-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Friday, July 17, 2009 - 7:15 PM
Share
What are some “taboo” subjects in contemporary foreign policy discourse? To say that a particular topic is “taboo” doesn’t mean that nobody ever raises the issue or challenges the reigning orthodoxy; it just means that doing so is understood to be politically risky, especially for anyone who wants an influential place in the foreign affairs establishment. So what are the topics or policy positions that a smart young foreign policy analyst should stay away from, especially if she is worried about getting elected, surviving a confirmation hearing, or landing a big job inside-the-Beltway?
One might call them the “Ten Commandments for Ambitious Foreign Policy Wonks”
#1. Thou Shalt Not Question U.S. Membership in NATO. For decades now, questioning the U.S. commitment to NATO immediately made one suspect in the U.S. foreign policy establishment. This was certainly true during the Cold War, and it remains mostly true today. It’s ok to criticize specific NATO policies or can to chide our European allies for free-riding, and there are a handful of people who have openly questioned whether NATO could or should continue now that USSR is gone. But it’s still a sacred cow in the foreign affairs establishment, and you aren’t likely to advance your career by being an outspoken advocate of an American withdrawal.
#2. Thou Shalt Oppose the Spread of Nuclear Weapons. Although a number of academics have debated whether the slow spread of nuclear weapons might have salutary effects in certain contexts, I can’t think of anyone in the policy establishment who has endorsed that view, even though the United States has turned a mostly-blind eye to nuclear acquisition on a number of occasions in the past.
#3. Thou Shalt Not Question the Need for a Nuclear Deterrent. This contradicts the 2nd Commandment, but what's a little hypocrisy when you're a great power? Americans think other states shouldn’t get nuclear weapons, but most people in the foreign policy establishment don’t think the United States should give them up. It is permissible to question specific aspects of U.S. nuclear weapons policy, and plenty of people openly support various forms of arms control. But questioning whether the United States needs a sizeable nuclear arsenal or advocating total disarmament will make people wonder if you’re tough enough to be a serious foreign policy player.
There are two exceptions to this commandment, by the way. First, Presidents can always declare that their long-term goal is eliminating nuclear weapons (as Obama recently did), provided they don’t actually do it. Second, former officials who no longer have major career ambitions can get religion late in life and advocate disarmament, even if this is a position they would have steadfastly opposed while in office.
#4. Thou Shalt Not Question the Desirability of American Primacy. For over half a century, a core principle of American grand strategy has been to retain what the Truman administration called a “preponderance of power” in America’s favor. Scholars have sometimes debated whether “primacy matters,” but nobody ever runs for President promising to “make America Number Two,” and nobody who wants to rise in the foreign policy establishment should ever suggest that maybe the United States might be better off if it weren’t so dominant. (I happen to like U.S. primacy myself, but I wish the topic got debated a bit more often).
#5: Thou Shalt Not Call For an Accommodation with Cuba (or North Korea, or Iran, or….). The long-standing embargo against Cuba has been a near-total failure, but until very recently, it’s been hard to find any prominent voices favoring a different approach. There have been a few lonely voices calling for change in the past, but the anti-Castro status quo has been the default position for a long time. And the same principle applies to other states that land on the U.S. blacklist, like Saddam’s Iraq, North Korea, or Gaddafi’s Libya (until recently). Even if it might make sense to reach out to them, most people in the policy establishment will be afraid to even suggest it, for fear of being seen as “soft” or “unsound.” That’s why it took a hardine Cold Warrior like Nixon to make the opening to China, and even he had to do it secretly at first. And this commandment comes with an additional clause:
#5A: The Chamberlain Corollary: Under no circumstances should one
use the word “appeasement,” except as an accusation directed at ones’ political opponents.
#6: Thou Shalt Not Criticize the Council on Foreign Relations, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, IISS, Brookings, or other major foreign policy institution. It is entirely legitimate to disagree with an article in Foreign Affairs, or to take issue with the views of a senior fellow at one of these institutions. But if you suggest that such institutions are too dependent on soft money, too conventional in their thinking, and on balance harmful to U.S. interests, you’ll probably get labeled a Chomskyite leftist or something equally marginal, even if you were making a serious argument backed with evidence. This taboo isn’t surprising, of course, it doesn’t make much sense to criticize key pillars of the foreign affairs establishment while trying to rise within them. And by the way: the same taboo applies to the foundations that fund research in this area: try criticizing their funding practices and see if you get that next grant.
