The Leaderless Doctrine by David Brooks, New York Times
We’re in the middle of a remarkable shift in how Americans see the world and their own country’s role in the world. For the first time in half a century, a majority of Americans say that the U.S. should be less engaged in world affairs, according to the most recent Pew Research Center survey. For the first time in recorded history, a majority of Americans believe that their country has a declining influence on what’s happening around the globe. A slight majority of Americans now say that their country is doing too much to help solve the world’s problems.
At first blush, this looks like isolationism. After the exhaustion from Iraq and Afghanistan, and amid the lingering economic stagnation, Americans are turning inward…
What’s happening can be more accurately described this way: Americans have lost faith in the high politics of global affairs. They have lost faith in the idea that American political and military institutions can do much to shape the world. American opinion is marked by an amazing sense of limitation - that there are severe restrictions on what political and military efforts can do…
Comments
"We’re in the middle of a remarkable shift in how Americans see the world and their own country’s role in the world."
Let's break this down: We're in the middle of a remarkable shift in:
a. How Americans see the world.
Concur. Americans no longer see the world as one in which the non-western populations will -- voluntarily -- adopt our way of life and our way of governance. (It appears that the "shinning house on the hill" is not now -- nor maybe has it ever been -- as big an influence and "draw" as we hoped and imagined.)
b. And how Americans see their role in the world.
Non-concur. Americans still see their role in the world as one in which they must -- one way or another -- transform outlying states and societies more along modern western political, economic and social lines.
Question: The implications of this un-even shift for the US military?
Answer: America's military will become more focused on (1) working by, with and through the regimes to (2) overcome resistant populations and, thereby, (3) help our other governmental and non-governmental assets transform the outlying states and societies more along modern western lines.
Thus: The ineffective "shinning house on the hill" being replaced on the line by the more-reliable "shinning bayonet" and, via this more-effective and reliable instrument, getting the outlying state and societal transformation job done.
(Or should I substitute the words "America's national leaders" for the word "Americans" here; to acknowledge that these two entities do not see eye to eye on these matter?)
<em>"The events in Syria were precipitated by a lot of Syrians who seemed to have exactly the universal values we espouse. They took a lot of fatal casualties from Iranian supported government extremists before they started fighting back. When the fight started they didn't get much more than lip service from the West by way of support. The takfiri extremists came out of the cracks in the ground when the fighting started and were recipients of a whole lot of money from rich Gulf extremists with which to inflict their vision upon Syrians whom we weren't supporting. Given all that, it seems that there is a sufficient population of Syrians who mostly value things as we do. They can't fight without money and something to fight with, which we are reluctant to give them. What you say is a fallacy looks more to me like the Iranians and takfiri killers are more willing to try hard than we are, not that there are not enough reasonable Syrians."</em>
Carl- I disagree with that narrative- one in which, if I'm not mistaken, the Saudis would love for us to believe (I'm always surprised that we side with Sunnis over Shia in a knee-jerk way). From what I've heard Syria is little more than a proxy between Saudi Arabia and Iran- and we're being played as we so often are in the Middle East (as in other places). Our sad penchant for simplifying complex situations into a Hollywood-type "freedom seekers versus bad guys" narrative plays well to our linear-thinking and ignorant populace and allows us to be manipulated by the different factions on the world stage.
I wish we could show less concern with our means with respect to foreign policy and more concern with our means with respect to domestic politics- but we seemed to have gotten those two backwards- which, in my mind, leaves us useless in both. As much as I'd like it a different way- the rest of the world is playing poker and we're trying to play checkers.
Should we say that it is not so much America itself that is being challenged/questioned today re: the leadership role but, instead, the American model?
This model now being thought of as being -- if not outdated -- then seriously flawed.
This being evidenced by the fact that we seem to be stumbling around both domestically and internationally, not achieving our desired ends, and only causing our population -- and other populations -- significant disruption and harm.
This seems to indicate to both the American people -- and to people world-wide -- that something is seriously wrong with the American model.
The American model, thus, no longer having the "juice" needed by which it might lead.
From a foreign policy perspective, this failure of the American model being evidenced by the fact that the United States has recently abandoned the idea of achieving its desired ends by way of the populations, and has now determined that it must, as was the case during the Cold War, achieve these desired ends via the regimes.
