The Tectonic Theory of Diplomacy

I had a recent argument about the effects of the Bush Administration's diplomacy on the position of the United States in the world. I was not defending this diplomacy as such; instead, I was asserting that day-to-day diplomacy, or even year-to-year diplomacy only has impact at the margins. what really makes a difference are the fundamentals that underlie the relations of nations.

This position was met with some skepticism. I still think it is true. The ambassador to the UK could vomit on the Queen's shoes (or the President could vomit on the Japanese prime minister's lap) and it would just be laughed off as a merry prank. On the other hand, The United States could give billions of dollars to Egypt every year -- wait, it does give billions to Egypt every year -- and it can barely get Egypt to send a foreign minister to a meaningless meeting in Annapolis. In my view, this is easily explained. At the end of the day, the UK and the US are natural allies. They may spat about things, but their interests are too much in common for any long-term split to exist, regardless of any single event. On the other hand, Egypt simply can never get too close to the US. No matter how accommodating the US is, Egypt's interests and the US's interests are too dissimilar for any real long term alliance.

What do you think?

Vietnam: Third and Fourth Thoughts

I was brought up on the standard story: Vietnam was an unmitigated disaster. It was a war that was unwinnable and was an example of American hubris and inability of the American military to overcome an indigenous revolution. This is still the dominant narration in America; it certainly is among mainstream Democrats and the mainstream media and academics. It is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Intermittently, there have been claims that the war was winnable, or even was in the process of being won. These revisionist views are based on a variety of theories, most of which I am unable to fully follow, in part, no doubt, because I have not spent much time trying to do so. Further, there is always something a bit difficult about most such counterfactual recountings of history; they tend to assume that the author can change one side of the equation and assume that the other side would not have changed. In fact, of course, a change in strategy by the US would also have provoked a change in strategy by the North Vietnamese, China, and others who had a role in the outcome of the dispute.

This brings me to the third thought, raised independently in two different articles I have read in different contexts. In a nutshell, the argument is as follows. Yes, the war in Vietnam was unwinnable. That does not mean, however, that it was a failure. Instead, the fact that the US was willing to contest in Vietnam created breathing room for other countries in Asia to develop into viable, non-Communist countries. This idea, raised by, for example, the former prime minister of Singapore, does have something to say for itself. In retrospect, the entire Cold War
was really a long-term holding action. In that context, even conflicts that ultimately resulted in losses might have had value in the same way that a fighting retreat anticipates giving ground, but making each gain costly. By the time the Vietnam War was over, the Soviet Union had already lost substantial momentum internationally and had begun to ossify and mainland China was losing some of its initial revolutionary fervor.

My fourth thought, however, is that this story still is too simple. Suppose Eisenhower had held to his original position, and given the French no support whatsoever, but had instead given some support to Ho on the condition of distance from the USSR? Or suppose Kennedy had found a way to pull the other Asian countries together without getting deeply involved? Things might have turned out as well or better at much less cost in life to both sides.

I have no answer at this point. Perhaps the only point is that the first story may not be the only story, or it may require more nuance. Only time will tell.

Iowa Primary

Even people I respect have no idea what is going to happen in the Iowa primary. At this point, my view is that everyone should just stop and wait to see what happens. There is just no benefit to making more wild-ass predictions. No wonder people get tired of the elections; by the time they actually happen, it seems like we have already lived through them about a hundred times.

Two other points. First, I hope Ron Paul loses so badly we can finally escort him off the public stage. Enough is enough. Even setting aside the questionable character of some of his supporters, he is just a loon. Second, is there any chance that any candidate will actually admit that he or she did much worse than expected? Do we really have to listen to every single candidate claim victory?

Just a Quick Thought About Hiroshima

Before anyone talks to me about Hiroshima, they have to be prepared to talk about Okinawa and Manchuria. I just wanted to point that out.

Go Back to Blood Banking

Yet another non-governmental organization has distinguished itself by failing to have the slightest bit of common sense concerning the Middle East. This time it is the Red Cross. I was just getting over the fact that the international Red Cross had refused for so many years to allow the Israeli branch to officially use the Star of David becuase it would offend all the Islamic brenches using the Red Crescent. Finally, they reached a gutless compromise in which Israel used a red prism, or red trepezoid, or some such internationally, but could use the Star within Israel. Weaselly, but not actually insulting.

Now the Red Cross has decided to denounce Israel becuase of "humanitarian" concerns in Gaza. It puts the blame squarely on Israel for the situation. No mention of the rockets. No mention of the terrorist attacks. No mention of Shalit, still a prisoner.

So who cares? Well, once again, a possible neutral intermediary, or honest broker has now been discredited, leaving one fewer. Once again, the world demonstrates that Israel cannot depend on any objectivity or real neutrality when it comes to interntational organizations. All this makes any real peace harder, particularly when and if some aspect depends on some third party to inspect or enforce the terms of the agreement.

Red Cross, let me introduce you to Amnesty International, another NGO whose credibility in the Middle East is now in tatters. I hope this works out for you.

National "Intelligence" Estimate

Has anyone ever seen such an intellectually bankrupt document? If a student had given me this work, I not only would have failed him or her, I would have suggested that they consider a career that did not involve analytical thought. What is surprising is not that these bozos wound up issuing this thing -- after all, I am no longer surprised by any level of stupidity from the government -- but that it has received such general criticism not only from Israel, but from so many others. Let's be serious. If the UN criticizes a report as being too speculative and unfounded, that says something.

I don't know why this came out, or why it came out now. I leave that to insiders. What is clear is that Iran continues to lie about its activities, stonewall in negotiations, and proceed with activities that are only consistent with the production of weaponized material.

Is there anyone who thinks we should rely on the NIE, give a sigh of relief, and turn away from Iran? If so, tell me why.

Annapolis

Well, we are now some days post-Annapolis and what do we know? The PA General Assembly has voted that any concession to Israel will be deemed to be high treason. Egypt continues to turn a blind eye toward weapons smuggling by Hamas and just let hundreds out of Gaza contrary to agreements under the guise of the annual pilgramage. Rockets still land in Israel and any response is termed "despicable." In other words, more of the same.

Basically, Annapolis did nothing. Sometimes pointless discussions do make things worse, because they make real negotiations nearly impossible. As long as the Palestinians continue to think that they can make progress without real concessions, the talks will always be a failure. And where was Kuwait? The US saved that country and they cannot be bothered to even show up.

This was a charade. The sooner the world realizes that, some real progress might be achieved.

Welcome

Following in the path of so many others, I have decided to create a blog of my own. Its purpose is simple. I intend to make comments and observations on the world trying to set aside popularity, faddishness, emotion, and all the other things that diverts us from the truth. At the end of the day, we cannot make meaningful choices as persons or nations without first seeing things as they are rather than what we want them to be.

I invite all comments, good or bad. I will only edit those if they become personal or they are irrelevant.

Take your best shot.