#7: Thou Shalt Not Take the Armed Forces’ Name in Vain. Since 9/11, pious declarations of support for the uniformed military have been de rigueur for policymakers and pundits alike. One can question certain aspects of U.S. military strategy, second-guess decisions by commanders, and challenge U.S. defense priorities, but you’d better not criticize the troops themselves. Among other things, this makes it harder to have a serious debate about veterans’ benefits, friendly-fire incidents, or troop misconduct. Don’t get me wrong: I’m grateful for the sacrifices that many officers, enlisted men, and reservists have made in recent years, and I think they deserve our thanks. But no institution should be immune from criticism, even when there’s a war on.
#8: Thou Shalt Acknowledge the Importance of Human Rights, Democracy, and Other American “Values.” You don’t have to be an outspoken advocate of human rights to succeed in Washington, and you can even take the position that human rights considerations sometimes have to give way to other foreign policy goals. But anyone who argued that human rights should be ignored would quickly find themselves outside the political mainstream. Similarly, scholars can argue that democracies are just as ruthless when waging war as dictatorships are, but aspiring policymakers are safer taking the position that democracies are always more virtuous than their authoritarian counterparts.
#9: Thou Shalt Not Question the Right of the United States to Intervene in Other Countries. Foreign policy elites in the United States routinely declare that the United States is committed to international law and is a principled supporter of the UN Charter, and we are quick to condemn most other countries when they use force in violation of these principles. But the United States has a long record of using military force against countries or regimes that it opposes, and voices challenging this basic principle tend to be few and far-between. So when the Bush administration was mobilizing the country for war with Iraq, only a handful of people objected on the grounds that the war was simply illegal. Instead, liberal inteventionists came up with elaborate legal and moral justifications for it. If you do take issue with this idea, you’ll probably get labeled an idealistic leftwinger and your career prospects will correspondingly diminish. Of course, a realist like me isn’t surprised when great powers don’t feel especially bound by the fine points of international law, but I do wish we were less hypocritical about it.
#10: Thou Shalt Not Favor Negotiating with “Terrorists.” U.S. leaders often say that we will not negotiate with terrorists, and we refuse to have direct dealings with groups like Hamas (among others). Accordingly, anyone who openly calls for talking directly with these groups is taking a professional risk. Of course, the truth is that many countries—including the United States--have negotiated with terrorist organizations in the past, and a number of former terrorists (e.g., Yasser Arafat, Gerry Adams, Yitzhak Shamir, etc.) have been welcomed to the White House. For that matter, the United States has even supported “terrorist” organizations when it was thought to be in our interest to do so. Yet the whole issue about whether we ought to talk to such groups remains something of a taboo, which means that potentially fruitful initiatives don’t get the consideration they deserve.
These ten items aren't the only topics where public debate tends to be constrained, and perhaps readers will write in with suggestions of their own. I’d just make two final comments.
First, my point is not that the “conventional wisdom” is necessarily wrong, or that anyone who challenges one of the taboos listed above is necessarily right. In other words, I am not saying that the U.S. should get rid of its nuclear weapons, talk to Al Qaeda, abandon all concern for human rights, ban all think tanks with an office in DC, etc. Rather, my point is that these are topics that where discourse is narrower than it ought to be, and where the “marketplace of ideas” may not be operating very efficiently. The rise of the blogosphere may be bringing more voices to the broader conversation, but those contributions don’t necessarily include people who also aspire to actual policy work.
Second, although remaining within the mainstream consensus is probably the safe strategy, challenging the conventional wisdom sometimes yields big personal benefits. Back in 2002, most people in American foreign policy establishment—and especially those working inside-the-Beltway--decided to go along with the Bush administration’s plan to invade Iraq. Most Congressional Democrats backed the idea, and so did a lot of liberal pundits and policy wonks at places like Brookings.
But guess what? An obscure State Senator from Illinois opposed the decision for war, and taking what was then an unconventional position is one reason that Barack Obama is President today. The lesson? Challenging the reigning orthodoxy—and even tilting against a taboo—is sometimes good for the country, and it can be good for your career too. In other words, don’t treat those “commandments” as if they’re etched in stone.