From a foreign policy perspective -- and re: the American model -- what greater evidence of lack of leadership ability do we need?
After the latest meeting in the UK between the US/Russia---the soft power concept of the WH ie really just diplomacy is fully dead and buried in the face of the first true challenge to the 21st century by a country that wants to turn back the clock to 1970 using language/ethnicity to justify annexation.
This opens the world to now the changing of borders in approximately 365 locations especially in Asia and Africa.
Now lets see if the current globalized world of the West grasps the seriousness of the moment and fully understands that we are now in a true Cold War being fought on an economic front and that economic power is in the end far more powerful than the guns that are being used to intimidate.
In some aspects one could have seen this coming as it has historically always happened with a declining superpower trying to reestablish itself especially when the declining power does not see themselves as declining.
Gorbi got it right yesterday in his comments-- we are indeed back into a Cold War with a military being in the wrong place as we chased shadows for 13 years forgetting that the rest of the world did not share our fear of those same shadows and was developing in other directions.
Dayuhan---this goes to my comment on my previous comments about the failure of leadership---there was an interview on CCN today with a Polish FM and Baltic leader.
The Baltic leader openly stated what many see in Europe as a failure in US/WH thinking when they announced the pivot to Asia and made that clear in his two major speeches in front of Congress. The unspoken assumption was that it motivated Putin to make his Crimea move (there is some evidence that the planning has been going on for awhile)as he fully understood the US was drawing down and withdrawing from Europe.
He indicated that the idea of pivoting takes in consideration that peace exists in Europe and actually since Georgia/Moldavia that has not been the case.
He also interestingly mentioned something that is being overlooked---if Putin wants to protect 8M ethnic Russians in the Ukraine then he must allow the Ukraine to "protect" the 11M Ukrainians living in Russia.
They are not so sure the US understands that.
EU and US moves to bring the Ukraine closer to Europe and NATO could also be perceived as a challenge.
The "Putin Doctrine", such as it is, seems at this point to be less "equals to you in every way" than "we still want control over our immediate sphere of influence".
Challenge and response are natural parts of evolution, not necessarily evidence of decay on anyone's part.
I do not see a "slow slide into failure", I see a mixed bag all along the way: some success, some failure, a lot more in between. Failure is, of course, often a lot more visible than success. American-centric analyses often fail to recognize that even when American policy is in play, it is often not the sole or even most significant determinant of outcomes. There's also a tendency in some quarters to designate "failure" on the basis of an unverified assumption that some other hypothetical policy would have achieved a better outcome, which is not intellectually honest.
I heard a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the decline of the US after Vietnam, and when we "lost" Iran and Nicaragua... but a bit down the line the Soviet Union was belly up and the US was top dog.
I do think there's been a pattern of oscillation between more aggressive, interventionist policies and more restrained policies (often adopted after a perception of failure in intervention... but that's not an oscillation between weakness and strength, or success and failure, just between differing approaches.
There are always going to be differences between the US and its allies, often very contentious ones. Allies aren't countries who never disagree, they are those who pull together when the $#!t hits the fan. Leadership does not mean telling everybody what to do.
I don't think the US has any problem at all accepting German leadership on this issue; I think they'll see it as a highly desirable outcome. Of course "accepting German leadership" doesn't mean the Germans dictate policy to the US: that's not what leadership is.
I don't see how wanting "someone in theory to replace us" is in any way relevant or realistic. Unipolar leadership or dominance is not appropriate or acceptable in the world as it stands today; that role no longer exists. New roles are evolving, as they always do. Things don't stand still.
Dayuhan---go back and check every foreign policy move made by the US from 1945 to now the Crimea---one will see a slow slide into failure some times not in the short term for some of the events but generally in the long run on every single one of them.
Reference Merkel and the EU---yes we have been saying they should lead but when you look at NATO you will notice that even then there are deep differences between NATO and the EU on particular events say now the CAR event.
Not so sure that if the EU under German leadership did stand up would in fact the US accept it---just look at the NSA issue---the EU/German law on privacy are totally different from ours and much more protective than that of the US then the US slaps them in the face with a no we will not change our activities and we see the true thoughts of the DoS with the FU comments.
