Hard to Get
Robert Farley ends a post on Israeli dislike of the Bush-era Polish missile scheme with a nice observation:
It turns out, rather, that neither the Poles nor the Israelis care overmuch about the other; rhetorical support for the neocon vision of liberty/missile defense/bunker busting/awesomeness/sexy/democracy/whiskey collapses in the face of real world material interest. In the end, it’s almost as if our allies value material and institutional commitments to their defense more than they value a nebulous American reputation for “toughness”.
Something the United States seem to have lost site of, is that alliance with and assistance from the country with the biggest economy and the largest military on the planet is a valuable thing to have. This is especially true because since we’re geographically isolated up here in North America and also a friendly democracy with a somewhat robust commitment to human rights, most countries and organizations are going to see us as a more desirable partner than whatever the locally available alternative is. This is something that ought to be turned to our advantage. Pretty much everyone needs us more than we need them, which ought to give us all the leverage.
But a hawkish disposition and an obsession with toughness tend to erode our ability to play hard to get. For example, consider the widespread ideas that we’re fighting a “necessary” war in Afghanistan and that the cooperation of Hamid Karzai is vital to our success in that war. These two ideas, when put in combination, lead to the slightly absurd conclusion that securing the cooperation of Hamid Karzai is necessary for the national security of the most powerful country on earth. In the real world, it should be the other way around. We have interests in Afghanistan that it would be nice to successfully pursue. But Karzai’s interests are much more fundamental than ours. What’s necessary—or at least closer to necessary—is for him to secure our cooperation by acting in a way that’s helpful. And it’s the same for Poland and Georgia and all the rest. Relationships with friendly clients are nice to have, but the wise superpower should know how to play hard to get.
27 Responses to “Hard to Get”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 26th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Something the United States seem to have lost site of
Beyond the ability to spell…
October 26th, 2009 at 9:00 am
I find it rather interesting that the issue of the missile defense system proposed for Eastern Europe finds the neocons and the Government of Israel at odds. The biggest critics of President Osama on this issue are none other then Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol, two of the biggest supporters of the State of Israel. Reminds one of the run up to the Iraq adventure when the neocons were the biggest supporters of the adventure while Ariel Sharon was advising Lawrence Wilkerson that it was not a good idea. So much for the notion that the neocons are the lapdogs and the pawns of the Government of Israel.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Apropos of this post, I assume that Mr. Yglesias is going to report to his readers about the doings over that the JStreet conference. They had a full page ad in todays Washington Post boasting about the distinguished participants in the conference.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:05 am
14 Americans killed today in Afghanistan.
This is something puzzling: from Afghanistan and Iraq come only bad news, day after day. And never any really good news. You would think that after some time, the burden of proof would shift to the warmongers’ side: why should we stay when there is so little progress after years and years of war?
But that doesn’t seem to be the case, and instead the case for withdrawal has to be made over and over again; as if the ever-increasing casualties didn’t matter at all.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:08 am
But a hawkish disposition and an obsession with toughness tend to erode our ability to play hard to get.
I’m no foreign policy expert, but it doesn’t strike me as immediately foolish to analogise these kind of international relationships with personal relationships. After all, a lot of it is driven by powerful personalities, and populist domestic politics, not just technocratic calculation of national interest.
And, it gives me an excuse to share my image of the recent US-Australia dynamic in Iraq and Afghanistan as being much like the relationship in Rebel Without a Cause – of Jim Stark (frustrated, angry, desperate to be some kind of man/father figure) and Plato (smitten, physically protected in a historic time of need, now forever happy to put on Jim’s jacket and run into the line of fire).
andy
October 26th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Matthew’s basic mistake is that he views foreign policy issues in terms of serving the national interest of the American People. In reality, our foreign policy largely services the interests of small factions who make big campaign donations.
US elites don’t give a hairy rat’s ass about “Democracy” in Afghanistan — given that they don’t even support democracy in the USA. What they see in Afghanistan is (a) a base from which to launch an attach on Iran –because it would be “Good for Israel” and (b) a corridor for export of Caspian Sea oil and natural gas.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:28 am
What they see in Afghanistan is (a) a base from which to launch an attach on Iran –because it would be “Good for Israel” and (b) a corridor for export of Caspian Sea oil and natural gas.