"Thou Shalt Not Question the Need for a Nuclear Deterrent. This contradicts the 2nd Commandment, but what's a little hypocrisy when you're a great power? Americans think other states shouldn’t get nuclear weapons, but most people in the foreign policy establishment don’t think the United States should give them up."
You can argue that the US is a hypocrite for keeping nuclear weapons but not wanting other countries to have them, but your analogy to the second amendment makes no sense.
Don’t realists think hypocrisy is fine as long as it advances US interests? Unless you think it is in the interest of the US to let any country get nuclear weapons.
once you've abandoned your morals...
...anything is possible.
for instance, if you've abandoned your morals and convinced the rest of the world to do likewise, the best thing to do, from an oil company realist's standpoint, would be to nuke israel, blame it on oily muslims, and exploit zionist control of america to mobilize america to grab the rest of the oil.
we dont want to look too closely at exxon's role now, or enron's role immediately prior to 9/11.
on the other hand, what if oil companies finally figured out that the PNAC project is a lost cause, and also figured out that american support for israel is crippling their efforts to profit from the remaining oil in the middle east...
would exxon or bechtel or somebody offer to sell nukes to iran, in an effort to bring israel into line? ...and if iran refused to buy the nukes, then what?
would the offer of nukes to iran at least pave the way for a nuke false flag blamed on iran?
if the next 9/11 is horrendous enough...
...martial law will be declared, and that's the end of any possibility of truth or justice...
...which would suit the powers-that-be just fine.
'commandment', not 'amendment'
and he's referring to the 2nd commandment in his list, not the one about graven idols (though that other second commandment is no doubt relevant to the subject as well). He's saying that a discourse that considers non-proliferation to be a given, yet also a permanently-nuclearized American leviathan also to be a given, is profoundly warped.
One can quite forthrightly believe both of these things. But to be required to profess both of them simultaneously in order to be regarded as serious, is a little bizarre.
The Ten Commandments for Ambitious Policy Wonks
#11: Thou Shalt Not Criticize the Only Democracy in the Middle East - No matter what foul and despicable acts it inflicts on its native population, and you should not question the generous supply of US arms and cash that enable it to do these foul and despicable acts.
This was a glaring omission from your list, which otherwise I agree with, almost totally.
But it is not only ambitious policy wonks who cleave to your 10 'commandments'; it is almost everyone else in the US, who thinks it is an exceptional nation, subject only to its own rules.
I would disagree also with another commandment:
#7: Thou Shalt Not Take the Armed Forces’ Name in Vain. Not, at least, while they continue to kill, pillage, rape and destroy much of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, while not having the slightest clue whom they are fighting, and why. Certainly don't criticise those video games players at Nellis, just outside Vegas who regularly wipe out any gatherings they can find, half a world away, without a second thought.
Only pick out a couple of troops as scapegoats if you want to take away the blame from their leaders (and those leaders' leaders). Lynndie England and Charles Graner were not nice people, but then, neither was Donald Rumsfeld.
Also, #1, 4, 7, and 9 are diametrically opposed to the views of the founding fathers.
e.g. James Madison:
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare...."
We are not the nation of our founding fathers -- quite the opposite in fact.
All based on Foreign Intervention?
They could also call you a Ron Paul supporter, kook, conspiracy theorist, truther, racist, antisemitic, bigot. There are many subjects that are in the Sphere of Deviance, mostly related to the policy of nonintervention. They consider not sharing their Imperial hubris a form of hubris. If you don't want to intervene and help out, you're labeled a "racist". No joke.
The real joke is that Intervention is fail, bipartisan fail, from foreign policy to the federal reserve, epic fail. But it won't stop the useful idiot followers from digging up their favorite punching bags and going a few rounds, e.g. Ayn Rand's corpse, the gold standard, Alex Jones, 9/11, while simultaneously lecturing you about their big plans for Afghanistan (i.e. unattainable ideals), and authoritarian environmental eugenics fantasies, among other things. It's absurd.
And what's up with this new tidbit? There is a little morsel at the end:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6715412.ece
Israeli navy in Suez Canal prepares for potential attack on Iran
[...]
The exercises come at a time when Western diplomats are offering support for an Israeli strike on Iran in return for Israeli concessions on the formation of a Palestinian state.