So yes they claim to want the EU lead but they still demand US rules so to speak---we will so to speak chase jihadi's around the world even if they are in your country so we will do whatever we want to---does that sound like a country that really wants others to lead?
So I disagree massively ---yes we say things but do we really want someone in theory to replace us --think not.
Yes, Germany feels more urgency than the US over events in the Ukraine, at every level. That's hardly surprising.
I don't see how stepping back and letting Merkel lead diminishes the US in any way. Quite the opposite, really: for decades we've been complaining that Europeans need to show more initiative and leadership in dealing witht heir own regional security concerns, how does it diminish the US to see them actually doing it? Leadership doesn't mean shoving yourself in at the top of every pile and the front of every parade.
EU sanctions do have the capacity to seriously hurt Russia. Whether or not they actually do will depend on what sanctions are actually adopted and how long they are sustained. The timing is benign for the EU: they have the time to develop and implement a stopgap energy plan before the next winter comes along.
If the EU does impose and sustain harsh sanctions, Putin will be in a real bind. The economic pain will be crippling, but to back off on Crimea would be a terrible loss of face. Hard to know what he would do in such circumstances.
I think you're starting with the assumption of a decaying/degrading US and looking for evidence to support the assumption, rather than deriving assumptions from evidence.
Dayuhan---agree with your unity definition and therein lies the problem leadership demands what and what are the five dysfunctions of a team?
That is why I have repeated that the decay set in after WW2 and there was no further need for "unity" among the population.
Example of leadership: the former eastern European members who have been long term members of NATO were getting clearly concerned last week about NATO's "will". Who travelled personally to them and listened and assured---not the US Vice President as he is headed to them next week--but rather Merkel and her FM and the group quieted down after their visits.
So where was the US who claims so often to be de facto the leader of NATO?
Reference business by the EU vs say the US---the EU businesses have been built on the rule of law and one critical aspect---there will be no unilateral changing of boundaries since 1945--actually goes back to the Westphalia Treaties in the 1700s.
With that in mind business contracts were always adhered to even in the worse of Cold War days as the rule of law took precedent. Even both sides would adhere/cling to a contract when everything else was falling apart politically.
Now that unspoken rule of law has been broken and the territorial borders no longer respected---even German business people fully understand what that means as a business man.
US businesses have nothing similar in their history.
Today it was reported that the German businesses are delaying if not renewing a lot of outstanding contracts---which hurts a large number of Russian construction sites as they are tied to German products needed to complete them. A not to subtle sigh pointed at their Russian counterparts from them as to what is coming.
Let's see what Russia is getting with the Crimea---Kiev provides over 60% of the electricity/and yes Russia gas and over 40% of the water---that will be cut after tomorrow. Kiev pays retirement and pensions---whose will be cut with the argument they are now Russian not Ukrainians ask Mosow for your pension, Kiev provided the Crimea over 70M USD per month to run and take care of the Crimea that will be cut after tomorrow. The Crimean's are in the middle of a massive bank run and taking out their money as they sense the Ukraine will no longer secure the banks as they will be Russians not Ukrainians---how long can an economy live on "mattress money"?
The Crimea has a population of 2M with 300K employed of which 75K work in the tourist industry with over 1M Ukrainians a year last year going to the Crimea---that will fall away as well.
Rough estimates are that Russia will end having to pay over 12B per year to just hold onto the Crimea with their economy stagnating.
Does not sound much like a "win".
Then the Rubel will massively slide on Monday causing their National Bank to shell out even more of their gold reserves just to hold it steady, Gazprom will lose further value not least the stock market which some say will lose another 10% in value hitting the oligarchs and over 150 Russian and Ukrainian oligrachs will be hit with visa and frozen accounts.
Russia did not want the Ukraine in the EU which will occur next week and they did not want NATO there either and that will occur in the coming months as the Russian actions literally forced the Ukrainians to join both.
Does that sound like a "win"?
All Russia had to do was to threatened then negotiate greater independence for Crimea leaving it in the Ukraine---basing rights they had until 2042 and they could have boosted they assisted in protecting their own. Keeping the Ukraine out of the EU and NATO.
That is why I have said here a number of times this is not about spheres of influence this is about pure annexation and recreating the old SU.
