QandO
Questions and Observations| « So, how's that NMCI deal working out for you? | Main | See? A million of 'em » |
|
July 29, 2004 A New Grand Strategy After my post touching on Grand Strategy last night, I find it interesting that in this morning's Los Angeles Times, former senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart calls for the creation of a new Grand Strategy for the United States. A grand strategy is simply the application of a nation's powers to the achievement of larger purposes. I would argue we have three such purposes: to ensure security (both for ourselves and, where possible, for others), to expand opportunity and to promote liberal democracy around the world. And to achieve them, we can harness three powers — economic, political and military — far superior to anyone else's. Our economy is larger than the next four or five national economies combined. We have an unrivaled diplomatic and political network. And soon we will spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. Hart has just published a new book, The Fourth Power: A Grand Strategy for the United States in the Twenty-First Century, that addresses this very subject. I haven't read it, so I don't know whether I would agree with his conclusions about what our strategy should actually be, but his analysis about the necessity of having a Grand Strategy is very accurate. From 1945 to 1991, when the USSR fell into the ash-heap of history, our Grand Strategy was the containment and, eventually, the defeat of Soviet Communism. Practically every international effort we made, as well as many national ones, were predicated upon this strategy. This strategy was bipartisan, and its utility was unquestioned. Since then, however, we've done practically nothing to create a national strategy. Lacking the overriding threat of Soviet Communism, we've let the idea of a necessary, worldwide, strategic goal for the United States lay fallow. After the end of the Cold War, the general feeling in Washington has been that, with the disappearance of the USSR, the need for a national Grand Strategy has vanished as well. Nothing could be further from the truth. The War on Terror is in many ways strategic, at least in the sense that it requires a sustained worldwide effort to achieve a national goal, but it doesn't quite fall into the realm of Grand Strategy. Terror is a symptom of a problem we need to address through Grand Strategy. It is not the problem itself. The problem is the lack of liberal democracy, and the lack of appreciation that the proper role of government should be limited to protecting the rights of the citizens, and that, for government power to be legitimate, it must operate under the free and open audit of the citizenry. In addition, the ability to create wealth in many places in the world is extremely limited. As Hernando De Soto has pointed out in his book, The Mystery of Capital, there is nearly $9 trillion worth of "dead capital" in the Third World, because the owners of the capital cannot produce proof of ownership that would allow them to invest it, or borrow against it to create additional sources of wealth. In many countries, simply registering the ownership of a home may require years of effort, and literally hundreds of trips to various government offices. The 30-day escrow process that we take for granted will provide us with indisputable legal proof of ownership is, in most of the world, an unattainable dream. President Bush has made a faltering start in this direction by beginning a program to liberalize and democratize the Arab world. But the Arab world is not the sole locus of the problem, just the most radical one. The fact is that living under authoritarian governments, surviving from day to day in crushing poverty, while having no hope of social or economic advancement, is a prescription for frustration and discontent, at the very least. "Where there is no vision", the Bible tells us, "the people perish." Since the end of the Cold War, we have had no great national vision. Perhaps it's time to go about the business of acquiring one once again. |
"Our Grand Strategy was the containment and, eventually, the defeat of Soviet Communism.... This strategy was bipartisan, and its utility was unquestioned."
That may have been true until about 1968, but after that the strategy was not bipartisan. I remember the bumper stickers on Democrats' cars saying "Better Red than Dead." I remember Jimmy Carter telling us to get over our "inordinate fear of Communism" (though he did begin installing those missiles in Europe--one of the few good things he did). I remember the howls of protest against Ronald Reagan naming the "evil empire."
We should not let the liberals get away with rewriting their history. I'm sure that's not what you meant to do. You may have just got caught up in the (misleading) speeches at the Democratic convention.
Posted by: Rory Daulton at July 29, 2004 04:24 PM
I don't get caught up in "misleading speeches". Indeed, if you'll scroll down on the blog, you'll see my rather savage fisking ofCarters misrepresnation of his presidency. Still, I stand by my assessment. Even Jimmy Carter, who went into the office a wide-eyed innocent about the Sovs, ended up starting the massive military buildup that Reagan continued, and expanded.
It is true that, in the 1970s and 1980s, Democrats became less interested in containing communism, as the hippie kids of the 60s began to come into positions of power. But, since, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, adults were running the show, the disaffection of the Democratic Party's young left wing was unimportant. And, after his first two years of naivete, Carter began to wise up as well about the Sovs.