If agreed it would make an Israeli strike on Iran realistic “within the year” said one British official.
Diplomats said that Israel had offered concessions on settlement policy, Palestinian land claims and issues with neighboring Arab states, to facilitate a possible strike on Iran.
“Israel has chosen to place the Iranian threat over its settlements,” said a senior European diplomat.
Trading Settlements for an Iran Strike? Awful...
much more likely, given israel's record...
...that their subs will bomb america.
if you've abandoned your morals...
...the only thing left is a decision: can you get away with it?
sorry.
that's just how it is.
Hillary Clinton admits that the CFR runs the Government
As with a recent blog I did about a Rothschild puppet blatantly promoting a One World Government solution to our “man-made” global warming “crisis,” now Secretary of State (and CFR member) Clinton admits in her latest address to the Council on Foreign Relations what Carroll Quigley wrote about in Tragedy and Hope (Chapter 65), Dan Smoot wrote about in The Invisible Government, and Gary Allen wrote about in None Dare Call It Conspiracy:
“Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.
“…we will lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multi-polar world and toward a multi-partner world…Building the architecture of global cooperation requires us to devise the right policies and use the right tools…Our first approach is to build these stronger mechanisms of cooperation with our historic allies, with emerging powers, and with multilateral institutions…”
I can assure you that when I was in public school in the 1960s and early 1970s, not once did I ever hear about an organization called the Council on Foreign Relations in any of my history classes. If this organization seems to have such a powerful influence on the Federal Government’s actions, why have I only been hearing about it in the past decade? Hmmmmm?
National Security Advisor James L. Jones also admits that the CFR runs the Government
Posted by David Kramer on July 17, 2009 11:14 AMU.S. National Security Adviser Jones gave these remarks at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009.
“Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through Generaal [sic] Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft retire from government service years ago? Hmmmmm?
...have to get the mechanisms in place before everyone figures out what's happening.
we have to assume that oil prices will, in the name of "free markets", rise to the point that only the elite can afford gas.
we can assume that governments installed by the elites will be able to fund their armies as the rest of us descend into the middle ages.
it's a problem.
can you get away with it?
Some absolutes Some subjectives
Some of these are eternal pillars of policy, and some are far more malleable than one would think.
1. NATO is an organization with a huge amount of power, which is a good reason to keep it around but there have been calls for the U.S to leave it.
2. This one seems to be absolute though several presidents have quietly ignored it in pursuit of other interests.
3. For the most part true unless one of the two situations that you pointed out occurs.
4. This one seems intrinsic to every nation, not simply the U.S. Even if most accept their current place, I can't think of one nation that doesn't want its time in the sun.
5. This one is starting to be broken, particularly as the new ambitious foreign policy analysts were born at the end of the Cold War and never had the fear of Communism so strongly put in them (Iran on the other hand will probably take a while)
6. That one is immutable because people want jobs.
7. That one is a result of systems across the world that make a military patriotic by its very existence, such things can change if a general does something incredibly stupid or a war is lost.
8. Only eternal in that when policy makers and analysts disagree with it they tend to prefer to ignore it.
9. While arguments do appear against it, they tend to appear as arguments that we should avoid the outside world.
10. True and one that would take something very strange to change.
might makes right is valid morally, especially if you've abandoned your morals.
what does morality have to do with it?
nothing, seeing as how we've abandoned our morals.
the main chance.... that's the thing
...except there are no main chances that will save america
which explains the operation.
get away with it?
you can get away with it?
that the project is cover for the biggest looting operation ever?
#9: Thou Shalt Not Question the Right of the United States to In
To the best of my knowledge, this habit of attacking other lower countries is tarnishing the image of America. I must say I like the way North Korea, Iran treats America. The American government sees the need for them to have weapons of mass destruction but does not see why other countries should. They take advantage of it to attack other countries as they wish, well this is a shame and it only shows the pride of America. The fact that America is very powerful does not give them the right to bully any other country and America is not the only powerful country in the world but it surprises me that among all the powerful countries America can't behave themselves. Bush attacked Iraq and put America in great mess and now he is the worst president that has ever ruled America. However, Obama has seen the consequences of all this in his visit to Saudi Arabia. It's also a shame that Obama came to Africa to criticize the economy especially the NIgerian economy when his country is going through economic crises which he has not been able to solve. Its good though that USA can't attack all countries and there are still some countries that can stand up to USA. The earlier this habit or the believed "right" is stopped the better for USA and the world.