Gorbi got it right yesterday---the Cold War is upon us again when everyone thought it had been settled in 1994.
And the US Vice President only visits Eastern Europe when? Is that leadership?
Obviously the German companies have a different calculation of their own interest, and what they have to gain in the long term by facing down the Russians now. The EU has more chance of being hurt by sanctions, but also more to gain. No fundamental difference, both are making decisions based on their own perception of their own interests. Those perceptions of course vary with location and with he degree of actual (and perceived potential business going on.
Unity typically comes about under threat, and American companies (and Americans) do not feel threatened. Europe probably feels more threatened, for obvious reasons. Disunity is the norm in American politics,not the exception; if that's a sign of decay and degradation than we've always been there. Unity cannot in any event be demanded or imposed.
Dayuhan---then check the comments by several of the leading US companies involved in Russian---they were not exactly supportive the last time I checked their comments two days ago.
What I was suggesting is that in Germany they understand the Russian game and it is a game---the US never quite gets into the game.
Why do they understand because they are far more heavily invested in Russian ventures than the US business side is.
Check what percentage of our trade really is with Russia vs say Germany at 40B and the rest of the EU at 325B.
Why is it that the EU has a far greater chance of being hurt in retaliation but US businesses shy away from being supportive-while German business leaders state the oblivious.
That is why the US is in fact a decaying/degrading superpower--there is no current unity on any thing not even Ukrainian aid.
For years in Europe Russia was known as the slowly stumbling sinking superpower since 1994 now the US has its turn---in some aspects Putin is indeed trying to turn back the clock.
If US businessmen felt directly threatened, or if they thought the long term gain of sanctions justified the short term pain, they'd approve sanctions too.
I feel like there's a bit of competition here to see who can moan the loudest over the state of the US, with very little effort to produce substantial reasons for the moaning.
Here is a comment on why the old leader is no longer in the game.
1. Congress cannot even pass an aid bill openly promised without showing their dysfunction all the while claiming it is just democracy at work.
2. Yesterday Merkel held a press conference with the top German industrial organizations representing those that will be hit on the sanctions side.
To a representative they openly stated they supported sanctions ---why would be a question would you do that if you are going to be hit.
Answer---in the world of international relations there are laws and norms---especially if one is doing business in the former east bloc--- trade deals/contracts/purchases must be maintained and honored---if one breaks an even more binding international agreement when will they break a business deal if it does not suit them---that has been the standard for doing business in the SU now Russia and now Russia has set a new standard ie changed the game rules to their benefit.
Ask the question---would an American businessmen group have said the same thing in front of the US press----therein lies the reason the old man will never get back into the fight---there is no sense of community, and nor the will to support the rule of law.
(From the "I wish" department:)
On orders from the Old Man (the American people), the Old Leader (the United States) has been moved from the Recovery Ward to the "Quit Feeling Sorry For Yourself and Get Off Your Ass Barracks."
The Old Man (the American people) IS NOT messing around!
Foot lockers and even wall lockers (those containing BS) are flying out the windows.
Blanket parties -- for less than 100 percent effort -- are the rule rather than the exception.
ANYONE (and I mean ANYONE) who does not work as part of the team -- and who does not do try to do more than her/his fair share of the task -- these folks are going to wish that they were not born.
All leaves have been cancelled and all pass forms have been confiscated and destroyed.
At zero-dark-thirty this morning -- after a road march before breakfast -- the Old Leader (the United States) took a look at the training schedule that the Old Man (the American people) had posted on the bulletin board. Thereafter, we found him (the Old Leader) passed out there under.
The favorite cadence call is "Strength (and Unity) at Home Means Strength (and Success) Abroad."
Last night after Taps -- after almost killing the Old Leader (the United States) during the past week's training -- the Old Man (the American people) -- who had been out in front of the formation the entire time -- sat down in the dirt with the Old Leader and explained to her/him, once again, and in no uncertain terms, exactly what was at stake. I don't know exactly what the Old Man said but, whatever it was, it made the Old Leader look young, vigorous and determined once again.
If I were a betting man, I would bet that the Old Man (the American people) will get the Old Leader (the United States) back in shape, squared away, standing tall, looking good and ready to take on a grizzly bear (or the Russian bear) with a switch (and in record time).
(Again, this is from the "I wish" department.)
