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.
What’s the Purpose of American Power?
For their 30th anniversary, the National Interest ran a symposium. They asked 25 well-known figures what, if anything, should be the purpose of American power.
Here are the replies from Graham Allison, Tom Cotton, Les Gelb, Grover Norquist, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Ian Bremmer, Paul Kennedy, Joseph Nye, John Mearsheimer, Ruth Wedgwood, Robert Zoellick, Michael Lind, Kishore Mahbubani, Gideon Rachman, Ferdinand Mount, Paul Pillar, William J. Burns, Gideon Rose, Paul Saunders, Paula J. Dobriansky, Yoichi Funabashi, Robert W. Merry, David Bromwich, Gary Hart, and Zalmay Khalilzad.
With whom do you most agree, and why?
Published in Foreign Policy
My first reaction is that I think I am well read, though because I don’t watch movies or television not soaked in pop culture, – I don’t think I’ve heard of half of them. If these are 25 well-known figures I clearly have some work to do getting re-engaged in intellectual society.
I’ll do my reading shortly, but I’ll offer my 10,000-ft answer:
I read Tom Cotton’s answer, thus far, and I am disappointed. He didn’t answer. He just ranted about Obama.
Do I have to read all 25? I’ve got work today!
Speak plainly, man! Or read The Tyranny of Cliche! I don’t know what that means…
So far, I find this by Graham Allison most compelling:
Perhaps Claire can inform us: should we be reading The National Interest?
Grover Norquist, pretty much right down the line. We should always orbit that principled gravitational field, and be very reluctant to pull away from it. If we have to once in a while, we should always fall immediately back to it.
Okay, let me try this differently. Here’s how we should not approach questions of foreign policy:
Here’s how we should:
That is, we should start by asking the cold, calculating question and then refine and or reject based on our values. Charity and selflessness are good private virtues, but they don’t translate well as public ones, particularly when you’ve got armies involved.
Interesting take Tom, but aren’t our morals our interest?
It is interesting that some moderate voices who advocate a less vigorous foreign policy such as Ian Bremmer also advocate spending more at home instead. Butter instead of guns whereas I and I think most conservatives are more fixated on the governments clear inability to deliver butter, mail, education etc etc etc
Yes, I too have to work today. I recognize 12 of 25 names, but I’m not IR. I’m sure if I handed this to my colleague he’d know all of them.
10,000 foot answer:
Tom’s answer is good, but I think our morals have to be no more than a single step beneath our interests in the planning stage. I conceive of national reputation, honor, and prestige as being key parts of America, and therefore we should be willing to do the moral thing even at great cost simply because it is important that we keep our word and demonstrate our honorableness. None of this “we shall shock the world with the depth of our ingratitude” business. We’re Americans, not some prissy old-world aristocracy.
The purpose of foreign policy is hard to quantify in a few words, though it is better than many. Fewer words leaves one options. Options lead to special circumstances, bad intel and wars where you should not be and cannot get out. Or it leads to lightening results and wise outcomes.
Mearsheimer’s take is always very good, but you cannot run foreign policy from the rearview mirror explaining what turns were good turns and why they were or were not taken. Formulas are great. But like global climate computer models, they should work to explain history, which they do not with any great accuracy. The foreign policy that led to the War of 1812 seemed to fit the Mearsheimer mold right up to the time when the British invaded. So maybe staying out of things that might not concern us sometimes comes back at us?
There are unknown, unknowns in foreign policy. Lots of them. And it involves people and judgments. Our Ambassador to Iraq signaled, intentionally or unintentionally, the U.S. would not do anything if Iraq went into Kuwait. Saddam did. We fought back.
So if I may, foreign policy comes down to thorough work and a little luck. It helps if you are big and robust. That gives you the freedom to make mistakes and clean them up later. But if you withdraw, get ready for lots and lots of chaos.
Note: If you read Mearsheimer he presents his “strategic balancing idea” and focuses on one hegemon we must keep in check, China. Maybe he wrote his speech before the Russians started to claim the Arctic and create a ring of “rescue” bases along the Artic Circle?
He claims our invasion of Iraq created ISIS (Rand Paul channeling). That is a lot of tenuous causation. By that reasoning, Saddam caused Shiite persecution which caused Sunni anger and resistance which led to Shiite militias which in turn created Sunni militias and spawned Sunni insurgents, some of whom joined al Qaeda to fight infidels (the West, as well as Shiites) and restore the Caliphate and some members later changed their name to ISIS. Saddam started this!
This is similar to the idea that constabulary forces hiding in bases would not provoke the locals in Iraq. Petraeus reversed this and with some order restored, they disproved the peace forces cause war theory.