Honestly there would be more obvious countries than Afghanistan to invade and occupy if the goal was to grab oil and natural gas — like, say, Iraq. Iraq also seems like a great “base from which to launch an attach on Iran”, it’s right next door with a long border.
The military-industrial complex probably likes the Afghanistan war because… we’re there already, so the “defense” costs can more easily be converted directly into profits. So any reason – Al Qaeda, angry Talibans, Vampires… – will be good enough as far as they are concerned.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:29 am
In the real world, it should be the other way around. We have interests in Afghanistan that it would be nice to successfully pursue.
If you postulate that this *not* a necessary war, then there are actually *no* interests that the US has in Afghanistan. It’s the logical contrapositive, no?
You can’t have your Wilsonian cake and eat it with your Realpolitik fork (or maybe that should be the other way around)
October 26th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Ya but if the policy depends critically on the political fortunes of one person, the policy is deeply flawed. Here today, gone tomorrow.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:37 am
MY “Pretty much everyone needs us more than we need them, which ought to give us all the leverage.”
Oh yeah. Now we are on to something.
Matty, what would China and Russia have to give up if we said, “okay boys, even though we are 3 decades ahead of you two in ABM deployment capabilities, we will sign a Tri-Partite ABM Limitations and Reductions Treaty?” THE FARM. Right? They would both have to give up the farm.
Now, China, they kinda hoodwinked us out of 2 point whatever trillion. What if we said, “China, why don’t we just call that little debt even?” I think China would volunteer to give up most of that potentially worthless paper -in a heartbeat- and be willing to play a little fairer in the future, if you know what I mean. wink wink
China’s easy. But what the hell could Russia have that we want? Remember now, they owe us more than China. Much more. Russia(USSR) cost us 60 years and $27 trillion, give or take.
The only thing I can think of is nukes. Russia has nukes out the ass.
Now Obama did make that speech in Prague, didn’t he? And he did say maybe in his lifetime. Left the possibility wide open.
October 26th, 2009 at 9:55 am
But a hawkish disposition and an obsession with toughness tend to erode our ability to play hard to get.
This can’t be emphasized enough. But somehow, among the pundits that pride themselves of being masters of the realpolitik, this argument is virtually never used.
Which should tell us something. Namely, what commenter Don Williams said
“Matthew’s basic mistake is that he views foreign policy issues in terms of serving the national interest of the American People. In reality, our foreign policy largely services the interests of small factions who make big campaign donations.”
October 26th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Can we try a bit of honesty?
Obama does not give a rat fuck about Afghanistan except as it affects his domestic politics.
His BlahBlahBlah about Afghanistan during the campain was intended only to enable him to distance himself from his
opponents on Iraq while covering his defense ass by playing tough on Afghanistan.
Now he simply needs to placate the Left by dithering a bit before announcing the Obama surge.
That surge is intended to give Obama sufficient breathing room to engineer an eventual draw down rather independent of “success” by redefining that word. We already see that process being pushed forward with the talk of negotiating with the Taliban “better half”.
In other words Obama is willing to go on killing hundreds if not thousands to avoid the certain political debacle that any other “strategy” will engender.
Obama learned an ungodly lot from Bushit.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:12 am
One word to destroy them all, the nice little realpolitik pet theories “left”(=right in non US terms) or “right”(= right radical in non US terms): Nukes.
Speaking of the country from which you leaned the word ,but where no one expect political scientists even knows it, it gets rid of all nukes on its soil now finally. Smart move.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:23 am
a somewhat robust commitment to human rights
Dude: have you read the paper in the last 3 or 4 decades?
We killed millions of peasants in Vietnam. We support murderous dictators over democratic outcomes all over the 3rd world. And we got a million people killed in Iraq, while practicing torture.
Give it up, bro. Let the illusions go. You have to be seriously drugged or a Republican to believe THAT nonsense any more.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:01 am
When will we see MattY t-shirts that say “the wise superpower should know how to play hard to get?”
October 26th, 2009 at 11:10 am
If you postulate that this *not* a necessary war, then there are actually *no* interests that the US has in Afghanistan. It’s the logical contrapositive, no?
No. Not all interests are important enough to start a war over, let alone make such a war *necessary*.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
The Fool:
We killed millions of peasants in Vietnam. We support murderous dictators over democratic outcomes all over the 3rd world. And we got a million people killed in Iraq, while practicing torture.