"A Leaderless Doctrine."
As we all know, to be a leader, one must stand tall, look good, set the example, inspire and motivate others, get the job (and more) done and, generally, do those things that one wants others to do -- most often -- better than they can.
So, from a leadership perspective, does the United States, personified, look like someone who -- above all others -- the troops (or, in this case, the world generally) would follow today: (1) on a day-to-day basis and/or (2) up the hill and into battle?
If so, why.
If not, why.
So we ask some of our troops (nations; populations) what do they think of the United States as their leader.
And the troops answer:
"She/He was the best I ever saw and I would have -- and did -- follow her/him anywhere. But she/he looks to have made some big mistakes (economically, strategically and militarily) which have put the whole team (our nation) and the mission (improving peace and prosperity throughout the world) in jeopardy. So right now our leader is in the "wounded warrior recovery mode" and, as such, cannot lead us much of anywhere right now."
So we ask the troops (nations; populations) whether, in the interim, they have cast their gaze elsewhere and found another leader they can follow.
And the troops answer:
"We've looked around, but no one looks like they can anywhere near fill the boots of our old leader (the United States). So we will probably just have to fend for ourselves -- and/or do the best we can working with whoever is left -- until such time as our old leader and inspiration (the United States) gets her/his stuff back together and gets back into the game."
From the final paragraph of the article:
"We live in a country in which many people act as if history is leaderless. Events emerge spontaneously from the ground up."
That is the very definition of our political system. We believe that power originates in the people and is granted, on a limited basis, to the government to do what it has to for the common good. It is enumerated in our 10th Amendment: Those powers not expressly granted to the government are reserved to the states or the people.
The rest of that paragraph:
"Such a society is very hard to lead and summon. It can be governed only by someone who arouses intense moral loyalty, and even that may be fleeting."
Witness your congress in action. This is the essence of the current state of American democracy.
Bill C. is right that this belief in a leaderless system is tied to a population’s values. What values one holds dear from that basis of that “intense moral loyalty” that can get people to follow a leader – what legitimizes that leader in the eyes of the population.
Bill is also right that what Westerner’s perceive as universal values are not, in fact, universal. They were developed in the West during a period of economic growth that allowed for an expansion of the “middle class”, an event that has not occurred in many parts of the world.
Carl points out those weapons are needed to fight, but what are you fighting for? Where two groups of people have values that create that “intense moral loyalty” that a person is willing to fight and die for – and those values are diametrically opposed, one group will necessarily have to gain the upper hand over the other group via coercive force. But maintaining that coercive force is not cheap, easy, or even possible over the long term.
Change to a society where Western values are accepted by the majority of the population will not come in many parts of the world by simply holding hands and singing Kum Bah Yah. But neither can they be secured over the long term with weapons and coercive force. In order to limit the need for coercion on that level you need to determine the source of those values.
No, I don't see US power decaying and degrading. Adapting and evolving, yes.
I don't see how recognizing that our partners in Europe have the capacity and the incentive to take the lead in responding to events in their own region represents decay or degradation. Why should the US feel required to be at the top of or in front of everything? Europe has the leverage, they have the geographic position, they have the money, and they have the incentive. If they need US help they will ask for it. Willingness to accept a supporting role where it's appropriate seems to me a sign of maturity, not a sign of decay.
I have no issues at all with the removal of US military force from Europe. Again, that's simply a recognition of European maturity and their capacity to make their own decisions. If they feel that a renewed US military presence is desirable or necessary, they are quite capable of asking for it.
Dayuhan--am assuming from your comment that you believe the US is not a decaying/degrading superpower.
This came in from the NYT today and it kind of goes to the decaying/degrading comment.
"The Crimea crisis offers Americans a chance to restore our country’s credibility on the world stage."
Let's see a regional power the EU gives after a long afternoon meeting 15B USD and the US offers what in aid to the Ukraine---1B USD that cannot even get approved and through Congress in a timely fashion.
Let's see Merkel with a single comment removes all customs on Ukrainian exports---worth 600M Euros in 2014.
The US DoD offers what MREs.
The EU offers to assist in the rebuilding of Ukrainian administrative and financial agencies---the US offers what?
A superpower has to have three things in order to be rated a superpower military power, economical power and political power that it can project in whatever configuration it needs to.
