The Next Decade: Realism and Idealism

Friedman in his book, The Next Decade, speaks to different prevalent foreign policy philosophies.  He breaks the two primary camps espousing their views into Realists and Idealists.  Their names are rather self-explanatory.

Realists say the US, as any other nation, should focus on its national interests, even if that means dealing with countries that perhaps don't practice democracy, high levels of human rights, and other American morals and values (across ideologies).  Certainly that has been done before, Roosevelt with the Soviet Union against Hitler, Nixon with China (and perhaps, Friedman predicts, with Iran.  Or currently, supporting Mubarak in Egypt since he provides a stable anchor for the entire middle east and security of Israel even though he isn't stellar in regards to human rights).  They believe that since we live in a dangerous world, focusing on moral goals diverts from the pursuit of our genuine interests, thereby "endangering the very existence of the republic that is the embodiment of American ideals." (36)

Idealists state the US should operate primarily on the moral principles upon which this country was founded and believe it should continue on (again, across ideologies).  The believe that the moral compass must be first and foremost in our minds when deciding foreign policy.

Friedman proposes that the divide between the two "fundamentally misstates the problem" (36)  He points to several points upon which each side founders.  Idealism: Which takes precedence, national self-determination or human rights (two principles upon which the American revolution was built)? If a country decides to revoke human rights through a constitutional process, or countries that don't hold elections like the US but clearly are wanted by the people based on long standing cultures?  Realism: It typically thinks that the national interests of the 21st century US, which are extraordinarily complex, are as simple as those of an 18th century small nation (simple survival) were.

He says they are really just different sides of the same coin, power.  "Power as an end in itself is a monstrosity that does not achieve anything lasting and will inevitably deform the American regime.  Ideals without power are simply words-they can come alive only when reinforced by the capacity to act." (37)  Acting for power as an end in itself ends up essentially being thuggish and not worth anything, but in a real world only working with regimes that function and think as you do won't allow you to get anything done.  He then goes onto speak about how America can't shun powers that don't behave exactly as we do, that they will often still be useful to fulfilling our primary goal of national self interest, the interest of preserving the American republic which stands for those values.  He makes a very interesting statement "The pursuit of moral ends requires a willingness to sup with the devil." (38)  He takes a rather utilitarian view of the world, it is hard to say completely from this book, but almost a view that the ends justify the means.  However, he ends with a statement concerning the next decade, the President of the US will need to grapple with both ends.  "he must choose the uncomfortable synthesis of the two that Machiavelli recommended.  The president must focus not only on the accumulation and use of power but on its limits. A good regime backed by power and leaders who understand the virtue both of the regime and of power is what is required." (40)

This brought an interesting question to my mind, as a Christian.  God has put government into place as a means to restrain evil in this world, he has given it a sphere of authority.

"Is there any activity or deed necessary for the basic function and survival of a state that is immoral or sinful/wrong for a Christian to do?"

If it was truly pared down, could a Christian do any job or position within a government that is necessary for its survival, without sinning?  One side of the issue seems to say yes, if it is truly a job requiring its survival, God created this institution, how could He require it to do something that was wrong (unless perhaps the view is taken that if something is wrong it shouldn't be done and if it is time for the nation to collapse, that was God's plan)?  But on the other hand, this is a fallen world and things aren't perfect (though government was instituted after the fall).  This is a pertinent question to think about, whether directly involved in politics and foreign policy decisions, or simply voting for politicians making those decisions.  Among many things, I think a very visible application of this question is pacifism.  If war or violence, in the proper context, is necessary for the survival of the state (which while it could be argued either way, I think a realistic view of human nature would say it is), is it wrong to be involved in the proper act of war?  Even if it was necessary for it to be done to survive, should you not be involved in it and let others who have no qualms "do the dirty work" so to speak?  Something to ponder.