And, Mearsheimer suggests we (NATO, EU) provoked the Russians over the Ukraine by pushing our frontier eastward. So, we made the Ukraine a threat to Russian sovereignty? A little selective fact gathering – Ukraine depends on Russia for energy, is limited in resources, and is hardly able to defend itself.
This kind of logic makes the U.S. the problem in case after case. Again, Mearsheimer frames the issues very well. He is worth listening to. But there is some revisionist reconstruction of causal relationship. Did the US really provoke Russia into invading Crimea? Georgia? What role did Putin play?
Mearsheimer remains a great source. But, foreign policy defies simple explanations and rules. It should begin with the words, “In most cases but not all.” This is a not meant to be a case for Realpolitik.
Our power should first and foremost be put to the purpose of conserving our security, freedom, and prosperity.
But assuming that we can do those things, we must also recognize that we live in an interconnected world, and that there are times when we must, as a principled nation, act for the benefit of others, limited by the costs we are willing to pay for those others.
Is tsunami relief of Indonesia in our national interest? Not really. There are other countries much closer to Indonesia, who are co-religionists, or bound by ethnicity, who could take care of those people But we act anyway.
Should we lift a finger to help the Yazidis on Mt. Sinjar under attack by ISIS? Never heard of them before. And yet…
Is our only reason for backing up Israel our strategic partnership? Or does this partnership cost us more in animosity with the Muslim world than it’s worth? And yet….
We should not and cannot afford to be a nation of Mrs. Jellybys. But neither can we turn inward and refuse to do what we can to show the world through the power of our example how they should live, too.
Now that is good. Maybe one change, “In most cases,”
I actually did read all the responses to the National Interest. Some were better than others, but most took an Obama’s eye view of the world, in my opinion.
If the world outside of North America is not going to go to hell in a handbasket, it will require, as it has required, a vigorous US presence to protect shipping lanes, to keep regional bullies from throwing their weight around, to keep the world’s worst monsters from increasing the scope of their domains.
Had time to read the first two – will go back. The purpose of American power to me has been to maintain balance in the world by being a deterrent to dictators who threaten our allies and to try to relieve suffering, be it through disease, hunger, persecution, etc.
Our power comes from our principals laid out by the Founders, through the strength of our country’s resources, whether that be sharing research, food, military, medicine, and people who choose to help others with their skills (ex. building homes, hospitals, clean water sources, medical help) in foreign countries in need.
We can only serve others if we ourselves are strong. If we are weak, we lose the freedom to make the above choices. Decisions will be made for us instead, and some may not be healthy. The current administration does not believe in America’s power. They are embarrassed by it.
On 60 Minutes Sunday, they had an ex-spy say these words – he said Russia was afraid of 3 things: AIDS, the Jews and Reagan – Reagan being the first, who understood peace through strength.
Obama is in Alaska for photo ops to bolster the big UN unveiling this month on climate change goals (2030) that will change everything, including freedom. McKinley was an American president, so that name needed changed. Our police are under threat, racial tension rampant, foreign policy horrible, Iran empowered, moral fabric shredded. Our power has been attacked, undermined and deliberately weakened within. Reset button coming.
I don’t like the question. It should have been more focused. The real question is when should American power be used/projected when there isn’t a direct issue of self-defense nor a direct threat to our territory or population.
Everybody agrees we should protect borders, way of life, yada yada but that minimalist approach would require a fraction of the military power we possess. The real issue is the scope of our role beyond that.
We are the biggest kid in school, captain of both football & wrestling teams. If we only protect our own lunch, our own locker and our closest buds, the bullies may/will wild. (Everybody turns to us because the school administration is absent/ineffectual.) We may recruit, back and organize non-bully allies. Everyday presents tough choices and stretched resources and imperfect solutions. It comes down what is the optimum number of bullies to smack around, the optimum choice of bullies to smack and under what circumstances to smack them such that the others get the message.
Consider the state of the world in the weeks after Saddaam was dragged out of his hidey-hole: North Korea said they were just kidding about refusing to talk, Khadafy expelled WMD scientists, lots of other bullies had tight jaws.
Until the principal and faculty get their act together, it’s on us and it will never be a simple formula.
To promote freedom and capitalism, every day.
A few more responses that came in to the National Interest after press time:
Hillary Clinton: Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle. I feel very blessed to have a partner in life who supports me, who is enthusiastic about what I want to do, and her name is Huma Abedin.
Joe Biden: Ask not what the United States can do for your country; ask what your country can do for the United States. We have nothing to offer the world except blood, toil, tears and sweat. More power, Mr. Scott.
Elizabeth Warren: You moved your goods to market on the shipping lanes that the US paid for. You hired workers that the US paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of armed forces that the US paid for. You didn’t build that.
