly?)

Update

It's the end of our fiscal year, which means time to give (and receive) reviews.  I've also been a bit busy, hanging out with some friend.  Celebrating Halloween.

I've promised myself to commit to some more job hunting, btw.  If anyone knows of a position I'd be suited for, send me a message.  You can do that here, or on my LinkedIn account, or Twitter, or Facebook.

And if any of my posts are useful, feel free to donate at the paypal link here.

I'll be posting some more on national security shortly.

In Other News

I find it very disturbing that I hear more about the North Dakota pipeline protests from Facebook and Twitter than my usual news sources.  

I think 2016 proves that the media no longer acts as the Fourth Estate. 

National Security, Trade

I compared our relationship to China with decisions on whether to unfriend people on Facebook, but that analogy will only carry you so far.  Nations, after all, can't exactly invite each other over to watch a movie together. :)

Nations show friendship in other ways.  Trade deals.  Military support.  Joint training exercises. And more.  (This article discussing our relationship with Saudi Arabia touches on some of it.)

This brings up a pretty important part, actually.  Namely, the role of business and trade in international relations.  This is not new.  The East India company, for example, had a very complicated relationship with the British government.  The Opium Wars are another example.

I think business - multi-national corporations in particular - have grown larger and have a significant impact on the foreign policy of today.  They may, as just one example, push for trade ties with China.  China has a large economic market with a lot of potential for growth, after all, and many businesses will take the risks of operating in China (i.e. the theft of their intellectual property, and other things) in order to get that foot in the door.  This, btw, isn't exactly new.  I came across a book once that described French efforts to steal the secrets of mirror-making from Venice back in the seventh century.  Mirrors!  We take them for granted now, but Venetians actually tried to make it illegal for artisans to leave and set up shop elsewhere.

Here in the United States we're used to thinking of the government as opposed to business, but when it comes to foreign policy they often work hand in hand.  So, for example, we have decisions about granting Most Favoured Nation status to various countries.  We also had business interests in building a pipeline through Afghanistan.

Two things I wanted to point out here.  The first is that our advantageous geopolitical situation does have some drawbacks.  Namely, the average American doesn't easily visit other countries.  If they do, most will go to Canada or Mexico (or take a cruise in the Caribbean), as plane tickets across the ocean are expensive.  The Americans you meet overseas are generally wealthier and more globally aware than the rest.  This may, perhaps, change a bit as the internet and modern communications make us all more connected...but for the most part Americans care more about domestic politics than anything going on in the foreign realm. 

It also means it's harder to persuade the general public that an issue is worth losing American lives over.  After all, what does it matter to us whether or not a pipeline is built in Afghanistan?  And comedians can easily get a laugh by showing how ignorant the average American is about foreign events (like where Aleppo is, or that there's a city called Aleppo and presidential candidates aren't debating about a leppo.  Gary Johnson is not the only one who doesn't know).

The second thing is that there is a point of view w/regards to international relations that thinks more trade ties will lead to peace.  The Trade Interdependence theory as tied to the Capitalist Peace Theory, to be specific.  I personally think this is more wishful thinking than reality, but I will be happy to be proven wrong. (I had an excellent textbook that covered various theories of war and really explored historical examples debunking those theories.  One of my greatest regrets is that I loaned it to someone taking the same class a semester later, and can't recall the title or author anymore.  While I'll admit certain things may make war less likely, I ultimately came to the conclusion that two nations go to war when they think they have more to gain from fighting than not.  I know, this sounds almost too simple to be worth mentioning.  Bear with me.  The point of this obvious explanation is that we can't count on trade ties, or democracy, or any sort of systemic change to create everlasting peace. Instead, we have to be aware of what a nation's interests are, and whether or not they think they can achieve those interests through fighting.  Note, as well, that I said both nations have to feel there is something to gain.  In some cases, what a nation has to gain is so important that we act as though there is no choice.  Self-defense, for example.)

I think we're coming close to a time when these theories will be put to the test.  That is, if our trade ties make World War Three so potentially disastrous that we manage to avoid it...then there may be some truth to the theory.  If we don't avoid it, then all our trade ties did was make it more painful when it happened.  And possibly made our opponents stronger than they'd have been, otherwise.