Hopps

The Next Decade: Terrorism

Alright, so I've had the chance to read a little bit more of The Next Decade.  Friedman has now spent a little time talking about terrorism and the "War on Terrorism" over the past decade, what it has done and what needs to/will change about it.  He makes the point that terrorism isn't really an existential threat to the US, while it will occasionally happen and people will die, it can't do enough damage to threaten the existence of America, "terrorism in and of itself cannot destroy the material basis of the American republic" (73).  The point of terrorism is to use force multipliers, to focus on the psyche to make the terrorist appear more powerful than he really is.  The US has made combating terrorism the central thrust of American global strategy, to the detriment of strategy and issues elsewhere.  Terrorism cannot be eliminated, it is impossible.  To do so would require wiping out entire people groups, obviously not possible or desirable, and this in turn would probably create other groups who didn't like this and would then take over the job of terrorism; even totalitarian states are unable to completely stop such attacks.  This has created an unbalanced foreign policy; while Friedman isn't saying to ignore terrorism, it must be seen in light of the overall national strategy.  Certainly a certain amount of resources should be devoted to preventing terrorism, but the nation needs to also not have a singular focus on one area and be aware and able to respond to events of national interest around the world, such as Russia expanding its sphere of influence over the last decade as they've observed the US being tied up in the middle east.  Or the fact that taking out Iraq created a vacuum in the balance of power in the middle east; it used to be Iraq and Iran balancing each other in the middle east to prevent either from becoming too powerful, now Iraq is incapable of doing that anymore, which then puts the US in a poor position to negotiate with Iran.

Here is where Friedman takes on a pragmatic view of the Presidency.  In response, to say a terrorist attack, a President must soothe the nerves of the public and show his efforts to stop terrorism, but he shouldn't act in a manner that is disproportionate to the effect and shouldn't try the impossible.  "He can lie to the public, but he must never lie to himself." (75)  What this is saying is Friedman believe at times the President must say one thing to soothe and pacify the public, but in reality knows he can't fully act through on that because the costs are way too high for a negligible benefit and keep in mind the long term interests of the US, and so must in reality act else wise.  This has been done in history before, such as Roosevelt calling for vengeance on the Japanese after Pearl Harbor but privately focusing on Germany first, not Japan, because he believed that is what was necessary to win the war. Among other interesting ethical issues presented in this book (and other STRATFOR writings), this is an interesting one, is it ethical for a President to lie to the people when necessary for the "greater good" of the country, knowing he can't tell the full truth, that he must convey a sense of being able to accomplish something even when he knows it can't be done?  Is that OK?  Like I mentioned above, it has been done before, and perhaps should have been done this decade with regards to terrorism, I don't know, but is it right?

From here his main point concerning the next decade is that the US must not focus singularly on terrorism, but must define its interests in different regions throughout the world and deal with them accordingly and proportionately.  To prevent regional hegemons and preserve its balance of power strategy throughout the globe.

I think my next post will touch on his discussion of foreign policy philosophy/paradigm, particularly idealism and realism.


Hopps

The Next Decade

So, I feel like should post again since it has been nearly a year, I am absolutely terrible at keeping up with this thing.

So, I thought I'd comment briefly on a book I am currently reading (since it's laying on the desk next to me) called "The Next Decade: Where We've Been...and Where We're Going" by George Friedman of STRATFOR. I have posted on topics along this line before. George Friedman is the founder and CEO of STRATFOR, a private intelligence and global analysis firm with a lot of interesting things to say about world events happening, and where things could go from here. I read his book "The Next 100 Years" a couple years ago and he had a lot of interesting things to say about the world and where it is probably heading in the next century. He is certainly aware that predicting a century with any detail is impossible, but he does believe overall trends and ideas can be predicted. He made some interesting predictions such as China slowing way down/crashing within the next 20 years and having internal turmoil, despite what many people say. He also thinks we'll have another, albeit less intense, cold war with Russie in the next few decades and that countries such as Turkey and Poland will come onto the world stage. (For more on this see a previous post)

Anyways, this book came out last week and he has narrowed it down to just the next decade. So far he has mainly talked about America and its place in the world and how it affects all of the world in so many ways, regardless of whether you want it to or not (he tries to stay as ideologically agnostic as much as he can and just look at the facts, both a virtue and a vice I think). As I get further into this book, I'll try to share a little more on some of his predictions. The interesting thing about his perspective on Geopolitics is he sees it (especially longer term) as very deterministic. Everything is dependent on geography. What countries will and won't do, and can and can't do comes down very much to geography. Whether you have fertile agricultural land for wealth with a navigable river down it (the US) or no river making it nearly useless (Russia, parts of Europe), or whether you are placed strategically (Poland in the northern European plain between Europe and Russia) in a position that has strategic value essentially always. Shorter term, such as a decade, he believe leaders (particularly the President of the US) individual decisions affect people's lives a lot, but in the long run things will go the way they will nearly regardless of individual decisions by leaders. I think he can see a lot that others can't perhaps, but I think he misses the mark sometimes because he does neglect the human factors (that are so hard to predict) such as society and religion and family and morals and the things that those can affect. He takes a very pragmatic, utilitarian, and often Machiavellian view.

Well, that's enough for now, I'd encourage you to check out the website, they have a lot fo good information; a good free weekly email and a good subscription service that is reasonably priced it you're a student.

Hopps