Donald Trump: My big focus is China and OPEC and all of these countries that are just absolutely destroying the United States. I don’t have a lot of confidence in the president. I think what’s happening to this country is unbelievably bad. We’re no longer a respected country. Our politicians are stupid. And the Mexican government is much smarter, much sharper, much more cunning. And they send the bad ones over because they don’t want to pay for them. Why should they when the stupid leaders of the United States will do it for them?
One more thing – I manage properties and acquired a new vacation home this past week. I took a picture of a framed quote in their main living area and I share it here – there are people in this country who still believe in America’s greatness and power and want to be reminded who we really are – I would be interested Claire to know, say from your Polish friend – the fellow who works outside your apt – what he thinks the definition is, to get an opinion from a different vantage point:
Generally speaking, yes. But again, my point is that we should start from the question “what is in our interest” and then proceed to questions of morality.
Absolutely agreed. If we don’t act with honor and show that we will follow through on our commitments, we’re going to be in a sorry state.
On second thought, I shouldn’t be using the future tense in that.
Not to add to Claire’s long reading list, but I thought this may be also worth a look –
President George Washington’s farewell speech – for the sake of time, maybe start on page 14. It bears reading to tie into Clare’s story, as he discusses liberty and the continuation of the Republic and its unique power and greatness, and how it can easily be undone (you will recognize the very things he warned about being done now):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Just because it’s a cliché doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Claire, you ask the question “What’s the purpose of American Power?” To morally lead? To set a standard? On the evening news, I was stunned. Headline stories: Europe in Crisis – the refugees from Middle East and other areas dying on the shorelines, being turned away in Hungary, Germany (where Obama made a speech of hope and change) , a precious little boy from Turkey who perished picked up by a soldier off the beach.
Extensive manhunt for the cop killer in Illinois. No word about the 2nd killing of a police officer in TX in his home, and a shooting in Millis, MA at a policeman who drove off the road and his car caught fire. I lived in Medfield and Franklin, the two towns that border Millis. You cannot get more Norman Rockwell than the beautiful little towns in the Metrowest region of Boston.
While Obama sets up his speech to the UN on climate change by touring Alaska, not a word on these incredible tragedies. They did feature the young African American who stopped a terrorist in Paris – one of three friends – no race issues among them. His failures in foreign and domestic policy and race baiting have led to this. Author Jim Black wrote in 1994 When Nations Die:
1. Increase in lawlessness
2. loss of economic discipline
3. rising bureaucracy
4. decline in education
5. weakening cultural foundations
6. loss of respect for traditions
7. increase in materialism
8. rise in immorality
9. decay of religious belief
10. devaluing of human life
= collapse of society.
Paul Saunders:
Because the United States and our allies are the principal architects of an international system of which America is the primary beneficiary, it should be a central objective to maintain international order. This requires continuing U.S. leadership…
The problem is that U.S. elites have increasingly defined leadership as the use of force: we are leaders when we drop bombs or deploy troops. When the public predictably tired of war, Americans rejected this “leadership.” U.S. allies and rivals have seen this reaction, and the Obama administration’s responses to it, and drawn their own conclusions…
What the United States needs is a new model of U.S. international leadership that rests more heavily on what others truly admire about America—our economic success and our free society. This approach will still require force, particularly when truly vital U.S. national interests are at stake. It will also require applying power without using force.
Zafar, Mr. Saunders essay was probably the weakest of the lot.
“Because the United States and our allies are the principal architects of an international system of which America is the primary beneficiary …”
Principal architects of an off-the-cuff “system?” When and where was this architecture concocted? Can I see the blueprints for a minute or two?
I did like his prescription for the U.S. All we need to do is keep being our wealthy, fabulous selves and everything is going to be okay. So we have that covered.
Whose essay did you prefer?
What system is that? The UN? GATT? Of course peace allows for prosperity, but I don’t see how this is particularly an American benefit.
How to apply power without the threat of force behind it? What sort of “power” will get Putin out of Crimea and Ukraine, ISIS out of Iraq and Syria, and Iran to stop threatening Israel? Surely Saunders does not think the power of example will suffice?
I found most of those that I read reasonable and Kissinger is always worth listening to but not all of them started with first principles you requested. Keep it up and give us your views. It’s impossible to get ones mind around the complexity of the issue, but we we have to have some answer to this question and a vision of sorts flowing out of it because without that our hundred plus foreign missions, stations, and commands as well as NGOs and Congress will suffer acute disintegrating entropy. A Hayekian view of the world would help conservatives sort out foreign policy and national purpose by informing it, or reminding it, of the limits of control and competence of all government in a world where we know so little and where the most important information is not knowable. That kind of understanding and humility has been sorely missing for almost a century. We’re Americans, we want to fix things. Conservatives know that’s almost always a mistake domestically but seem to forget it when we address the world where it is infinitely more true.
Funabashi and Zoellick were both sound. Cotton’s essay was more on point as to what specifically we should focus on.