Who is we? Human Rights Watch?
During the Cold War we supported dictators b/c they were the enemy of our enemy, the Communists. That didn’t make it right and there’s a lot of blowback for that sort of thing, see Afghanistan, Saddam, etc. etc.
But now we support dicators in a policy of realpolitik, except for Pakistan where Musharraf was pushed out and Iraq where dictatorship was replaced by elections. Same with Afghanistan. See Egypt etc. War wouldn’t be better.
The Peaceniks have been saying for a while now that we’re going to war with Iran. Why haven’t we yet?
October 26th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
America doesn’t support human rights in other countries more than Europe does. In fact, it does it less.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
@poptarts:
I’m not sure I see where you’re coming from but I would just note the following:
1) you don’t get a human rights pass because you are supporting the enemy of your enemy
2) we support realpolitik now? Really? cause I don’t see Iraq that way at all unless we “really” were trying to waste unbelievable amounts of lives, resources, and good will in order to establish a Shiite theocracy in what was one of the only secular states in the Middle East.
My point is that we don’t support human rights. Jimmy Carter did but the neocons defeated him and laughed at his policy ever since.
We have killed or helped kill millions. Killing is not a form of respecting rights.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“Something the United States seem to have lost site of”
If you take all of Matt’s misused homonyms and string them together in chronological order they reveal a secret message from his neocon handlers to the troops in the feeled.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Matt, your thesis is likely correct for Poland and Israel, but it’s hard to see how it really applies to Karzai, or anyone who would be leading Afghanistan. People in Afghanistan don’t like us, and don’t want us around, their politicians won’t score many points having our favor, but Karzai has and will get silly rich as long as he’s leading Afghanistan, whenever we do leave he won’t need us, he’ll just need to get out of the country alive and live the high life off all the ill-gotten riches he won as our favored client.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Nate Says:
October 26th, 2009 at 11:01 am
When will we see MattY t-shirts that say “the wise superpower should know how to play hard to get?”
====================================================
Shortly after he issues the “Sonia Sotomayor is a wide Latina” t-shirts. The all-time champion Yglesias typo
October 26th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
The Fool:
1) you don’t get a human rights pass because you are supporting the enemy of your enemy
I agree. We should start conditioning our support on respect for democracy and human rights. At least detail what the recipient country is doing that we don’t like, which is what Obama did for Uribe’s government in Columbia, unlike Bush and Clinton. Like with Israel, Egypt, etc. But for instance we give the Saudis a pass b/c of oil and b/c they don’t talk of wiping Israel off the map on a weekly basis.
The Fool.
2) we support realpolitik now? Really? cause I don’t see Iraq that way at all unless we “really” were trying to waste unbelievable amounts of lives, resources, and good will in order to establish a Shiite theocracy in what was one of the only secular states in the Middle East.
Obama just did Realpolitik with Iran. They had a military coup and an unprecedented uprising by the civil society. The Iranians are killing American soldiers in Iraq. But he’s not talking about any of it b/c nuclear proliferation takes higher priority. He did give a good speech in Cairo which the Israelis didn’t like.
I think we did push out Musharraf b/c the lawyers protests were too much.
You need to do your homework.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
@Poptarts:
My main point for Matthew is that one cannot say the U.S. has a robust commitment to human rights because it flies in the face of the historical evidence.
Since you’ve apparently conceded all my original points after posting what appeared to be an exception taking response to my original post, I’ll skip the homework. Next time save us both some time by not pretending to have a counterpoint.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
most countries and organizations are going to see us as a more desirable partner than whatever the locally available alternative is.
Organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, ASEAN, and Unasur are sprouting up all over the world precisely because the US is less desirable as a partner than the local alternative.
the wise superpower
Hubris may have something to do with the US being rejected all over the world. God, if there is somebody more insufferable than a Yank neocon it is a Yank liberal imperialist.
The empire is crumbling.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:04 am
I found your blog on google and read a few Thanks for the information you mentioned here, I’m looking forward to see your future posts. Cheers !! Please come visit my site Las Vegas City Business Listings when you got time.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:42 am
[...] blathering about Liancourt Rocks, what the US gets for allowing both Japan and the ROK to free-ride on America’s defensive generosity. Why the US listens to Seoul’s blather about unification still amazes me. Something the [...]