The Rational Hawk - Beyond Neocon

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

I don’t think that the blogger was intending to lump every nation on earth into the same basket.

I think that the argument can be made that he was referring to dealing with countries that are in direct opposition to the U.S.'s interests.

Th U.K. does not fit that bill, and accordingly, is treated differently when it comes to agreeing on deals between them and the U.S.

It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that Iran, Iraq, N.Korea, Syria, Jordan, Lybia, hell - most all of the middle east - all stand in direct opposition to U.S. interests. Dealing with them is an entirely different game than dealing with the U.K.

You seem to be saying that the author suggests treating all countries as the enemy. I am saying that I think that is a bit of a stretch. I believe he is talking about a specific type of nation.

22

Of course. However, this begs two questions:

One, how can the situation be changed, so it is no longer as it stands now? Will application of military might change the nature of the relationship? Maybe. It did for WWII, once there was a concrete win achieved.

Two, if all you have to keep people in line is military might, then you are in a tenuous situation. The enemy will look for ways to evade military action while striking out. Non-state terrorist action is possibly an example of this. This isn’t something you want to maintain forever.

So, again, we are back to my concern about the underlying premise.

Is there truly no way to turn an enemy into a ally short of either bribery or beating the stuffing out of them? In my opinion there are often other ways to work towards improved relations.

And for chrissakes, I’m NOT talking about appeasement or anything of the sort! That would fall under bribery in any case.

23

Here’s the essential question:

What other means does a government have to get another government to act in a certain manner?

You have carrots and sticks. Carrots are essentially concessions on other issues being contended, or money (or some other payment or “investment”). Sticks are economic or military coercion – or, I suppose, the weight of negative world public opinion, for all that seems to be worth in these cases.

You can also form coalitions to do any of the above along with other countries.

Other than that, you have talking between actions.

That’s a pretty simplistic layout, but does it fail to capture anything important?

24

[quote]vroom wrote:
Is there truly no way to turn an enemy into a ally short of either bribery or beating the stuffing out of them? In my opinion there are often other ways to work towards improved relations.
[/quote]

Th United States has few true allies. That is - allies that align themselves with the U.S. 100% of the time.

Making friends is not good foreign policy - everyone wants something. A warm and fuzzy feeling at the thought of your neighbor is not usually a bargaining chip.

Improved relations with other countries is a two-way street. After counting up the miney we have doled out to countries like Egypt, Lybia, et al - one wold think that an offering of goodwill would be coming from their side - not the other way around. North Korea springs to mind.

Bribes, as you call them, are not bribes. It is what is required to come to an agreement among nations.

Name a treaty, or trade agreement, or any other type of international deal that does not involve the exchanging of cash, or the promise of cash, or other economic incentives for a signature.

That’s the way the world works. Being friends has little to do with it. Being well liked has even less play.

The richer you are and the more powerful you are, the more you will be resented, and disliked. It’s human nature.

25

[quote]Sticks are economic or military coercion – or, I suppose, the weight of negative world public opinion, for all that seems to be worth in these cases.

You can also form coalitions to do any of the above along with other countries.

Other than that, you have talking between actions.[/quote]

Yes, but in order to support your viewpoint you’ve really minimized and disposed of the other issues here.

Howabout instead negative public opinion? There are both internal and external opinions – and some obviously have more weight than others.

Slow down a bit. When you are dealing with leaders, or egos, there is a lot involved in this aspect, though you have minimized it.

If someone dislikes you they will deny your requests or argue with you just for spite. Heh, witness Rainjack and myself for proof!

You can choose to discount this effect, but when the leaders of a nation are continously slighted and annoyed, you do yourself no favors if you want to conduct negotiations with them concerning your “national interests”.

I would suggest the original blogger, and perhaps yourself and Rainjack, are focusing on the visible and tangible effects. However, to go a little Sun Tzu, the best general is the one that wins without having to endure the costs of leading the army into battle.

Have things gone too far down the road with respect to the current list of bad guys around the world. Quite possibly. Again, there are certainly times that military force is required. I’m not trying to suggest otherwise.

26

I’d look at it little bit differently. The richer and more powerful you are the harder you have to work to avoid being resented and disliked.

