I have been reading a lot of history lately, and a lot of
geopolitical material. Some of these books I have already recommended; some
will get recommended in future posts. But the essence that I have distilled
from this study can be summed up in several points:
Wilsonian internationalism – the belief that somehow we can get
nations to deal ethically and rationally and morally with one another and thus
avoid war is still alive and well in the American political landscape, and it
is still as unrealistic as it was in Woodrow Wilson’s day. Like all utopian
visions, it would work if only humans would behave differently than humans actually
behave. The UN is a case in point. It certainly gives a lot of bureaucrats from
around the world (mostly drawn from the wealthy elites in their countries) a cushy
well-paid job in New York, but looked at pragmatically in fact it doesn’t get
much done. It has run a few relief efforts that were worthwhile, though at
outlandish costs and with astounding inefficiency, but there is certainly no
evidence that it has ever prevented a war.
Neoliberal interventionism, the philosophy that has led us
to getting mired in endless Middle Eastern wars in the name of “spreading
democracy” and “nation building”, as naïve a set of principles as one could
imagine, has clearly failed, though its proponents don’t seem to be able to
admit that. And beyond that, it is draining the resources of the nation and
wasting lives. Nassim Taleb’s principle that it is immoral to make policy if
one is insulated from the consequences – no skin in the game – certainly applies
here. These interventions have resulted in massive civilian deaths and displacements,
but the Washington policy makers who instituted
them can live their well-paid lives entirely unaffected by the death and destruction they have brought
about, and perhaps even largely ignorant of the effects of their policies.
In the end, the pragmatic “realpolitik” view – that nations each look out for themselves first
and foremost, and that the politicians and rulers who lead these nations look
out for their own self-interests first – seem to me to best fit the observed
facts of history and the observed nature of human beings. This is certainly a Hobbesian
view of the world as a continuous, and sometimes brutal, competition between
nation-states, but it seem to me the most realistic and the most in accord with
history.
Given that, I think that the US strategy that George
Friedman argues we have been following for about the last 100 years, even if our
leaders weren’t always aware of it, is correct. Keep the nation militarily
strong, keep the economy healthy and try to keep a balance of power elsewhere
in the world so that no coalition of nations arises powerful enough to threaten
us. By the luck of geography and history we have become an empire whether we
like it or not (and whether we will admit it or not), and it won’t last
forever. But with some care and a pragmatic foreign policy it may last at least
another century or two.
Trump’s America-first approach makes sense in this regard,
even if his execution is highly erratic and often based on incorrect facts. At
least it makes more sense than Obama’s unrealistic Wilsonian approach (think, for
example, of his attempted “Russian reset”) or Bush’s neoliberal interventionist
approach. (think, for example of the Iraq “nation building” debacle). It would be nice to have a less erratic
leader than Trump, but at least he seems to understand that his job first and
foremost is to look out for the health of America, and that is more than some
of his recent predecessors seem to have understood.
Posts