In any event, Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ were stanuch anti-communists and Cold Warriors. And even Carter became one.
Moreover, despite bitching from the left, the Democrats who, after all, controlled Congress until 1992, essentially supported the policy, giving president's most of what they asked for to contain the Sovs.
I doubt they'd do it today, now that the aging hippies are running the show for the Dems, but they did do it from 45 to 91.
Posted by: Dale Franks at July 29, 2004 04:36 PM
Mr. Franks,
I am a relative newcomer to this site, and a first time poster. I must say that I have consistently enjoyed your posts. An excellent take on the larger focus of the War on Terror. I particularly think that your De Soto observation is right on mark. I sincerely believe that we are living in the "Golden Age" of U.S. foreign policy, and that President Bush and his advisors will be remembered as visionary architects of the so-called "Pax Americana." That said, I think Hart is attempting to draft a New Age, Democratic vision of the international peace which is the equivalent of President Bush's War on Terror.
It seems Hart borrowing largely from the larger Bush vision of exporting democracy and strategic nation building. However, Hart must place the agenda in terms which he hopes Democrats will embrace. "The Fourth Power" sounds like the foreign policy equivalent of Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline and just the fuzzy kind of policy a liberal wonk like Hart would adopt. Anyway, I digress.
Needless to say, I won't be reading Hart's book, but I am glad that it seems that at least one Democrat recognizes that his party needs to develop a more sophisticated foreign policy in the coming years.
However, I have been watching Hillary Clinton's voting record on the war with great interest. Her rhetoric may be partisan, but her votes have been consistently hawkish since 9/11.
Posted by: George Connolly at July 29, 2004 06:54 PM
This--the view of democracy-expansion as vital to our national interests--is exactly where the neoconservative foreign policy (or, as Krauthammer calls it, "Democratic Globalism") grabs my attention.
In fact, it strikes me that the less radical among them may be the genuine Realists in the foreign policy world today.
Posted by: Jon Henke at July 29, 2004 07:05 PM
My "misleading speeches" comment was meant to be a joke--I guess I presented it poorly.
But you seem to agree with me on most of the details, even if our conclusions differ. We agree that the Democrats were strong on anti-communism from 1945 to 1991--when I agreed with 1945 to 1968, and you agreed that Carter, the only Democratic president from 1969 to 1991, was week on it. (Half a presidency being very weak and half trying to be strong but mostly failing [the Olympics boycott certainly did not succeed at anything and I don't remember Carter changing his mind on communist adventures in South America] adds up to being weak overall.) And we agree that there was "bitching from the left."
I disagree that "the disaffection of the Democratic Party's young left wing was unimportant." I remember that both Carter and Reagan had real trouble putting missles in Europe and Reagan had trouble with SDI due to Democratic resistance. Reagan did not succeed due to the Democratic leadership, but due to the "Reagan Democrats" breaking away from the that leadership. I don't see bi-partisanship here, at best one-and-a-third-partisanship.
Regarding "adults were running the show": do you really believe that McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis were all strong anti-communist warriers?
Posted by: Rory Daulton at July 29, 2004 07:18 PM
No, I meant that, for the most part, Cold Warriors of both parties were president.
Posted by: Dale franks at July 29, 2004 10:40 PM
How about this for a grand strategy...
http://newamericancentury.org/
Posted by: John Davies at July 30, 2004 09:53 AM
Vision is one of the greatest keys to success, followed by a resolve to follow that vision.
I think that Bush really doesn't have vision. There was a point right after the two towers fell that the whole world felt united, where Governments everywhere started working together.
I have never felt a greater feeling of hope for the world than at that point. I think a visionary leader would have taken that opportunity to do good across the world.
Instead the path led to Iraq. I think at this point countries have a right to feel aggressive towards the US as our policies (mainly that of the treasury, IMF, etc) have extremely damaging effects on the countries. If our policies would listen to some of the great economists of our time (Joseph Stiglitz for example) and follow policies that have proven extremely successful for 3rd world countries we would see people appreciate us.
I think of it like a rich parent who is willing to tell you that they support you, tell you that you have to go to University and then not help you get there. Like tying your hands and telling you to get yourself out of it.
Posted by: Heath Weaver at August 3, 2004 05:49 AM