Makes you wonder what historians will be saying about us a couple hundred years in the future.

National Security

http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/lets-talk-about-americas-strategic-choices/?utm_content=buffer2b6a0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I finally joined twitter.  I avoided it for ages, but came across an article discussing Rukmini Callimachi's reporting on jihadist movements. 

Anyways, I came across the link above and it fits in well with my current theme.  I'm not sure I agree entirely.  I look forward to the rest of the series.

Clarity, Cosmopolitanism, and Foreign Policy

When I finally figured out what I wanted for my first tattoo, I went to the tattoo artist and tried to explain what I wanted.  A mountain lion, in profile.  It seemed so simple, right?  I could visualize it clearly in my head.  Except that I stumbled when I tried to explain it to the artist.  He told me to bring in an example of what I wanted...a picture or something.  (So I went prowling through the library, looking for a picture of a mountain lion.  And discovered that what I thought was classic and commonplace really wasn't.  It was hard to find a picture of what I wanted.)


Typing things out in a blog is sometimes similar.  I can see something quite clearly in my head.  It seems so bright, and shiny.  Then when I try to put that vision into words I stumble.  I want to get further into foreign policy suggestions, but I realized that the concepts don't flow together well yet.  Once again, I need to cover a few more things first. 


Kwame Appiah has a book called Cosmopolitanism that I recommend to anyone interested in this topic.  He made the point that we don't have to agree on everything in order to get along.  That is, we can have very different values.  Diverse opinions on what's best for our country.  And yet we can still live together peaceably enough. 


It reminds me a bit of my extended family, particularly during Thanksgiving.  I have relatives across the entire spectrum, politically speaking...and for the most part we can all sit down together and enjoy our Thanksgiving meal.  This does, however, presuppose that we all value our relationships more than our politics.


This year, this crazy election year, I have seen various friends on Facebook talk about unfriending or blocking people they disagree with.  They sometimes make very eloquent arguments for why they do so, and I'm not going to say they're wrong.  I will say, however, that it's not the choice I make.


I keep my Facebook feed pretty much wide open, for a couple of reasons.  One is that I don't want to deliberately create a bubble.  When you start curating your feed, filtering out the people who disagree with you, then you only hear part of the debate. 


In looking back, some of my most rewarding and interesting conversations have been with the friends and family across the political aisle.  (It helps that most of them are intelligent people with thoughtful positions.  I can't say it's often changed my mind, but it has added depth to my understanding of the issues.)  This is also, btw, why I don't like calling various people ReThuglicans or DemoRats or whatever the cutesy insult of the day is.


The choice I make can be good or bad, depending.  On the negative side - I don't take as strong a stand as the issues call for.  I am friends with people who don't always share my views, and who express views that some of my other friends would strongly disagree with.


On the other hand, I can sometimes have an impact that others don't.  Because I'm friends with people I disagree with.  (It helps that I don't fit neatly into political stereotypes.  It's harder to dismiss me as a bleeding heart liberal when I've served my country, in Iraq and Afghanistan.)


The point of what so far has been a more personal digression is this.  Some of the same issues (and strengths, and weaknesses) come into play when we decide how we are going to interact with another country.

Take China, for example.  We have very different values, particularly with regards to human rights.  Detaining booksellers from Hong Kong, simply because they sell books that criticize China?  Awful!  The Chinese government must be pretty weak, to find criticism so threatening.


Is this something we should ostracize them for, like banning our Facebook friends?  Is this something we can disagree on, and still sit down for Thanksgiving together? 


Are we better off engaging, maintaining relationships while making our disapproval known? 


Or are we better off cutting ties, so that we aren't supporting it or a part of it?

National Security and Poker

I wanted to cover one more topic before going into some guidelines/suggestions for our own strategies on national security.

There's an element of art, or gamesmanship, that I can only explain with poker.

Texas Hold 'Em, to be more precise.  (Again, I want to add the caveat that I'm not an expert poker player.  I have an uncle that plays much more seriously than I do, and I'm aware that I sometimes have tells that he can pick up on, for example.  And I don't always know the statistical likelihood of getting a winning hand, so sometimes I play when I probably should have folded and sometimes I fold when I might have done better to play).  In Texas Hold 'Em, each player has two cards that are hidden from the other players' view.  Five more are eventually revealed to the entire group, so you've got some intelligence that everyone can see and some intelligence that only you are aware of. 

