Don’t You Know I Got the Bully Boys Out . . .
Doctor Joyner makes a colorable argument that we are not suffering a bout of Iran-War fever after all:
During the run-up to the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, the demands set forth to avoid war involved enough loss of face for the other side that they were unlikely to be met. I don’t recall any administration official saying that military action would be “a disaster” for us. This simply doesn’t smell the same.
This is a reasonable reaction. It could even be true. I hope it’s true! It’s also possible that the Administration is being cleverer about its rhetoric this time. It’s also possible that James’s thesis is true but the government’s approach is so inept it doesn’t matter, which he goes on to consider.
The problem is the unexamined American assumption that
. . . diplomacy only works when backed up by force, or that at the very least putting a little fright into the Iranian leadership (maintaining strategic ambiguity) is unambiguously a good idea. Well, it doesn’t and it isn’t.
So writes Bernard Finel, whom James quotes and analyzes at length. "Diplomacy only works when backed up by force!" is one of those bizarre notions that’s worth stepping back from a minute to consider how extraordinary it is. Considered globally, it’s as strange as the notion that a country should expect to be at war somewhere on the globe most of the time. Simply put: both propositions run counter to the experience of most of the world. Most diplomacy is based on seeking mutual advantage. Most countries recognize war as a disaster one walks or falls into, not a condition to be sought.
The American approach to international relations is truly extraordinary. I can’t help but think our elites emphasize the threat or use of force for the same reason dogs lick their balls: because they can. The country has acquired massive spare military capacity at extraordinary expense, so our policy class seeks to leverage it. The irony is the amount of projection this involves: the poobahs and their sycophants who are so eager to "back up" their diplomacy with threats of war are the very people most likely to claim of potential adversaries that "They only understand force." But the people who "only understand force" are people whom Pogo would recognize.
Comment by James Joyner —
April 26, 2008 @ 8:48 am
There’s a certain “When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail” aspect to this mindset. The irony, of course, is that we have a pretty impressive toolchest at our disposal.
We are, as the title of a Geoffrey Perret book from a couple decades ago put it, A Country Made By War. We’re also a country who thinks of ourselves as slow to anger and which uses force only when we’ve exhausted all other options.
Go figure.
Comment by abb1 —
April 26, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Most diplomacy is based on seeking mutual advantage.
Mutual advantage, yes, but as a trade-off: I’ll give you a tomato and you give me an apple.
Fine. But if I’m holding a gun in my hands, I might want to say: just give me all your fucking apples now and get lost. That sounds like a gtreat deal, doesn’t it?
Well, maybe not. I don’t want to be completely unreasonable, so, OK, I’ll say – knowing that I could easily just take all of your apples – I’ll say: “I’ll give you a tomato and you give me a dozen apples – and consider yourself lucky.”
What? You don’t like the deal? Dammit, it’s true, some people only understand force…
Comment by Thoreau —
April 26, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Most diplomacy is based on mutual advantage, but much of what America’s government wants may not be to anybody else’s advantage.
There are two possible ways to react to that reality. I know which one I choose.
Comment by Monte Davis —
April 26, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Considered globally, it’s as strange as the notion that a country should expect to be at war somewhere on the globe most of the time.
Substitute “empire” for “country” and it’s the most natural thing in the world. Perceived threats multiply as the perimeter of perceived interests expands.
Comment by Matt Stevens —
April 26, 2008 @ 11:56 am
This is where the whole horror of “appeasement” comes in. If you can’t give the bad guy a carrot — because that, after all, would be a reward for being bad — then all you have left is your big stick.
Comment by Thers —
April 26, 2008 @ 11:58 am
Force only works when it’s backed up by diplomacy.
Comment by Dave Schuler —
April 26, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Matt Stevens, above, is on the right track. The problem is that diplomacy must be backed up by something—mutual advantage or, as Napoleon noted, fear of loss or hope of gain.
The challenge is in finding or creating mutual advantage. The other two are mostly foreclosed to us. We’re unwilling to offer them anything they actually want and the Iranians know that we’ve pushed sanctions about as far as we can in the UNSC. There isn’t much left but saber-rattling.
I wouldn’t get too exercised about the latter. We aren’t going to attack Iran. Tain’t gonna happen.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
April 26, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
Abb1’s comment 2 is, I think, accurate–a lot of Westerners feel we are owed gratitude because we have the power to exterminate the Iraqis or the Iranians or the Lebanese or the Palestinians, but we don’t use it. The fact that these non-exterminated people don’t show the proper gratitude demonstrates that they only understand force.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
April 26, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
I actually think the best counter-argument to every bout of Iran-invasion panic here is that if the administration thought they could get away with it, they’d already be in Iran.
Comment by the talking dog —
April 26, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
Well, the thing is, the source of this logic is Star Trek.
In the episode called “the Savage Curtain”, Col. Green says “No one talks peace unless he’s backing it up with war.”
From an Administration that fights “evil-doers” and goes over to “the Dark Side”… why shouldn’t it’s fundamental strategic vision come from yet another freaking comic book.
We have treated these people as grown-ups at our extreme peril. They are clowns. Their fundamental core ideas are not only unexplored, they are downright stupid. But then, this is a nation where our leading “journalists” can blithely inject discredited crap like cutting taxes on the rich will increase revenue, that wearing plastic pins made in China are the height of patriotism, that war is peace, ignorance is strength, etc., why shouldn’t this be what passes for intellectual discourse?
Comment by Thoreau —
April 26, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
Fair point. However, I think we should edit your statement slightly:
It’s not like we actually learn from history.
Comment by Kevin Brennan —
April 27, 2008 @ 11:27 am
From a Canadian perspective, it’s interesting how often I hear Americans tell us that we need to spend more on our military, and how we get a free ride because the American government would protect us from attack.
Protect us from who, precisely? It’s not like there are a lot of countries in a position to invade Canada. In fact I can think of only one offhand…
Comment by Happy Jack —
April 27, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
I don’t want to be completely unreasonable, so, OK, I’ll say – knowing that I could easily just take all of your apples – I’ll say: “I’ll give you a tomato and you give me a dozen apples – and consider yourself lucky.â€
I don’t think that this gets it right. US diplomacy consists of making demands before negotiations can even start.
“Give us an oven, a pie crust, and your first born, then we can sit down to negotiate trading a tomato for a dozen apples.”
Comment by Thoreau —
April 27, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
Well, if the polar ice cap melts then Russia could always sail over.
But given your oil deposits, I suggest you build up your military to fend off a US invasion.