Someone once said that "[m]any of the dysfunctions in American foreign policy can be attributed to a simple truth: this is a nation of ignorant, impressionable cowards.
The USA, both its elite and its people, does not feel safe unless it is using its vast economic, technological and military power in a destructive, yet irrationally 'reassuring' fashion.
So the USA led the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union, so that by the 1960s there was an absurd 17 to 1 advantage in warheads and JFK still managed to make political capital off a fictitious 'missile gap'. So the USA doesn't feel safe from communism unless it is hard at work destroying some sorry, irrelevant, dirt poor peasant country (Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua). So after 9/11, with the deaths of 3,000 Americans, we have had our dark revolution in foreign policy and civil liberties.
Will this ever change? I cannot say. I feel the USA's popular and consumer culture is leading to a permanent and sickening degeneration in the character of its inhabitants. Consumerism, wastefulness, excess, sensationalism, instant gratification, fearmongering (whether regarding international politics, crime, flu, Chinese takeovers etc)..
The denizens of the nation with the greatest influence on the world know nothing of that world - and are therefore easily frightened by novel, unfamiliar things like (imprisoned) terrorists - and have the attention span of pigeons."
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Except that if memory serves Kennedy questioned whether so many were actually needed and was told that this was the lowest number Congress would allow.* Also the point of 9/11 wasn't that 3,000 people were killed, the point was that this was both the largest terrorist attack in history and also the worst attack on the U.S since 1941. Do you normally want your nation to ignore terrorists flying planes into incredibly expensive buildings and killing large numbers of your citizens?
*While not the incident I'm talking about, this does show some of his doubts on nuclear weapons.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK+Library+and+Museum/News+and+Press/New+Tapes+JFK+Questioned+Value+of+Nuclear+Build+Up.htm
Clint, you make a very perceptive comment about the character of the voting public here in the US. I hope Walt might comment on this, the degree to which the populace impacts foreign policy.
Interesting food for thought: the people who led us into our present state of foreign policy disarray are some of the most well-educated and well-trained people in our country. At the other end of the spectrum we have a substantial population that cannot place Iraq on a map, still believes Saddam Hussein had a role in 9-11, and thinks that our Middle East policy should be determined by the Book of Revelation. We have a situation that is marked at best by ideology and at worst by outright fantasy.
We have really become like the Thermians in the Trekkie-spoof Galaxy Quest, swinging hopelessly, Quixotically from one misinterpretation of the world-out-there to another.
But it’s still a sacred cow in the foreign affairs establishment, and you aren’t likely to advance your career by being an outspoken advocate of an American withdrawal.
It's interesting to consider what US Grand Strategy would be if our defense commitment to Europe was significantly less (if, say, it was only a commitment to nuclear strike any country that invades or violates the territorial sovereignty of an ally state therein). On the other hand, I think we like having something to bind us to the Europeans - it keeps us from being excluded from major decisions.
I'd attribute it to a greater American reluctance to give up any really critical alliances ("allies of convenience" are another story - we ditched Pakistan as soon as they lost their value versus the Soviets in Afghanistan, for example).
#2. Thou Shalt Oppose the Spread of Nuclear Weapons. Although a number of academics have debated whether the slow spread of nuclear weapons might have salutary effects in certain contexts, I can’t think of anyone in the policy establishment who has endorsed that view, even though the United States has turned a mostly-blind eye to nuclear acquisition on a number of occasions in the past.
More's the pity, because nuclear weapons have a tendency to drastically reduce the possibilities for conventional war between states that have them, and I consider them to be much, much safer than the "poor man's deterrent" - biological weaponry.
To be honest, I haven't seen anyone in public get up and openly say, "Abolish nukes? What are you, an idiot? They're the major reason why we haven't had a Great Power Conflict in 50 years!" That is, after all, the best counter to the Disarmament Folks.
But questioning whether the United States needs a sizeable nuclear arsenal or advocating total disarmament will make people wonder if you’re tough enough to be a serious foreign policy player.
Certainly any calls for unilateral disarmament of nuclear weapons are crazy, and for good reason - you're making yourself vulnerable with no guarantee of parity.
nobody who wants to rise in the foreign policy establishment should ever suggest that maybe the United States might be better off if it weren’t so dominant.
