Neoconservatism’s Tradeoffs Problem
One of the signature elements of neoconservative foreign policy is a complete refusal to set priorities or talk about tradeoffs. Whatever problem we happen to be talking about right now needs to be met with bold and decisive action, casting caution to the wind, irrespective of how that impacts other things around the world. Matt Duss brings us a great example, the contradictions between the neocon approach to Russia and the neocon approach to Iran:
At an American Enterprise Institute event today — “Should Israel Attack Iran?” (yes, they’re obviously trying to get peoples’ attention) — former Ambassador Martin Indyk revealed an interesting wrinkle to the story of Eastern European missile defense system, which the Obama administration canceled last month, a move conservatives have heavily criticized as — what else? — appeasement.
Recounting recent meetings with Israeli national security officials, Indyk said that “the Israelis were upset at the way that Bush had offended Russia with missile defense” in Eastern Europe. The Israelis, like many Americans and most of the rest of the world, saw the deployment of untested missile defense technology in Poland and the Czech Republic as needlessly provocative of Russia, whose support is seen as necessary for any effort to bring Iran’s nuclear program under control.
A simple point but an easy one. Right-wing Israelis can easily afford to hope for the United States to take a neoconnish line on Iran. And right-wing Poles can afford to hope fro the United States to take a neoconnish line on Russia. But the desires of right-wing Israelis are in significant tension with those of right-wing Poles. And officials in the United States of America can’t realistically take a maximalist line on every point of geopolitical tension. Regional powers basically have their priorities set for them by circumstances. But the hegemon has the luxury of deciding what it cares about. That luxury, however, doesn’t eliminate the basic need to decide.
12 Responses to “Neoconservatism’s Tradeoffs Problem”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 25th, 2009 at 10:07 am
I think a mistake is made attributing strategic objectives to neocons. At base most neocons simply want blood. They want to see bodies piled up. It’s really quite simple.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:13 am
In the neocon comic book, every bad guy is Hitler, they’re Churchill, and anybody who disses them is Chamberlain.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Domestic considerations, meaning especially the resourceful, influential US Jewish community explains why US policy in this case prioritized the Israeli neo-con view over the Polish one.
A priori, nobody would think Iran is a more potentially threatening enemy for the US than Russia.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Not every bad guy is Hitler, everyone (good or bad) who refuse to obey is Hitler. “The New American Century” – it’s a garden variety imperial worldview, like “The Thousand Year Reich” or “Roma AEterna”.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Love what Kafka says at #2. I especially love the way today’s right wing whipping boys (Nixon, Agnew, McCarthy, Hitler, Chamberlain) are usually figures that their direct political ancestors – or they themselves – considered admirable when it counted.
The tradeoffs we need to think about, of course, are not only varying effects on regional powers, but on ourselves: how much money, blood and moral capital will we need to spend, and are the results realistically likely to be achieved worth the costs?
October 25th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Far worse, they don’t acknowledge the tradeoff between launching wars and domestic priorities. Once the nations of Europe stopped launching destructive wars with one another, they quickly found a way to pay for all their citizens’ health care.
October 25th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Matt, they believe in the simplicity of dominoes, the neocons. Dominoes can either fall for you or against you, but they are always lined up, and they always fall.
The negative scenario: If Vietnam falls -Laos goes, Cambodia goes, Thailand goes, Malaysia goes, India goes, it all goes. They all fall.
The positive scenario: If you invade Iraq -the Iraqi army surrenders, Iraqi soldiers return home with their weapons but don’t use them, the people warmly great you, a free market appears, the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shia shake hands, free and fair elections take place, Iraq becomes a sturdy Democracy, Iran follows, Syria follows, Egypt follows…ah horsefeathers, you know the rest. Middle East Peace results.
Don’t neocon types play chess as young students attending Foreign Policy University? At old ivy stained FPU? They should. A complex game of interacting forces of various strengths and gravitational pulls should be a mandatory part of their curriculum.
Not dominoes. Dominoes are for slappin!
October 25th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Does anybody remember the little starburst-infused pieces neoconservatives used to write when the Lord of the Rings movies came out?
That’s really how they see the world. International politics is an eternal struggle between glorious elves and evil orcs. You can tell we’re the elves, because we’re the good guys, because we’re us. The only bad decision is not to fight early enough.
And there’s no need for strategic thought, because once again, we’re the elves, the good guys, and if we demonstrate enough will, the giant eagles will swoop down to save us in the end.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
The real point comes later on in the Duss’s post: Bolton’s absolute belief that force is necessary.
For the truly hard-line neocons, there is no inconsistency between upsetting Russia and controlling Iran’s nuclear program. They don’t want to “control” it, they want to carpet-bomb it.
The best thing that could happen to their ideology would be an Iranian bomb. The regional conflict (Israeli air strikes, counter attacks, use of US bases in Iraq, etc.) ensuing would “prove” everything they’ve argued for decades.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:26 am
That’s an extremely good point. If you think about it, the US only has three “must-do” priorities-
1. Protect the homeland from assault;
2. Maximize trading and economic possibilities for the US economy;
3. Ensure a stable supply of necessary imported resources (I’m not just talking about oil).
Since the first has pretty much been resolved by our geography aside from some degree of unconventional attacks (like occasional terrorist attacks, when they actually succeed), and the latter two are ambiguous, that gives the US enormous liberty in deciding where we want to get involved. We could play “empire”, meddling in foreign affairs and building client regimes, or we could take the Chinese approach, looking at every foreign deal with what it will do for us in terms of business opportunities and trade and working with the local governments (regardless of who they are).
October 26th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Eventually, of course, once every neo-con impulse to action is implemented there will be a war between two neo-con allies which we’ll wage by proxy and we’ll kill ourselves.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:32 am
You do have a point here
I admire the stuff you post and the quality information you offer in your blog! Keep up the good work dude. Please come visit my site City Guide Portland when you got time.