One, it is very hard to resist the temptations of power. I know the first few times I rose up the hierarchy it was difficult not to grow a feeling of deserving it, which also gives rise to a feeling of others not deserving it. If that colors your actions… watch out.

Two, when you are in a position of power, people will resent it if they notice or feel the use of that power in what they feel is an unfair way. Obviously this will easily fall under social, political, economic and ideological auspices.

However, I’ll agree, there is certainly an element of envy and jealousy to people. This does not simply lead to the fact that “they” hate you because you are “whatever” – that is a cop out which excuses any impropriety.

27

I am an avowed reader of Blackfive as well as a fan.

I think the crux of his opinion is that the Rational Hawk is a person who has come to accept reality over theory. He is taken what has worked in the past and propose it as a solution to dealing with a threat, that still goes unrealized by most. Most importantly he points out that dissent and disagreement, in the military is common, but the face of that dissent is never shown to the enemy and a unified front is expected.

As a former soldier with nothing to prove to either civilian or soldier he is pointing out the value of backing up the “or else” part of diplomacy and rightly identifies those nations that do not have the capability or inclination to back up their diplomatic aims.

I thought his analogy at the end dealing with abuse was spot on. Many will simply say “how sad”, others will intervene, by force if necessary, but they will intervene. That’s something to be proud of…the rational hawk.

From a foreign policy perspective it in interesting and beyond Neo-conservatism. It is also not simply pigeonholed into liberal or conservative ideals. Although too many it may be when looked at through the lenses of present days events.

28

[quote]vroom wrote:
However, to go a little Sun Tzu, the best general is the one that wins without having to endure the costs of leading the army into battle.[/quote]

I’d be careful trying to quote Sun-Tzu in the context of your posts.

Sun-Tzu believed in victory - that is winning and having an advantage over your opponents.

He believed in might equals right, but that the best kind of might was the kind that wins without having to fight. But he still believed in winning.

Which seems counter to your point - an attitude of victory and [/i]advantage[/i] doesn’t quite square with your ideas of cooperation and seeing the world not as a contest between nations, but as a powwow where nations are concerned about global public opinion and making sure that no one feels like they are a loser in a big competition.

29

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Did I miss a war or something? When has Canada crawled under our skirts?

C’mon. Do you really think that Canada would have such a small military of they weren’t neighbors to the most powerful nation on earth?

They have built their socialisitc welfare/healthcare programs knowing that they don’t have to really spend that much on defense. They know full well that the U.S. will take care of them if trouble starts.

They will also continue to use phrases like “might makes right” as a slam against U.S. foreign policy - until they need us. They learned from their cousins very well. [/quote]

That was not the question. The question was: when did Canade crawl under your skirt. The answer should have been a year or a war.

Would you like another shot at answering the question?

30

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
vroom wrote:
…

… What’s that old saw: When all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That’s the case with countries for which military force is not a viable option.
[/quote]

That’s also the case with countries that are over dependant on their military might. Or to put it more simply: when you’re a stupid cowboy with an attitude.

I remember the glee when the clueless administration could report on looters in New Orleans after the Katrina disaster. Finally they could do what they did best: firing at people. They didn’t know how to help them, so they started killing them.

Yup, fine example of the nail and the hammer principle.

Any reports on the number of looters recently? Remember all the rapes and killings? How many complaints were officially filed?

31

[quote]
He believed in might equals right, but that the best kind of might was the kind that wins without having to fight. But he still believed in winning.[/quote]

Thunder,

You are simply arguing against what you either think I am talking about or would prefer I was talking about. Some mythical kumba-ya bullshit.

the kind that wins without having to fight

How you see that as against what the fuck I was saying is totally beyond me. Unbelievable.

As for whether he believed might equals right, we may never know. He was about winning, I’m not so sure he said a lot about ethics – or that if the ethics of his day are applicable to ours.

Perhaps you should think a little more about what it means to win, specifically winning vs winning a battle…

32

[quote]vroom wrote:
It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that Iran, Iraq, N.Korea, Syria, Jordan, Lybia, hell - most all of the middle east - all stand in direct opposition to U.S. interests. Dealing with them is an entirely different game than dealing with the U.K.