Good point. I suppose at least one advantage of being #2 is that you get less accusations from people convinced, as Dan Drezner points out, that you are the Grand Puppetmaster. Plus, we could pass all the "Hegemon Duties" on to another state while still keeping ourselves secure due to nuclear weapons and our geographical position.
But anyone who argued that human rights should be ignored would quickly find themselves outside the political mainstream.
I attribute that to self-serving propaganda (certainly the democratizing British in the late 19th century weren't any less ruthless and imperialistic in dealing with their empire), and it really pisses me off. Why is it that it became politically unacceptable to simply say, "We are a nation-state with interests, and we will pursue and protect those interests"?
So when the Bush administration was mobilizing the country for war with Iraq, only a handful of people objected on the grounds that the war was simply illegal.
Probably because it's impossible to really define a war as "illegal" unless the prohibition is strictly incorporated into a state's constitution, and even then "self-defense" offers a lot of loopholes.
How many nukes does America need? How many Aircraft Carriers does America need? A fleet of nuclear armed submarines would be enough to protect the United States, no? Every weapon we build and maintain is another pinhole in American prosperity. We spend half a trillion on defense, and that has consequences, e.g. money out of American pockets. increased militarism. Our economy is finished and yet defense spending increases, we conduct Wars on Things while America wastes away. It's absurd.
Is it a OK to support South American authoritarians if they are right wingers?
A fleet of nuclear armed submarines would be enough to protect the United States, no?
SSBNs have weaknesses, too - it's safer to have diversification.
Plus, you are talking about "security" in the very barest definition - preventing attacks by other states on the homeland. The US has very critical interests worldwide (particularly economic ones), and they arguably deserve some degree of protection.
The US has very critical interests worldwide (particularly economic ones), and they arguably deserve some degree of protection.
They don't. We don't need their help, let them protect themselves. It is absurd to spend billions protecting Europeans and Israelis that can protect themselves.
All you are doing is apologizing for militarism.
They don't. We don't need their help, let them protect themselves. It is absurd to spend billions protecting Europeans and Israelis that can protect themselves.
We have outstanding treaty arrangements with the Europeans, which have the effect of binding law in the United States. You can call for re-negotiation of those treaties if you want - but until that point, we need the ability to fulfill that commitment.
once you've abandoned your morals, nothing
is illegal.
#11: Thou shall endorse the War on Drugs in Latin America as the ONLY way the hemisphere will reach development.
and while we're at it:
#12: Thou shall ignore Latin American politics except when Hugo Chavez opens his mouth.
Let's face it, Latin America should be more important in US politics, but since we don't have oil or nuclear weapons, we just don't matter enough. Yet slowly and gradually, the US is losing the region without anyone seeming to care... It's as if 21st Century Socialism was "another wacky third world idea" and had nothing to do with the US's policies in the region. If the US had paid more attention to the region when drafting its policies for the hemisphere, maybe insane people like Chavez and Morales would not have risen to power under the sole banner of anti-americanism.
Now I'm not saying the US is to be blamed for Latin America's failure (we're pretty good at ruining opportunities ourselves), I'm just saying that it should stop it's one-size-fits-all approach.
But the US doesn't really have a One-Size-Fits-All policy. We trade heavily with Mexico, arm and train Colombia, cooperate with the Brazilians on drug interception, and so forth. It's mainly with Chavez that we have a problem, and that's because Chavez is a left-authoritarian who likes to use the American Bogeyman to suppress the opposition.
True in part, but then let me rephrase. There are a bunch of policies applied broadly that just don't work. Take my country, Peru, for example.
Focusing on burning coca plantations just won't cut it and it will fuel anti-american pro-chavez candidates in Peru (because in the end, coca is sacred for native andeans and has a bunch of non-drug-related uses here). In order to solve the drug problem we would need to work together, reduce demand for drugs in the US and Europe and make it more attractive for peasents to grow something other than coca (sadly, narco-terrorists pay a lot of money for coca, and people in the Andes are just too poor to care whether their coca ends up as a dumb teenagers cocaine stash). But one cannot even talk about changing the approach on the War on Drugs in the States without conservatives freaking out.