You can make guesses about what the other players have, based on what's on the table and how they're playing.  (If they fold, they probably don't have anything that matches up well with what's on the table.  If they bet big, they might be holding on to a pocket pair of aces.  Or cards that play well with the flop, and might lead to a flush, a straight, or three of a kind.)

In addition to the mechanics of the game, however, a lot of poker is based on being able to read the players around you.  You can bluff, and perhaps win the pot with nothing.  Push other players out of the game when you don't really have anything.  But bluffing, in my experience, can also make you lose big.  That is, if the other player has a good enough hand to stay in the game they'll probably keep playing regardless of how big you bluff...and you're single ace is just not going to win the pot. 

Actually, when you're going head to head with someone there's a lot of quick games where each side knows their cards are bad (or good) and one side quickly folds.  Then you just slowly lose the money you have to put in the pot (with two people, you're always the small blind or the big blind, so you're going to keep losing money if you keep folding).  Then you either have to get really good cards or bluff.  So in those situations you can recoup your losses by bluffing, but if the other player has a worthwhile hand you can also lose big.  In my little bit of experience each round goes pretty quick until either both sides have good hands and commit to bidding (and one side doesn't have as good a hand as they think), or one side tries to bluff the other out and loses.  Otherwise whoever has the largest number of chips can probably outlast the other just by refusing to get sucked in unless their cards are great.

Like I keep saying, go find a real expert if you want a better discussion.

I brought this up, though, because there are some similarities to foreign policy.  There's some information only you know, there's some information everyone knows, and there's some information the other side has that you don't.  You're reputation and the signals you send can make a difference.  You might be able to bluff and get away with it.  Or you bluff, and they call your bluff, and you lose. 

Bluffing...

Sometimes it's worth bluffing and losing, just so the other side is aware that you sometimes bluff.  That's more if you want to sucker them in with a good hand, make them think you're bluffing when you're not.  And sometimes you also want to show that you've got the cards to back your actions up, so that they know it's not always a bluff.  That might make them back down in the future when you really don't have anything.

This is tied to two things.  First, Vietnam.  You could say that Vietnam was a situation where someone called our bluff.  That is, Vietnam wasn't an existential threat.  The American people stopped supporting it as the body count added up and didn't really see any reason to keep fighting for something that ultimately wasn't really a threat to us.  But losing in Vietnam meant more people questioned whether we really have as good a hand as we sometimes imply.  That did cause problems for us, because more people are likely to take the risk of calling our bluff, assuming it's a bluff.  This is part of the problem we have in Syria.  If we escalate our engagement there, are we really committed to it?  Or, if the body count adds up and we get tied up there for a decade or more, will our people eventually get tired of it and call for us to leave?  (Iraq adds to that analysis, since everyone and their mother saw that the American people were tired of it after five years of fighting.)  I would say that Vietnam was not an existential threat, and that it doesn't necessarily mean we're weak when it's important...but our government is still responsive to the will of the people and what we consider 'important' is not necessarily what our leadership claims it is.

Second, Syria and Russia today.  Russia is sending signals that they are very committed to keeping Assad in power.  Is it a bluff?  Can and will they back it up?  Do we have the commitment and resources to call that bluff, if it's a bluff in the first place?  Or do are they holding a pocket pair of aces, and will we wind up folding as soon as they reveal their hand?  Or do they have a pocket pair of aces, but the flop was all clubs and we've got a pocket pair of clubs?  In which case we'll have a showdown, but ultimately come out on top since our hand is better.

Does that make your head hurt?

What I wanted to get to, with all of that, is that some of our strategy is going to depend on how well we all are reading each other.  How well we know the cards we have, what educated guesses we can make about the cards the other side is holding, our estimates of whether the other side has a good hand or not, and whether we in turn decide to play, fold, or bluff.  It's not as straightforward as analyzing who has how strong of a military, because it depends as much on human psychology as it does on the actual cards in play.