Last time I checked we were not the strongest economically speaking, militarily we are rebuilding with way lower budgets -plus there is virtually no military in Europe to speak of--and politically ---right now no one respects the WH in Europe for a number of reasons starting with the NSA and then the FU comment so there went the political influence.
A regional power such as the EU has no military power but it has political and economical power and it is using that to gain someone's attention or have you seen Putin respond to the US lately?
So yes decaying/degrading since WW2 which was the zenith of all three powers.
Even at the post WW2 zenith the US was not able to impose its will on all nations at all times. That of course hasn't changed, nor is it likely to change.
Other nations and regions have gained power and capacity since WW2, but how does that equate to US power decaying or degrading? Europe has grown into a region with substantial economic power and the capacity to look after its own affairs... how does that degrade US power? Having capable allies that can take the lead in managing affairs in their own regions should enhance US capacity, rather than degrade it, unless we're confusing leadership with hegemony.
I think US companies would accept the cost if they saw the need. It's quite natural for EU companies to see a greater stake in events on their own doorstep.
I don't really see this "advent of the soft power role"; what exactly is that supposed to mean?
RC---this goes to my comments on Merkel;
But Ms. Merkel, a pivotal figure in Euro-Russian matters, on Wednesday finally stepped out on the world stage – sharply warning in the German parliament against what she termed Russia’s potential “annexation” of the Crimea and saying Moscow would not “get away” with it.
Pound for pound, Merkel arguably has more strategic significance than most other leaders in what is fast becoming a seminal international moment and a profound challenge for what the German chancellor calls "European values."
Germany’s considerable back-channel efforts and Merkel’s many private communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin appear to have failed or been exhausted; the Putin-engineered referendum in Crimea is coming up fast, on Sunday.
That has forced Merkel into a difficult choice between immediate and palpable short-term German interests – such as gas supply, trade, investment, and a standoff with Russia – and the larger sweep-of-history issues such as the substance of Western values and international order.
I'm not quite sure what the point is here. I don't see how letting Europeans take the lead in European affairs diminishes the US in any way. If anything, the opposite: a strong response from Europe enhances the US.
The whole "soft power" thing seems to me a bit of a straw man, as I don't see anyone claiming that soft power alone is a solution. I do see a change in the balance of soft and hard power and a bit more restraint in the application of military force, but that seems to me a positive development. The blunt instrument is a tool of last resort, not the preferred response.
This comment goes as well to Dayuhan's comment to.
For what 30 something odd years we in the US have been saying "it is time for the Europeans to defend themselves", "they are not carrying their own defense load" "they could do more for NATO than we are" they are not supporting us in Iraq" and on and on in the same tone.
Then comes along globalization in the 21st century that ties literally everyone to each other and one country decides to slide back into the 19th and 20th century in order to rebuild a dream world.
That country is really economically speaking just an emerging country as it has only two raw resources it can export---gas and oil nothing else.
It threatens retaliation if sanctioned by turning off the gas, taking over EU factories inside Russia, and it panics the EU via a well run KGB/FSB I/O campaign.
Then lo and behold inside the EU Germany via the quiet spoken Merkel steps up and leads.
Why now and in this moment would be the question?---this goes to Dayuhan because the US has no leverage what so ever---limited trade with Russia and really limited military options since everyone shipped back to the States---not a single tank in Germany and the planes came from the UK. Even the 6th Fleet is weakened.
What we are seeing is in fact the EU as a regional power stepping up and saying there is a third way to deal with Putin and that is what I have been saying is the way forward ---it is the US idea of soft power ie diplomacy but in the Germany vein---1) dialogue, 2) assistance for a country and finally 3) economic sanctions that truly bite.
If the political articles are correct here in Germany the US has deferred to Merkel to lead the response.
The EU was waffling during their last meeting but she and her foreign minister kept pushing the dialogue piece coupled with a not so subtle threat of economic sanctions which the US does not have. Then as the dialogue piece with Putin is seemingly failing the Germans shifted gears and basically stated if he does not repond to us with our long history with the Russians then the EU needs to respond.
She then headed to Poland and the Baltics to calm them down which was successful and her FM stated the hardening economic process with the EU now buying in as Germany which has heavy economic interests is signaling they are willing to take a hit.
