Concessions to Reality
The decision to abandon this shield was the right one as far as both allied security and Russian relations were concerned, and it should be defended on those grounds. Moscow is certainly pleased that the proposed shield will not be built, but it would be a serious mistake to expect Russian help in squeezing Iran on its nuclear program. Russia has no reason to do this. If the administration insists that Russian support for tightening sanctions or isolating Iran is the “payoff” for abandoning the shield, the decision will be judged to have been a quid pro quo that gained us nothing. If we see it instead not as a concession to Moscow, but rather as a concession to reality and common sense, it does not have to produce Russian cooperation on Iran’s nuclear program to be regarded as the correct and appropriate move.
That’s the concluding paragraph of Daniel Larison’s recent piece on scrapping missile defense stations in Poland and the Czech Republic.
He’s right: the decision was a sensible one (missile defense is something that the Japanese, Taiwanese and Israelis are interested in for actual defense against real threats, not something that actually matters to defending Poland or the Czech Republic, and needlessly provoking any country – particularly a country we are trying to get things out of, like Russia – is pretty stupid) but it isn’t going to pay any obvious dividends. Which points up the difficulty of this administration’s political situation.
The Obama Administration’s situation may be compared with that of the Nixon Administration. Both Presidents were trying to manage a period of retrenchment in foreign affairs, dealing with a situation in which American influence and leverage had significantly contracted, and facing the prospect of further contraction that needed to be carefully managed. They were also both dealing with a period of traumatic economic change (accelerating inflation in Nixon’s case, a near-depression in Obama’s); with foreign wars that they did not initiate but had committed to winning and, in some manner, escalating in order to win (Vietnam, Afghanistan); and with a radical change in the global currency regime (in Nixon’s case, the demise of the gold standard; in Obama’s, the coming demise of the dollar as global reserve currency) – all of which provides some context for why each period was a period of retrenchment.
We should expect that there are going to be a lot of “concessions to reality and common sense” in the next few years, and the frustrating part is that we’re not going to get anything obvious for these concessions. Russia, for example, is going to keep pursuing its interests – and the aggressiveness with which they pursue them will probably mostly relate to their internal political situation rather than their perception of either American “will” to oppose them or American “goodwill” towards them. That’s going to make it very easy for the administration’s political opponents to make the argument that “if you give ‘em an inch, they’ll take the yard” even if no actually yards are literally taken.
It will be interesting to see how President Obama handles the tricky domestic politics of the trickyinternational situation he finds himself in.
Retrenchment follows dissipation and leads to new equilibria, also called emergent order or emergent logic or basins of attraction or new design space or balance of powers or…
As everybody knows, this new equilibrium — what becomes of it — is highly sensitive to initial conditions. Small adjustments can have system-wide effects, yada yada. Everybody knows this.
What worries me about concessions to reality: the concession is to the reality of retrenchment, to the idea that we have negative geopolitical Joe-mentum right now. But those concessions also help to create the new reality, one where diminutive facts can lead to catastrophic failure as the whole entropy engine starts up again.
In other words, how I came to love the bomb. Oh wait…
Oddly enough, this is my endorsement of Obama’s plan to scrap missile defense for Poland and Cz.Rep.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 21, 05:59 PM · #
There isn’t any way to persuade the American people to accept defeat, retrenchment and poverty. Look for a succession of failed, one-term presidencies until the political classes figure that out.
— y81 · Sep 21, 06:10 PM · #
Thanks. Excellent points.
— Steve Sailer · Sep 21, 06:38 PM · #
Let me say what I was saying a different way. I think now is the time to preserve our degrees of freedom by avoiding big moves and added entanglements. Buy into strategic inactivity: consolidate gains, avoid irreversibles and new obligations. Stay away from moral and theoretical causes. Cultivate flexibility and plan for the worst. Say no to decoherence, collapse no waves, and steel thyself for weather.
Or something. I don’t really know. Carry on.
.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Sep 21, 07:53 PM · #
I have some sympathy for Russia’s attitude about our missiles in their backyard even if they aren’t pointed at Russia.
But what about those people in Poland and the Czech Republic who say the U.S. has betrayed them with this move? They have legitimate fears, given what has happened in Georgia and elsewhere. Putin acts like he owns Ukraine. Shouldn’t that be a reality check? Shouldn’t Obama have come up with some other means of helping those countries to maintain their independence as part of the package? (He doesn’t seem to be very good at diplomacy, but he could at least have tried.)
— The Reticulator · Sep 22, 02:45 AM · #
Why should the fears of the polish or czech even remotely dictate american foreign policy? Sorry if some of us actually take american interests seriously.
— Derek · Sep 22, 03:16 AM · #
“Why should the fears of the polish or czech even remotely dictate american foreign policy? Sorry if some of us actually take american interests seriously.”
Because it sets a bad example. It makes every country remember that whatever the U.S. says now, we might just unsay in four years when the next guy is calling the shots. Maybe they’ll start thinking that it would be better to deal with Russia or China, where you can at least be sure that the policymakers of today will still be pretty much the same policymakers in ten years.
True, we don’t vitally need the help of the Poles and the Czechs right now (though you might want to ask some of our guys in Afghanistan whether they’d like to see the Polish Special Forces go home). But what about when we do vitally need the help of some other countries, but we’ve given them cause to doubt whether we’re willing to give them anything in return?
In sum, this decision really does carry some costs, even if they aren’t obvious or proximate. The decision only makes sense if we believe that the benefits outweigh the costs. And if, as Millman argues, it “isn’t going to pay any obvious dividends,” then we are justified in also factoring in the less than obvious costs.
