Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Simultaneity Trap
The simultaneity trap, writes Eliot Cohen in The American Interest,
… goes like this. In any government, be it in Luxembourg, Angola, the People’s Republic of China, or the United States, and on any given large national security issue, somewhere between five and fifty people really count. The number is usually closer to five than to fifty. We have one President, one Secretary of State, one Secretary of Defense, one Director of Central Intelligence, and one Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But the United States is not Angola. More than any other power in history—even the British Empire at its height—the U.S. government has global concerns and global interests. Even a decision not to act requires a conscious effort of will, in the awareness that real consequences flow from U.S. inaction as well as action. The daily briefings and meetings with top aides of a Cabinet Secretary are a dizzying tour of the world, and even after a large and intelligent bureaucracy (which the United States actually has) digests the issues, the principal still has to decide. If it’s a serious effort, the Cabinet Secretaries and some other senior officials will spend time meeting in the Situation Room, and then engaging the President. As Peter Drucker once pointed out, the only inelastic commodity in any organization is executive time—and the time (and energy levels) of the big players in government is no greater than that of kindergarten teachers. …
The problem of simultaneity is worsened by the four geopolitical challenges we face. The first is the rise of China, a great power whose economy is, or will be, roughly the size of ours. The chronic war with jihadis throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond—including at home—is the second; hostile states like Russia and Iran with regional ambitions and the willingness to use force to achieve them are a third. Lastly, ungoverned space, including some in our own hemisphere, poses a different kind of threat, one that can also exacerbate the other three. These four different threats require different weapons, different organizations, different time horizons, and different strategic approaches. But the same small group of decision-makers has to decide them all, individually and collectively. The upshot is a more complex, if not always a more dangerous, set of international conditions than any during the Cold War, when we faced one main enemy and other lesser foes aligned with it.
How to cope with so much to do and so little time? The simultaneity trap cannot be avoided, because ultimately the hard choices get bounced to the top. It can only be managed. …
…. None of this matters just yet. For the next nine months foreign and defense policy will be subjects of the broadest possible debate. No voter will make a decision based on whether they think a candidate will realize that an NSC staff of 500 is too large to be effective, or order issues to get sorted out in interagency meetings below the level of the Deputies Committee. But before too long it will matter. The next President will face the most difficult international environment in more than half a century, but without the economic and military edge that we can see—only in retrospect, admittedly—Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy could take for granted.
Your thoughts?
Published in Foreign Policy
Agreed in full. Also, consider the words of David Goldman:
Couldn’t any of the presidential contenders names be placed where Cruz’ name is placed? Hence, Trump, if elected or Rubio, if elected, or (heaven forfend) Bernie, if elected.
And how about Ms. Rodham, she couldn’t handle Benghazi and her email server at the same time.
No. Read the piece. Rubio/Bush/Kasich would draw advisors and a cabinet from either W. Bush’s foreign-policy operation or the prominent conservative think-tanks, which endorsed W’s foreign-policy operation. This is what Goldman means here when he refers to the “establishment”. Trump would probably pull advisors from here also, though his selection would be based more around who flatters his ego best.
Hillary would draw advisors from Obama’s foreign-policy camp, which is filled with Clinton loyalists. Maybe Bernie would be in the same position as Cruz.
Hi Donald Todd
Yes indeed. Unfortunately for them, except for Cruz and Carson, I’m not certain any of the others are equipped to do their own thinking.
Interesting…. Thanks.
Maybe this is the moment for Donaldcletian to step into power and create a Trumptrarchy to better administer the Empire?
EDs,
You know the illusion that it was a simpler binary world between us and Soviet Communism during the Cold War is just that an illusion. You should check out the incredible complexity of the full world stage in Dwight Eisenhower’s 1950s. China has gone Communist but a different strain than the Russians with their own set of threats. Africa in turmoil, South America in turmoil, the Middle East in turmoil. India and Pakistan have split but are always on the verge of a shooting war. Russia has set off a hydrogen bomb. Technology is getting very frightening. DNA & Computers make their existence known. China threatens India over Tibet. The Korean War is cold temperature wise but hotter than hell shooting wise.
We can handle it all again but we will need to realize something. We must be careful not to overextend ourselves but we must be equally careful not to pull away and leave a vacuum of leadership in the world because it will be pay me now or pay me more later.
Actually, I think Eisenhower was on a very even keel. A good model.
Regards,
Jim
A few thoughts…
1. Really, the U.S. has more global concerns/interests than the British Empire at its height? I argue they’re comparable. And they had the disadvantage that communications were really slow.
2. World War II was no picnic either.
3. Nor was the Cold war.
4. The solution is that decision making must be devolved to the lowest level possible. Take China, for example. Formulate a broad policy framework and assign it to a subordinate. I hear Chris Christie’s available.
Who among the “contestants” on the debate stages should become our next Commander in Chief – one that our allies can depend on, our adversaries will respect and our enemies fear? Alas, there does not seem one there. (How is it, anyway, that the ability to perform on a debate stage has anything to do with ability to make tough,presidential decisions?)
Given that four pronged simultaneity trap, we need a leader with years of high-level face time in foreign affairs, and with Congress, and one having been a military leader, knows how to organize and delegate, and grasps the terrible nature of war.
Here is someone that more than fits that description, but he’d certainly be loathe to take part in the debate stage process – he’d have to be drafted:
General James Mattis USMC Ret.
Checkout these:
https://youtu.be/tKIJKQRb53o “General Jim Mattis brings insight and clarity to the nature of war”
https://youtu.be/Vzl8hZWzVpI General James Mattis, “In the Midst of the Storm: A US Commander’s View of the Changing Middle East”