Merkel sees Putin's moves as truly destabilizing for all of Europe and a return to the 19th century.
My question to the US and to Dayuhan---is the US willing to accede long term influence in its' own backyard and have they realized that the single concept of soft power ie tied to just diplomacy will never work by itself?
My answer---I am not so sure that our politicians and political parties will welcome an evolving German leadership in a globalized 21st century---remember Germany did not want to get involved in Libya or Iraq and often would criticize US foreign policy.
Now they understand their ability to lead the EU and Putin does get Merkels comments from yesterday question is will the US long term accept it?
In the world of international relations her speech in parliament yesterday was direct, brutal and uncompromising towards Russia---the EU is truly getting angry that what they thought had been settled in 1994 is arising again---an aggressive Russia. and they have discovered they have true economic power to wield if unified.
Outlaw,
'When the German foreign minister openly states yesterday that no one wants an economic war but if needed they will go that path.'
I have an aversion for quoting the media but by sheer accident I found myself listening to a Swedish minister who had been toe-holed outside a British ministry for a completely different subject. The Crimea was mentioned and you could see the Minister's face tighten somewhat and for a Swede he looked pissed. However not by the question as it transpired (which appeared out of order) but by the Russians.
He mentioned several times the Russian move was illegal and unacceptable and it could not be allowed to stand. The Russian gas was mentioned but he cut this line of questioning off quite tersely and pointed out Europe's economic pain will be small compared to Russia's.
The original reason for the impromptu sidewalk interview was raised (something about the UK exiting the EU and his thoughts on that) and he replied that at a time when Europe is being threatened we need to stick together.
For a very experienced Minister and a Swede to react like that suggests to me the Nordic countries are having some very serious discussions and there is considerable outraged consensus boiling under the surface.
RC
Decaying/degrading since it's zenith after WW2.
With the advent of the soft power role this will pick up speed---we see the true limitations in the Crimea where it is the regional power ie EU that has any leverage whatsoever.
Or do you think that the US instead of military power could use economical power in lieu of military power? Or do you think that we even have military power to project out of Europe?
When the German foreign minister openly states yesterday that no one wants an economic war but if needed they will go that path. Even though EU businesses will take a hit they understand the way larger picture for them.
What would you hear out of the US business world in the States if they heard that comment.
A superpower has three things, military power, economic power and political power that it can project using that tape measure it is easy to judge the US, Russia and China.
I'll never understand that. Red China has just over half our GNP and over 3 times the number of people to share it with. They are beset by internal problems that manifold and we can only hazily understand.
But the important thing is how we view ourselves vs. them. It is my view that our problem isn't with the flyover people or the NASCAR fans, it is with the elites in the media, academia and government. Their basic morale isn't and they will see 10 footers wherever they look. I wish I knew how to change things quickly but I don't. I only hope God allows us the time to do it if we can before the quaking tremblors are tested.
Robert made an interesting comment (will paraphrase it roughly) in the last couple of days in one of the blogs that fit the Ukraine, China, and now this particular article.
The world right now has one emerging superpower (China) one imploding and dying superpower (Russia) and one slowly degrading/decaying superpower (US).
IMO---while--the rest of the world is trying to figure out what their roles are ie the EU, Africa and Asia.
While that occurs do not expect much in the way of a strategy out of the US.
Potential line of thought:
1. We want others, who presently do not have our values, to abandon their current values and, in the place of these, adopt our own.
2. Presently, there are insufficient numbers of people, within the subject countries, who have made this necessary transition. (Helps to explain why working through the populations -- to achieve our goals -- has recently lost favor.)
3. Thus we must, now working through the regimes -- and by way of all our governmental and non-government assets -- convince the populations to do as we desire (see Para 1 above).
4. Extremists, it would appear, are those who (a) have caught on to what we are trying to do, (b) disagree with this course of action and (c) have set out to try to stop us. (As ADM McRaven notes, these folks we may not be able to "convince.")
5. If we are able to (a) deal with the extremists and, simultaneously, (b) convince the populations to abandon their present values (and related way of life) and adopt our way of life (and related values), then the "universal values" (which presently do not exist) job, shall we say, will have been accomplished.
