ALLIES, PROVOCATIVE WEAKNESS AND THE WONK PROBLEM
ALLIES, PROVOCATIVE WEAKNESS AND THE WONK PROBLEM
Most people in the United States of my childhood were thoroughly iindoctrinated in a series of assumptions that have failed subsequent historical inspection. In this respect that generation was probably not much different from innumerable generations preceding it. If there is a difference is that a very large percentage of my generation have failed to examine these assumptions in the light of historical reality.
Societies generally discerned the error of their way much more quickly.
Britain committed national suicide by its obsession with preserving its dysfunctional empire. Admittedly they were a little slow on the uptake before concluding that trying to keep Ireland and India as submissive subject colonies was not economically realistic. Before that they were also slow to correct the rotten borough system and the assumption that well connected well born idiots were great leaders. They did however eventually conclude the obvious. Also the Brits were very good at getting the United States to pay for all their errors.
Europe destroyed itself by fighting a completely futile Great War (WWI) caused by its reliance on absurd and counterproductive treaties and alliances attempting to achieve some sort of a grand European alliance based upon a careful balancing of powers. They then repeated the stupidity in WWII, again getting their back saved by enormous American expenditures of life and wealth.
Post WWII the real politics of Europe has very efficiently again gotten the United States to pay fo almost everything. The Marshall Plan, Nato, American military defense of Europe were again enormous transfers fo wealth.
Nothing has changed. Today we try to build nations and somehow propagate something loosely referred to as "democracy", again at enormous expense fo life and treasure. The result is almost always simply regional destabilization as in Iraq and Afghanistan
History is replete of such instances where reliance upon simply wrong assumptions has resulted in horrendous unintended consequences.
The assumptions that colonial expansion and the building of empires was the road to a bright and sunny future, or that national alliances could prevent war or achieve victories was no more absurd than Cheny's assumption that he could bring "democracy" to Iraq, or previously the equally absurd "domino theory" of SE Asia, or the "war to end all wars" dribble of Woodrow Wilson., or the North's determination to "save the union", or for that matter the South's thinking that they could beat the North militarilly. or Napoleon's determination to impose his "democratic" visions on all of Europe, or very similarly the Marxist similar determination.
Great reliance is always placed upon forms without substance: the British Empire (strangely started by a bunch of merchants running amok in India) the Alliances of the Great War, the "democratic" government foisted on Iraq, Henry the VIII's absurd idea of militarilly conquering France by making a treaty with Spain, the League of Nations, the United Nations, Nato, Seato, innumerable trade agreements, virtually every diplomatic effort undertaken from the beginning of time to Kissinger, Clinton and the execrable Bushes. The list in infinite, all caused by an inability to look sternly at available facts and see behind the absurd assumptions.
National alliances like partnerships almost never accomplish anything good. The only exceptions that come to mind are (a) Roman foreign policy which actually worked and (b) the Alliance against Napoleon and (c) the Anglo-American victory in WW2 expedited by (i) Britain's/Churchill's bulldog determination to fight it out with Germany (in retrospect the greatest gift to civilization from a nation historically bountiful is such gifts, but at the time probably irrational on available evidence); (ii) Britain fortuitously being itself essentially an enormous aircraft carrier and land forces base off the coast of Europe.
