Furthermore, I am quite sure that no body would want the U.S. to do concessions that are not in its own interest. To ask that would be stupid.

I agree with you on the stupidity part, but on your first statement, I think you really must be very tired and not thinking clearly LOL. How about these examples: those who think the US shouldn’t support Israel because it enflames the Palestinians and inspires terrorism, or Iran and NK’s assertion that they should be allowed to have nuclear power and the opinion of some doves that the US ought not to say that this option is off the table in any negotiations? Or those who feel that our entire response to 9/11 should have been to seek out the root causes of terrorism such as Bin Laden’s complaint about US intervention in the first Gulf War?

I’d say there are numerous examples of this “stupidity”. And that’s sort of my point: doves might “win” arguments more often if they proposed policies that make sense, to support the US interests even if they also want to be more careful in avoiding aggression.

Contrasted with that, though, is the approach whereby the powerful nation doesn’t shun it’s power or make concessions, but it does pursue it’s own interests in ways as much as possible that tend to also provide the common good for other countries that are peaceful, democratic, and mindful of human rights for their citizens. I’m advocating that the US should take that approach.

I think that whatever you do, foreign policy wise, one has to compromise, or “making concessions”. Furthermore, I am quite sure that no body would want the U.S. to do concessions that are not in its own interest. To ask that would be stupid.

My approach, however, is that what might not – at first glance – appear to be in one’s own interest in the short run, might be in one’s interesting in the long run nonetheless.

C.Prez… heh. Yeah, different kind of Hawks of course.

http://www.nba.com/standings/team_record_comparison/conferenceNew_Std_Div.html

First, I’m saying that a powerful nation inherently arouses concern, fear, and resentment among the less powerful (independent of anything that nation actually does: just simply due to the fact of it’s powerful status and that it COULD do things that aren’t in the interest of the little guys). It may be an overgeneralization to say that’s 100% true, but I think it’s pretty close (not sure if you disagree with this part?)

Next, I’m saying that this means that the powerful nation has a difficult task if it wants to be seen as a benevolent giant. And I’m saying that I feel the US has failed pretty badly on that (actually, that it hasn’t even tried very hard).

Then I’m trying to make a distinction between two different ways that a powerful nation can conceivably try to convince the less powerful that it has good intentions. One way is what I would consider appeasement: making concessions to others that are not in its own best interest. Generally, I’m not a fan of this method (though it may have it’s place) because generally I think it results in the less powerful nation simply trying to take advantage (the chink in the armor theory). Generally I think that such demands for concessions aren’t always what they appear to be on the surface: instead of actually wanting this or that, the demands are often more like power plays and the less powerful group will use concessions as an opportunity to further erode the powerful one’s status and to continue to ask for more (any argument that this isn’t the modus operandi of Hamas, for example?)

Contrasted with that, though, is the approach whereby the powerful nation doesn’t shun it’s power or make concessions, but it does pursue it’s own interests in ways as much as possible that tend to also provide the common good for other countries that are peaceful, democratic, and mindful of human rights for their citizens. I’m advocating that the US should take that approach. We wouldn’t get it right 100% of the time (sometimes giants have big footsteps and can’t help but cause damage even when intentions are good) but I think we could do a heck of a lot better than we have in the past, particularly in Central/South America and in the Middle East.

Execllent summary, with some good insights added. This is one of your best posts. And thanks for all the links.

BYG: thank you very much, and no problem of course: glad you enjoyed reading this post.

C.S.:

Err on the side of seeing a threat and yes, you may be creating more conflict and missing opportunities for peaceful coexistence, but err on the side of missing a real threat and you may allow your nation to be attacked or destroyed.

Very true. I think that it was Chicago Boyz who pointed that out: one could very well reason that it is a survival skill.

You also write:

But if the more powerful attempts to subdue it’s own power in an attempt to earn trust, the reaction is always for the less powerful to view this as weakness and take the opportunity to gain stronger footing. I suppose this is because the previous powerful stance is has already been viewed with distrust, so that any lowering of the threshold becomes a chink in the armor rather than an opportunity for friendship.

I think that you are making a tragic mistake here. Sure, in some instance your assumptions might be right (for instance with Hitler), but I dare to say that in the majority of instances, you’re wrong. Thinking like you do, is thinking like a hawk (so I can – to a degree recognize myself in it), but you have to be careful: generalizations seldom are best when dealing with hundreds of nations with completely different cultures and regimes.

Also, I am tired, so perhaps I’m missing something, but you seem to be contradicting yourself: the last paragraph almost states the opposite of the former. To me at least. Perhaps I’m wrong, and if so I apologize (again, I’m exhausted), but…

Ataturk:

While Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Jean Jaures all merit discussion and are praised in bromides, at the time they were often shouted down and abused and in the case of all three men, gunned down.

The MacArthurs & Pattons of the world, however, have one enabler after another deifying them writ large while apologizing for their shortcomings.

To a degree at least, you’re right. Again, an argument in favor of the article at Foreign Policy.

Highly interesting material imo.

I’ve always felt that there is a great distinction between the behavior of individuals and that of nations, though of course there are some commonalities. Since individuals are hard wired to see danger to enable their survival, it certainly makes sense that the individuals who lead nations (and in democracies, those that elect them) would be biased toward seeing threats from other nations or groups. And a survival instinct is at work here: it’s not just a matter of whether the assessment of risk is accurate, it’s partly a matter of what the stakes are if one is wrong. Err on the side of seeing a threat and yes, you may be creating more conflict and missing opportunities for peaceful coexistence, but err on the side of missing a real threat and you may allow your nation to be attacked or destroyed.

Trust rarely comes easily even in interpersonal relationships so it’s no shock that it is so rare in international ones.

As far as the argument made by Attaturk that Christian nations don’t usually act in a Christian manner (not turning the other cheek, so to speak), I agree but again I attribute this to the difference in individual vs. group mentality (a group or nation does not have a soul or a conscience unto itself), as well as differences in group dynamics. My reflection on geopolitical history shows that it is only the weaker side that can have Ghandi or MLK moments of passive resistance (note: resistance, as in resistance to a stronger force). Why? Because of how a powerful group or nation is perceived by the less powerful. Power always creates a sense of fear and resentment in those it is directed toward, even if the power is directed in a benevolent way. The burden of proof is on the powerful nation to always act benevolently and eventually earn more trust.

But if the more powerful attempts to subdue it’s own power in an attempt to earn trust, the reaction is always for the less powerful to view this as weakness and take the opportunity to gain stronger footing. I suppose this is because the previous powerful stance is has already been viewed with distrust, so that any lowering of the threshold becomes a chink in the armor rather than an opportunity for friendship.

So, my view is that being a powerful nation carries a very grave responsibility. I don’t believe that such nations can successfully yield their power (which is what a pure dove position would have it do). Rather, the nation should continue to ‘use’ it’s power, but always in a benevolent way. It should always be the example of a nation deserving of that power. I believe the US has failed to do so, many times over, and I think this is where corrections should be made. For example, I don’t believe the US is wrong to be coercive when it is attempting to create better conditions for citizens of another country (whether that be through military fighting or through incentives for other governments to reform). But I do believe we’re wrong when we conduct foreign policy only according to our own interests at the expense of the people of other nations. Then we lose the moral high ground and give reasons for other countries to distrust us.

While Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Jean Jaures all merit discussion and are praised in bromides, at the time they were often shouted down and abused and in the case of all three men, gunned down.

The MacArthurs & Pattons of the world, however, have one enabler after another deifying them writ large while apologizing for their shortcomings.