Bill C.:
Your premise is flawed because it doesn't take into account the value of money and weapons. A small moneyed group armed can have its way with a much larger group unarmed. Armies and repressive police states have taken advantage of that for all of human history.
So your stark realization is a bald rationalization for our decadent elite leadership class to do nothing. They set up a self fulfilling prophecy, intentionally. They give nothing but non-lethal aid and commo equipment to those who tend to share our values and when that doesn't top actual guns and bullets they get to say "See. They aren't winning because there aren't enough committed and if there aren't enough committed we shouldn't give them anything.' Cleverly done you can set up over and over so you never actually have to do anything.
See if this explanation has merit:
In the battle between (1) those individuals who value a western way of life and governance (let's call them the liberals) and (2) those individuals who desire a more traditional way of life and governance (let's call them the conservatives), there appears to be insufficient numbers of committed liberals to overcome the number of committed conservatives and, thereafter, effectively "hold the fort;" this, even if significant foreign assistance is provided to the liberal groups.
It is this stark realization -- that our "universal values" are appreciated by a much smaller "universe" than we imagined -- that has caused us to abandon the idea of acheiving our desired ends (state and societal westernization) via the population rather than via the regime.
Based on this new reality, we have reverted to (1) our Cold War thinking (there are butt-loads of people out there who have values different from our own) and (2) our Cold War methods (acting by, with and through regimes rather than populations to get the state and societal westernation job done.)
G Martin:
The events in Syria were precipitated by a lot of Syrians who seemed to have exactly the universal values we espouse. They took a lot of fatal casualties from Iranian supported government extremists before they started fighting back. When the fight started they didn't get much more than lip service from the West by way of support. The takfiri extremists came out of the cracks in the ground when the fighting started and were recipients of a whole lot of money from rich Gulf extremists with which to inflict their vision upon Syrians whom we weren't supporting. Given all that, it seems that there is a sufficient population of Syrians who mostly value things as we do. They can't fight without money and something to fight with, which we are reluctant to give them. What you say is a fallacy looks more to me like the Iranians and takfiri killers are more willing to try hard than we are, not that there are not enough reasonable Syrians.
I posted this on the Lawrence thread- but it probably was better posted here:
In this article:
http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2014/03/special-ops-moves-perpetual-…
CDRUSSOCOM is mentioned:
"McRaven warned Congress about what he called the “irreconcilable” extremists growing out of Somalia, Yemen, Syria and North Africa. “No amount of negotiations,” he said, “no amount of placation is going to put them in a position where they're prepared to support universal values as we know them.”
Basically, I think, capturing the problem you define. We want universal values, but the extremists will not support them. I think what is implied in his statement is that those people are extreme- and there is a sufficient population in those countries that DO want universal values- as we understand them- and all we have to do is separate (kill or otherwise) the extremists from the population. I think the American people are waking up to the fallacy in that logic, but DoD is still operating off that assumption...
"What’s happening can be more accurately described this way: Americans have lost faith in the high politics of global affairs. They have lost faith in the idea that American political and military institutions can do much to shape the world. American opinion is marked by an amazing sense of limitation — that there are severe restrictions on what political and military efforts can do."
Would it be more correct to say the following:
Americans, because of our experinces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, have lost faith in the idea of the universal appeal of our way of life and our way of governance.
Because of this, Americans have come to realize that there is little that American political and military institutions can do -- in the near term -- to shape the world more along modern western political, economic and social lines.
When it was thought that populations, liberated from their oppressive regimes, would quickly, easily and mostly on their own adopt modern western ways, then American political and military institutions looked to have new utility. Within this context, regime change and state-building became the vogue.
Now that we understand that regime change/attempts at state-building (1) do not equal rapid westernization and (2) may result in states and societies becoming organized, ordered and oriented along lines that are even more detrimental to our interests.
Thus, we realize that we are back to "Square One."
"Square One" being the process by which we have to work (1) by, with and through often contrary and odious regimes (2) over long periods of time to (3) transform states and societies as we desire. Herein, the United States helping the regime -- as in the days of the Cold War -- to stand against populations who have other, shall we say non-western or non-western-compatible, aspirations.
(Note: It would seem very difficult indeed -- to associate the process described in my last paragraph above -- with the concept of known as "self-determination.")