If the problem is with left-wing authoritarianism, then it should be in the US's interest to prevent such Governments from rising up to power. Policies such as the War on Drugs will most surely help Ollanta Humala run for President next 2011. Why do you think Bolivia's President is a former coca grower?
So maybe its not about one-size-fits-all policies, but about not paying enough attention to what the region really needs from the US. I think Obama's approach in Trinidad and Tobago was a good start, but everybody focused on Chavez's book rather than Arias' speech...
# 11. Even thougth there is a great deal of material on how the official version on what happened on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon is a lie (or a really uncomplete truth), do not talk about it. Do not say, because that is only for America haters, that there is great (I mean almost conclusive) evidence that show that the 9/11 would had been impossible without internal help. Remenber, do not research or write anything on it, that is denying your moral integrity, supporting the terrorists, being a sick person a chomskian radical (loved that term)... Even people with "tenure", not afraid of loosing his job like Walt, would not say much in this subject.
Let's have some realism in Foreign Policy commandments and if 10 are required, I offer these for your consideration.
#1 Ask Israel what it would like the US to do to support all of its ambitions in the Middle East
#2 Put all their requirements into practice immediately particularly if it involves continuing the onslaught of helpless Palestinuian women and children.
#3 Increase aid to Israel tenfold
#4 Ask AIPAC to accept a seat on the Council for Foreign Relations with the right of veto.
#5 All US State department appointments to be approved by Benjamin Netanyahu
#6 Allow the Israeli flag to fly on top of the Congress building along with the US flag representing an equal position in US Foreign Policy decision making
#7 Force every travelling American to visit a Holocaust show in every country where one has been established. This should be continued for at least another 60 years.
#8 Allow any amount of Israeli largesse to be distributed to all members of Congress and Senators with no penalty.
#9 Ensure that all elected members of the US government also have a dual US / Israel passport so that they can guarantee voting success in Congress.
#10 Advise Israel that they have the approval of the US to mount a nuclear attack on any country of their choosing but not to advise the VP and Secretary of State until it has been completed.
Given an hours notice any of the above can be amended to be more favourable to Israel, upon request.
Yeah, lets reply to rexw suggestions.
#1 Ask Israel what it would like the US to do to support all of its ambitions in the Middle East
Israel ambition is to spread freedom of expression throughout the region - as the only way to bring about change throughout the Arab & Islamic countries. Provide better hope and future to millions of oppress man and woman there.
#2 Put all their requirements into practice immediately particularly if it involves continuing the onslaught of helpless Palestinuian women and children.
Yeah, lets ask Hamas, since no single Israeli occupies Gaza, why they invent a non-existing occupation (of Gaza), to manufacture resistance.
Ask Hamas, why do they hate the Israelis more then they love the same helpless Palestinian women and children?, who have trusted their lives at the hand of their leaders.
#3 Increase aid to Israel tenfold
So they can defend themselves against religious fanatics like Hizbollah and Hamas and Mullahs in Iran. Who's mission to kill all Jews, they think is mandated by allah.
#7 Force every travelling American to visit a Holocaust show in every country where one has been established. This should be continued for at least another 60 years.
Teach future generation the horrors of crime against humanity based on their race, religious, of color of skin. Jews being a prime example of that hatred. To prevent the possibility from occurring to other minorities.
#10 Advise Israel that they have the approval of the US to mount a nuclear attack on any country of their choosing but not to advise the VP and Secretary of State until it has been completed.
Yeah, let convince the Israelis that, the Mullahs in Iran and their declaration of Israel must be wiped off the map is just a joke. They really don't mean it.
Let allow a group of religious fanatics in Tehran have their fingers on the nuclear trigger until it is too late to do something about it.
#11. Let convince ourselves that, fundamentalist Islamist regime, which loath and hate our democracy and way of life, will be a more loyal friend and ally then, a democratic and open society which had proved over and over to be a loyal and respectful of our values.
#10: Thou Shalt Not Favor Negotiating with “Terrorists.”
but the funding of terrorists to kill British police and servicemen by the US public in the 1980's is fine.
great post. As someone who recently started a blog on FP, it is nice to know the potential landmines. On the commandments themselves, 4 will go away because of factors out of our control, and 5 is a left over relic from the cold war. The younger generation won't stand for it.
Eric, (www.onviolence.com)
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(39)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE