Foreign Policy: damned-if-you-do.....
The older I get, the more it becomes obvious that foreign policy is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't sort of affair. The question is less do-we-or-don't-we; more of a just-how-far-do-we-go sort of thing.
(admittedly farfetched) Example: Russia begins a slow but steady strongarm march across northern europe, never actually firing on anyone, but using their considerable political power to suck back up its old satellite states as it goes.
Do we (the USofA) turn our guns on Putin (or whichever former KGB agent is now running things) or do we heed Jefferson's warnings to steer clear of "foreign" entanglements? If we turn a blind eye as they vacuum up their old neighbors, then we risk letting them gain so much power and momentum that they may just decide the USofA has lost its resolve to be the world's top cop. Then who know's where they'll stop? Germany? France?
What's to stop them from laying seige to Canada? The US military and the threat of nuclear war, of course. But, by that time, after the majority of the world's industrialized nations are behind the new iron curtain, the US's geopolitical situation is not so unassailable any longer.
How such a scenario turns out is better left to a historical novelist with a keen eye for the future. But, to the discerning eye, what seems obvious is this: doing nothing, i.e. nonintervention, would appear to be little more than slow suicide, geopolitically speaking.
So, rather than doing nothing, we intervene when Russia starts on their southwestward march. We send envoys first. Then we send some troops. Then we lob a few missiles, careful to land just short of any target which might earn that infamous Russian animosity (or retaliation), but just close enough to let the Russians know what they're marching into.
At this point, one of two things happens: a) the Russians do an about face and go back home; or b) the Russians lob a missile back at us---maybe not so careful to avoid hitting, say, Anchorage. Now, of course, it's too late for any flag-waving "patriotic" American to reconsider. Congress howls for blood. The commander in chief says "let the dogs out," and all hell breaks loose.
Of course, these are two very simplistic scenarios, but history is littered with inextricably complicated issues whose origins are ridiculously simple, even if intractable. Water. Minerals. Skin color. Language. Religion. Maybe even some old slight from a couple thousand years ago. Bloody wars have been, and are still being, fought over such simple things. And there appears to be no end to warmaking in sight. Especially not when you have very powerful people making very big stacks of hundred dollar bills faster than they can count 'em as long as there is even a remote possibility of war on the horizon.
(admittedly farfetched) Example: Russia begins a slow but steady strongarm march across northern europe, never actually firing on anyone, but using their considerable political power to suck back up its old satellite states as it goes.
Do we (the USofA) turn our guns on Putin (or whichever former KGB agent is now running things) or do we heed Jefferson's warnings to steer clear of "foreign" entanglements? If we turn a blind eye as they vacuum up their old neighbors, then we risk letting them gain so much power and momentum that they may just decide the USofA has lost its resolve to be the world's top cop. Then who know's where they'll stop? Germany? France?
What's to stop them from laying seige to Canada? The US military and the threat of nuclear war, of course. But, by that time, after the majority of the world's industrialized nations are behind the new iron curtain, the US's geopolitical situation is not so unassailable any longer.
How such a scenario turns out is better left to a historical novelist with a keen eye for the future. But, to the discerning eye, what seems obvious is this: doing nothing, i.e. nonintervention, would appear to be little more than slow suicide, geopolitically speaking.
So, rather than doing nothing, we intervene when Russia starts on their southwestward march. We send envoys first. Then we send some troops. Then we lob a few missiles, careful to land just short of any target which might earn that infamous Russian animosity (or retaliation), but just close enough to let the Russians know what they're marching into.
At this point, one of two things happens: a) the Russians do an about face and go back home; or b) the Russians lob a missile back at us---maybe not so careful to avoid hitting, say, Anchorage. Now, of course, it's too late for any flag-waving "patriotic" American to reconsider. Congress howls for blood. The commander in chief says "let the dogs out," and all hell breaks loose.
Of course, these are two very simplistic scenarios, but history is littered with inextricably complicated issues whose origins are ridiculously simple, even if intractable. Water. Minerals. Skin color. Language. Religion. Maybe even some old slight from a couple thousand years ago. Bloody wars have been, and are still being, fought over such simple things. And there appears to be no end to warmaking in sight. Especially not when you have very powerful people making very big stacks of hundred dollar bills faster than they can count 'em as long as there is even a remote possibility of war on the horizon.
posted by Jefferson | 1:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home