Of course. However, this begs two questions:

One, how can the situation be changed, so it is no longer as it stands now? Will application of military might change the nature of the relationship? Maybe. It did for WWII, once there was a concrete win achieved.

Two, if all you have to keep people in line is military might, then you are in a tenuous situation. The enemy will look for ways to evade military action while striking out. Non-state terrorist action is possibly an example of this. This isn’t something you want to maintain forever.

So, again, we are back to my concern about the underlying premise.

Is there truly no way to turn an enemy into a ally short of either bribery or beating the stuffing out of them? In my opinion there are often other ways to work towards improved relations.

And for chrissakes, I’m NOT talking about appeasement or anything of the sort! That would fall under bribery in any case.[/quote]

Vroom,

Couple of thoughts on your post.

  1. You bring up an interesting wrinkle with non-state terrorist action. The problem with many of those kinds of groups is that if you do not show a direct and often military response to their actions, they perceive that as weakness. Given the fact that these groups present some of the most serious threats to overall global security (not just North American) and they do not exactly have diplomats to hold discussions with, how do they factor into this debate?

  2. What would you feel would be the ways to improve relations between countries? I’m not asking that to be a wiseass, but I am curious. I’m not one to think that cash or a slap upside the head is always the answer, but certainly the fact that a country has those tools on its side can effect the discussions without having to make implicit mention of them.

Kuz

33

I remember when the Republipigs were against the use of force against Milosovic.

There was a brutal dictator torturing and killing people on a big scale. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, the lot…

And Clinton got him out without loosing a single GI. And with minimal colateral damage.

And the Republipigs fought him every step of the way.

Remember that?

34

Kuz,

I’m already being slapped with Kumba-Ya bullshit, I don’t think I’m going to go and suggest anything concrete which would encourage that misinterpretation.

Perhaps look into some serious materials on conflict resolution, negotiation and mediation. How do we expect other people to travel the road to peace if we can’t find it ourselves?

To reverse it to the extreme, if there is no path to peace, we should just bomb the entire region into nonexistance and be done with it.

Obviously, there are paths to peace and good relations between nations. Yes, some of those paths do include military conquest – as we saw after WWII.

35

Kind of a long read…

But there are general principles in his commentary I very much agree with.

Having said that, I also would have to admit that there is probably some validity in the opposing camp’s viewpoint of, “Sure, it was appropriate to smack down the Taliban in Afghanistan - since they were directly supporting Al Qaeda. But if radical Islamic fundamentalism is the enemy we’re at war with, Sadam’s Iraq probably doesn’t qualify.”

If the enemy is “any threatening dictator,” then we’re gonna have to see how Iran, Korea, etc. respond to our smacking down Sadam. If the author’s commentary and viewpoint is correct, then we should expect Iran and Korea to quake in their boots and promptly behave themselves.

So far, the jury is still out on those issues. Korea seems to be showing some early signs of better behavior, but I’m not sure Iran got the intended message yet. Time will tell, I suppose.

Bottom line: I think he needs to more clearly think through who the enemy is: “Radical Islamic Fundamentalism” or “Any Threatening Dictator.”

The problem with fighting radical Islamic fundamentalism is that it’s like playing the old “Hit The Mole” game at the penny arcade. It keeps popping up in all sorts of places. So the difficult question becomes: “Do we invade a sovereign nation just because a certain small portion of its populace is involved with terrorism?” That’s pretty hard to justify. I think it requires more creative thinking than just, “Fire up the tanks, boys, we’re going in!”

I think it’s appropriate to put all nations on notice that if they intentionally harbor terrorists, or fail to take an active role in rooting them out - and those terrorists then either damage or materially threaten us - we will take action against such a nation.

I would admit that it’s debatable as to whether or not Iraq qualified as such a nation. (Not to say that Sadam wasn’t an evil POS. It’s just that we need to clearly define who the enemy is, what our objectives are, and what our strategy and tactics will be.)

36

[quote]Kuz wrote:
2) What would you feel would be the ways to improve relations between countries? I’m not asking that to be a wiseass, but I am curious. I’m not one to think that cash or a slap upside the head is always the answer, but certainly the fact that a country has those tools on its side can effect the discussions without having to make implicit mention of them.
[/quote]

This is where I lose what vroom is saying.