— Ethan C. · Sep 22, 06:07 AM · #
Hi!
Congratulations! Your readers have submitted and voted for your blog at The Daily Reviewer. We compiled an exclusive list of the Top 100 Politics Blogs, and we are glad to let you know that your blog was included! You can see it at http://thedailyreviewer.com/top/politics/4
You can claim your Top 100 Blogs Award here : http://thedailyreviewer.com/pages/badges/politics
P.S. This is a one-time notice to let you know your blog was included in one of our Top 100 Blog categories. You might get notices if you are listed in two or more categories.
P.P.S. If for some reason you want your blog removed from our list, just send an email to angelina@thedailyreviewer.com with the subject line “REMOVE” and the link to your blog in the body of the message.
Cheers!
Angelina Mizaki
Selection Committee President
The Daily Reviewer
http://thedailyreviewer.com
— The Daily Reviewer · Sep 22, 09:32 AM · #
“Why should the fears of the polish or czech even remotely dictate american foreign policy? Sorry if some of us actually take american interests seriously.”
Dictate? I would say influence rather than dictate.
The loss of freedom in other countries has a way of contributing to loss of freedom at home, too. It provides cover for those at home who would take away our own freedoms. If Russia didn’t have Putin, we would be a freer people. We can’t dictate to the Russians that Putin should go, but we should help our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic maintain their freedom and independence, partly because it’s the right thing to do, and partly out of our own self-interest.
— The Reticulator · Sep 22, 12:04 PM · #
I’ve nothing useful to add to what’s in ‘em but Strobe Talbot and Hilary Clinton have op-eds in yesterday’s FT that certainly push back against the “concession to reality” idea.
— Sanjay · Sep 22, 12:28 PM · #
FWIW, Larison cites a poll showing a plurality of Poles agreeing with Obama’s decision.
— kenB · Sep 22, 12:31 PM · #
@ Ethan C
My thoughts are that it would be more beneficial for US to deal with the Russians and the Chinese instead of with the Polish and the Czech. (presuming we are talking a zero sum game here, although the reality is that the latter two countries aren’t running to russia or china anytime soon and this is also presuming that removing missile defense hurts our position with poland, as pointed out above, that assertion is dubious). I mean, what is ultimately more important in afghanistan, the new supply route the Russians allows for us or Polish special forces?
Who is having good relations with more important to in the long run?
@Reticulator
That looks like one giant nonsequitur
— Derek · Sep 22, 03:47 PM · #
Extravagance to an honest beauty [b][url=http://www.game4power.com]Buy wow gold[/url][/b]orc was having a [url=http://www.aionkina.com]aion gold[/url]permanent place to live with [url=http://www.cheapaion.com][b]Aion Kina[/b][/url]at all. They had been nomads or prisoners for [b][url=http://www.game4power.com/buy-gold/]buy cheap wow gold[/url][/b]so long that the concept of home had been all [url=http://www.game4power.com/]buy gold wow[/url]but lost. Several of the massive, greenish figures tilled a [url=http://www.gold4power.com]cheapest wow gold[/url]field. Watching the tusked, brutish-looking workers, Krasus marveled at [url=http://www.vipwarhammergold.com]warhammer gold[/url]the concept of orc farmers. Thrall, however[url=http://www.metin2sale.com]metin2 yang[/url] send off its power, was a [url=http://www.aionshopping.com]aion gold[/url]highly unusual orc and he had readilygrasped the ideas to[url=http://www.bestwarhammer.com]buy warhammer gold[/url]that would return [url=http://www.aionkinavip.com]aion kina[/url]stability to his people. Stability was something the entire world needed [url=http://www.gold4power.com]wow gold for sale[/url]badly. With another wave of his hand, the dragon mage dismissed [url=http://www.gold4power.com]wow gold cheap[/url]Kalimdor, summoning now a much closer location??the once [url=http://www.itemchannel.com]world of warcraft gold[/url]proud capital of his favored Dalaran. Ruled by the wizards of the Kirin Tor, the prime wielders of magic for [url=http://www.cheapaion.com]cheap aion kina[/url], it had been at the forefront of the Alliance’s battle against[url=http://www.game4power.com/]Wow Gold [/url]the BurningLegion[url=http://www.game4power.com/]www.game4power.com[/url] in Lordaeron and one of the first and most prized targets of the demons on[url=http://www.cheapaion.com][b]aion kina[/b][/url] in turn.
— buy wow gold · Sep 22, 03:48 PM · #
Reticulator, please study up a little here. Both Poland and Czech Republic are members of NATO, which means that we are by treaty obligated to defend them if they are attacked. I’m not sure how you got it in your head that 4 missiles and a radar installation were somehow the dividing line between freedom and Russian invasion for these countries, but you’re completely wrong.
Second, the rest of your claim is such ludicrous horseshit that right or wrong is completely beside the point. It’s nothing more than ‘everything’s connected’ mystical BS filtered through conservative ideology. I challenge you to name a single actual freedom-curtailing policy in the US that was explicitly justified by what Putin did, ever, in history. Meanwhile, I can name dozens of actual curtailments of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, like Lincoln’s canceling of habeas corpus, FDR’s detention of Japanese-Americans, and Bush’s (and now Obama’s) claimed right of indefinite detention, that were all justified by involvement in wars. And, make no mistake, war is something you are working to make more likely here.
— Bo · Sep 22, 04:13 PM · #
Millman, all that’s real here is the concessions.
— Carl Scott · Sep 22, 07:12 PM · #