Today a large body of Americans continue to be obsessed that Russia is the enemy, that the Fritz Kraemer thesis of Provocative Weakness 9and its outgrowth Mutually Assured Destriction) is invariably correct (everybody should have stood up to Hitler and thereafter paid the price, etc.; Russia would have invaded western europe had we shown any weakness; North Vietnam could somehow be denied its objectives if we just showed our military strength).) Russia never was a serious threat to Western Europe and still less so to the United States. International Communism was perhaps rationally perceived as a dangerous doctrine. just as Islamic extremism is today, but Russia was essentially at all times pretty nationalistic and interested only in Eastern Europe and its relationship to Germany. This is not hard to understand after the two world wars and 50 million or whatever Russian dead. While the idiot communists intended world domination through a fanciful economic determinism (presumably now discredited for all time), Stalin and the other despots running things never contemplated a military invasion of Europe (which also could not have succeeded in the long run even if the United States did not have overwhelming military superiority to stop it). Stalin and his successors did quite reasonably believe (a) that the Central European countries (especially Poland) were dangerous to them and (b) that Germany was VERY dangerous to them. They did not care fig a about France or Spain or Great Britain or even Greece and italy, although they would have been happy to see communist governments there for nebulous idealistic reasons. Russia also quite sensibly was very concerned about a United States that was very interested, not totally irrationally, in blowing the Soviet Union off the map. Korea was of little interest to Russia or China but was an interesting military experiment (that proved hugely expensive to the Chinese incidentally but cost the Russians nothing).
I doubt that the face of Europe would be that much different today had we never had a US soldier there after 1945, and no Marshall Plan, and had no Nato (the ultimate paper tiger). Russia no doubt would have occupied all of Germany and failed there just as it did in East Germany. Many Europeans would have starved, some died, and all worked much harder, but Germany would still today be an enormous economic power with no Russians walking around other than as tourists.
Kissinger (and Haigh and Rumsfeld) made an industry out of a philosophy or showing strength and the (allegedly) judicious just of power, failing to show Provocative Weakness at all times, and adherence to Mutually Assured Destruction.. All there men are (or was in Haig's case) highly intelligent Kraemer disciples, wonks if you will of these doctrines which they used to advance their own careers, such as they were.
Cheney was a generation removed from Kraemer and although originatlly a Rumsfeld disciple somehow graduated to seeing himself and the United States as a sort of Woodrow Wilson and post WWI nation builder and thus a different type of wonk, albeit equally deluded.
Wonks are always deluded. They drown in their micromanagement of their areas of knowledge. They are essentially huge databases of knowledge and wisdom that does not have adequate software for correct analysis. Invariably they think that the doctrines or countries in which white are expert are of consulate importance and that matters beyond their vaunted expertise are irrelevant. I know a lot of high intelligent wonks very skilled in their narrow areas of expertise, but generally not suited for much other than intelligent conversation or explaining matters within their knowledge to someone with a sufficiently broader outlook who can use the information.
For most members of Congress (at least the goat unwashed hacks) or for people without broader experiential reality to ask wonks to reveal the true wisdom is a huge mistake. The information given may be intellectually honest and coherent to the Wonk (and most are in fact intellectually honest in their very limited way) but is not going to be very useful outside fo a greater context of understanding. Thus of you are searching for a black and white binary answer question which can be answered with reasonable verifiable certainty ask a wonk. If you want to understand a complex matter not capable of binary certainty, be certain to only ask for binary subsidiary facts upon which to make you own judgment, or which to submit to some decision maker that you (probably arbitrarily) think more qualified. The wonks may or may not know the facts but they almost certainly have no judgment.
Ambassadors incidentally are a very special type of wonk. Rich, socially presentable people who can mingle with the makers and shakers in a given country and develop a peculiar local knowledge of that country. They generally these days are not too bright since modern communications means that they can be micromanaged by their intellectual superiors, but then they basically only have to entertain, follow simple instructions, and provide feedback to their keepers.
The ambassadors of the years before rapid communication were very different. They could not get instructions in less than weeks or at best days and had to act on their own in innumerable instances of some import to their countries.
Interestingly all the ambassadors of the 16th century seem to have had a real dislike of their host countries and their politicians. Generally they had nothing good to say about either in their correspondence back to their masters.
Ambassadors since the beginning of the electronic age are generally in love with their host countries and really want to do what is best fo the people of that country. This may not be entirely bad, but that is probably not their job description. Thus asking them for policy decisions about how to handle an issue about their host country is not apt to get an unbiased intelligent analysis fo what is best for the ambassador's own country, a subset of the wonk problem.