Let’s say I am a really rich guy, known for kicking ass and taking names when situation warrants. And then say I come up to vroom in a bar to ask him to move his car because he is blocking me in.
Now assume that vroom knows exactly who I am, and about all my money, and my penchant for not shying away from a fight - and he moves straight away to move his car.

If I ask vroom very politely to move his car - did I use might makes right? Did I threaten him? Did I strong arm vroom in to doing what I wanted done?

If I had been a 98-pound bus-boy, would I have gotten vroom to give me a second thought?

Wealth/strength is the 500 pound gorilla in the living room. It is on the table whether you want it there or not. The U.S. cannot effect foreign policy without our wealth or our military strength. It is part of who we are, and our reputation ALWAYS precedes us.

37

[quote]Let’s say I am a really rich guy, known for kicking ass and taking names when situation warrants. And then say I come up to vroom in a bar to ask him to move his car because he is blocking me in.

Now assume that vroom knows exactly who I am, and about all my money, and my penchant for not shying away from a fight - and he moves straight away to move his car.

If I ask vroom very politely to move his car - did I use might makes right? Did I threaten him? Did I strong arm vroom in to doing what I wanted done?

If I had been a 98-pound bus-boy, would I have gotten vroom to give me a second thought?[/quote]

What a crock. Do you still talk to your imaginary friends as well?

38

What is a crock? My example? Why?

Dismissing it out of hand, and then throwing in a parting insult? Why am I not suprised?

I wish I could say that disappoints me - but it is just par for the course.

39

[quote]Dismissing it out of hand, and then throwing in a parting insult? Why am I not suprised?

I wish I could say that disappoints me - but it is just par for the course.[/quote]

You aren’t one of the people on these forums that gets to claim mock indignation… I’ve been letting your insults slide for weeks now.

Which reason should I elucidate for the summary rejections?

  1. It’s purely made up and doesn’t have much to do with the discussion?

  2. It purports my behavior on my behalf, assuming it can speak or me?

  3. It neglects to look into the issues being discussed in any way?

Anyone, rich or poor, big or small, could point out that I had parked them in, and I’d be happy to go move and let them out.

Anyone, rich or poor, big or small, could be a total jackass and get less cooperation out of me.

Might I find it more necessary to do what a rich and large jackass asks even though he is an asshole? Yes.

However, that would fall exactly within the issues I have been describing above, where those with might abuse that fact and act like an asshole, thereby earning the wrath of all who have to suffer this behavior.

You claim you don’t understand my point, then you give me a silly example which is almost a perfect vehicle for illustrating my own point.

It’s almost comical.

40

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’ve been letting your insults slide for weeks now.[/quote]

That’s a fucking lie, and you know it - you have let nothing slide, and you are trying to keep it up even now. Bullshit on your self-righteous hypocrisy.

[quote]

  1. It’s purely made up and doesn’t have much to do with the discussion?[/quote]

It has everything to do with this discussionn - it is about someone gettitng what they want. If it will make you feel better, substitute “U.S.A.” for me, and the third world country of your choice whenever it references you.

[quote]
2) It purports my behavior on my behalf, assuming it can speak or me?[/quote]

No one is doing anything on yor behalf, or speaking for you. It is an illustration. You mean to tell me you don’t understand symbolism?

[quote]
3) It neglects to look into the issues being discussed in any way?[/quote]

You have tried to equate being strong, and rich with “might makes rightism”. I was attempting to show that strength and wealth are not easily hidden. But you would have seen that had you read all of my post.

[quote]
You claim you don’t understand my point, then you give me a silly example which is almost a perfect vehicle for illustrating my own point.[/quote]

Yes - that is absolutely correct. And it has nothing to do with my comprehension skills, and everything to do with your ability to convey a coherent thought. How many folks have you had to correct on this very thread?

The problem is - you don’t make a clear point. You are just vague enough so that anyone that comments on what you say is wrong.

Try saying exactly what you mean in one sentence or less, and sticking by it. Your technique is frustrating to say the least.