(Joseph Kennedy had electronic communications aplenty but atypically hasted his host country Great Britain and was thus equally unable to provide Roosevelt with any useful information. This seems to be a unique case.)
China is the enemy, not Russia. Russia can play around at the fringes experimentally in US elections or in Venezuela or in Syria, but China very efficiently saps wealth and strength from the west as a matter of national policy. Russia cannot causs serious harm and can actually be useful (as in Syria of in killing Chinese if it comes to that).
In retrospect Nixon made a mistake apparently in preventing the Soviet Union from nuking red China back to the Stone Age. Of course hindsight is 20/20 and the nuclear fallout might have killed us all. Possibly Nixon for that reason (or Kruscheve similarly for the Cuban missile crisis) might not irrationally be considered the greatest human beings who ever lived.
As for Syria: letting the Turks and the Russians deal with Syria and the Kurds is far and away the most sensible strategy. These areas are in their sphere of influence and we have ZERO national interest there. MUCH better that Turkish and Russian boys are there with guns that U.S. boys. of course the Syrian wonks would disagree and Dick Cheney would no doubt like to implement free elections (not that he himself was ever much of a candidate other than in Wyoming, and then only in the dead and diving parts of the state_/
As for the South China Sea: let the Cheese do whatever they want but economically strangle them until every man woman and child has starved to death until they change their economic ways. Our insane policies built China into the second largest economy in the world, partly looking for all things A RUSSIAN BUFFER. More sensible policies will reduce them to beggary in short order AND THEY KNOW THIS.
China incidentally hs negligible military or economic power and either the Russians or the United States (let alone both!!) can wipe them out in less than a week if it comes to that.
Militarilly supporting Hong Kong, or at least threatening to, would be an interesting idea. That would put the Chinese toes in the fire and probably result in their being crushed more thoroughly than in Korea. Russia probably would be happy to help. Give them the rest of Mongolia or something or hack off some more of Poland for them.
Hong Kong of course is certain to win all by itself, just like the countries in Eastern Europe were able to get rid of the Russians. As a practical matter IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTROL A HOSTILE POPULATION. Even the Germans had a hard time of it in WWII and they had a pretty good idea of how to do it,
Trump is mildly insane and wrong on a few issue but HE CLEARLY UNDERSTANDS THE CHINA PROBLEM AND HAS JUST THE SKILL SET TO SOLVE IT.
That skill set is admittedly like Napoleoons and Hitlers dependent on sowing seeds of chaos and confusion but for this purpose quite effective.
Fritz Kr?emer understood all of these things fifty years ago but somehow his students Kissinger, Rumsfeld and Haig (all oddly brilliant incidentally) never got the message. Lonsdale did. Cheney is apparently just a total idiot.
Trump has probably never heard of Kraemer and would pay no attention to his ideas anyway, since he instinctively dislikes all wonks or generally anyone who does not defer to his admitted brilliance/ In that sense Trump is (again like Napoleon and Hitler) irrational. Strangely (yet again like Napoleon and Hitler) he often seems to hit the right notes on the piano by ignoring the wonks and following his gut.
Hitler did amazingly well with that strategy for a while.
Perhaps just random monkeys at random typewriters in each case.
Perhaps Trump will end up barbecued in a bunker too.
I suspect however that we can find a lot of people more sensible than the obviously cracked Donald Trump to pursue rational policies, but only if they think behind all these fatally bad assumptions.
Most importantly one should not make the great logical ad hominem mistake of assuming that because Trump is nuts, or even the antichrist, that all of his ideas are wrong. Many of his ideas are gross generalistic conclusions not very well thought out. Many of his solutions or positions no doubt would/will have grave unintended consequences. But the same was true of Lincoln, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson (queen of the May and by far the craziest)), Nixon, Carter, and both Bushes (really and presidents, not too bright, but superficially at least rational)
Now assuming that most politicians ideas are usually wrong is, on the basis of historical observation of human behavior, perfectly rational.
pl goduti