Continuing your interesting line of reasoning, Joseph, I would further call-into-question that favorite American truism, "we are a superpower." Exactly what is a "superpower?" How are we more "super" than any other country of comparable size? Exactly what quality has the United States that would cause any other nation on earth to voluntarily, and not at the point of a missile, call it "super?"
Perhaps this entire notion of "superpower," and indeed this whole notion of somehow-sanitary technological super-war, is just a leftover product of the Cold War ... which might, itself, just be a fabrication of the military industry. (And yes, I was there too.) Perhaps this approach, financially lucrative though it seems to be, is precisely and exactly the wrong course for our nation.
As you said, power and leadership is the ability to get someone else to do what you want them to do. The very best way to get that is to create something that is truly mutually-beneficial for both of you. To be such a master of your own national affairs that other nations desire to be a part of it ... and not just because the people making those decisions sit on multiple Boards of Directors.
Perhaps the best way to create a strong and defensible nation for ourselves is to rebuild our own nation in many respects that are now broken: in infrastructure, in honor, in trustworthiness, even in kindness. Instead of trying to steal someone else's fire, build a strong campfire of your own that others might desire to gather around. Are not the men and women in those other nations, men and women just like you and me?
The crisis on September 11, 2001 produced an opportunity for George W. Bush to express a bold new vision of foreign policy. But a successful vision is one that combines inspiration with feasibility. And Bush did not get that combination right. Among past presidents who have been able to combine inspiration and feasibility in an effective vision, Franklin Roosevelt was quite good, But Woodrow Wilson was not. My colleague at the Kennedy School, David Gergen, has described the difference between the boldness of FDR and the boldness of George W. Bush: "FDR was also much more of a public educator than Bush, talking people carefully through the challenges and choices the nation faced, cultivating public opinion, building up the sturdy foundation of support before he acted. As he showed during the lead-up to World War II, he would never charge as far in front of his followers as Bush." President Bush's temperament has been less patient. As Bob Woodward put it, "he likes to shake things up, and that was the key to going into Iraq."
I think the next president is going to have to learn from these lessons of the past. In my new book, The Powers to Lead, I argue that a key skill for the next president will be contextual intelligence. And this will be true for all the three contenders. Contextual intelligence is the intuitive diagnostic skill that helps you align your tactics with your objectives so that you get smart strategies in different situations. What we need to look for in the candidates is an ability to understand the current context of American foreign policy and where we stand in the world.
A decade ago, the new conventional wisdom was that the world was a unipolar American hegemony. Neo-conservative pundits drew the conclusion that the United States was now so powerful it could do whatever it wanted and others had no choice but to follow. For example Charles Krauthammer, the columnist for The Washington Post and Time Magazine, wrote a column celebrating this view as "the new unilateralism." That was a very strong, powerful theme of the first years of the Bush administration.
This new unilateralism was based on a profound misunderstanding of the nature of power in world politics. Power is the ability to get the outcomes you want. And whether certain resources will produce power or not depends upon the context. Contextual intelligence means a president who understands the strength and limits of American power. We are the only superpower, but our preponderance is not empire, it can influence but not control other parts of the world. In fact, if you want to understand power and its different context in the world today, I have suggested the metaphor of a three dimensional chess game, in which you play on a top board, a middle board, and a bottom board, both horizontally and also vertically. On the top board of military power among countries, the United States is the only superpower, and nobody is about to replace us, I would argue, for at least a couple of decades, and that includes China or whoever else you want to nominate for that position. On the middle board of economic relations among countries, the world is already multipolar. We cannot get what we want in trade, antitrust, or other things without the European Union, China, Japan, and others cooperating with us. And on the bottom board of transnational relations, things that cross borders outside the control of governments, whether it be pandemics, climate change, drug trade, or transnational terrorism, this is a situation where power is chaotically distributed. Nobody is in charge; nobody has control.
To call that American empire or American unipolarity is nonsense. It's taking a theme which fits the top board and applying it to the bottom board. And yet ironically, it's that bottom board where some of our greatest threats now come from. After all, it was from the bottom board that we got 9/11. And in that sense, if you're playing on a three dimensional chess board you have to realize that the instruments that you use have to be appropriate to the board you're playing on. What we did nationally was focus so heavily on the top board and our preponderant military strength, that we thought that was going to solve things on the middle board and the bottom board where economic power and soft power are more important. Understanding the context of foreign policy - the contextual intelligence that I'm talking about - requires a president to know when and what instruments to use in what context so that we will understand the limits and sources of American strength. When the press quizzes the candidates in debates, they should do a better job of probing for evidence of that contextual intelligence.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I cannot find the comment box so I'm "replying" to yours here at the top, though my comment is not directly addressed to yours, yet it is not unrelated to it either.
I have a quote for Mr. Nye, a kind of "guess who said": "From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden...."
Good judgment is not a complex chess game such as Mr. Spock plays on board the Starship Enterprise. Good judgment is an intuition. And in order for it to be "good" those making the judgments have to be "good." If we want to reform government, we're wise to begin by reforming ourselves -- for we are the government.
good points -- I, too, have pondered the concept of "super power" and the qualifications for that title. The obvious quality that most think of, I think, is military might. Beyond that, I think the concept receives little, if any, more thought from most.
Joe, do you still think Uncle Sam is "bound to lead"?
Bush is no FDR. He is not even FDR's shadow. Bush is a school yard bully. How can one expect Bush to educate the public when he has no understanding of the issues involved in his policies? He is like the emperor's of old who wanted war to affix glory to their names. Bush wants war and conquest and that is all. There is no larger plan for him.
Bush has done more to disprove any concept of a "new unilateralism" then to reinforce it. He has shown the limits of American military power as no other president has. We can overthrow a regime, but not make the people like us. Therefore, we must be capable of responding to a multi-polar, confusing world. We can not always make the rules and enforce them at the same time any longer.
The way to achieve our predominence again is by recapturing our moral authority. We must restore habeas corpus and close Guantanamo. Give those we are holding a fair trial, even if the result is acquittal due to lack of evidence. We must quit torturing and outlaw any such policy. We must have a dialogue with nations around the globe and continue our efforts in disaster recovery when it strikes. We should lead the war in our global warming response and other treaties, like the ban on land mines. All these efforts reinforce the image of America as a just and fair place. We must remember our own heritage and not lose it to preserve our security.
The events of Sept 11, 2001, which Bush characterized as 'winning the trifecta', let his administration seize power that the legislative and judicial branches of government and the American people were only too eager to surrender.
Mr Nye, you are mistaken. Bush had a bold new vision for American foreign policy; it began with the invasion of Iraq, was followed quickly by violation of the Geneva Conventions, and looks like it will continue with an invasion of Iraq (perhaps just before the November elections). Bush's toxic legacy is illegal wiretapping of American citizens, no-bid contracts, concentration camps, torture, tax cuts for his friends and skyrocketing national debt and budget deficits.
Where do we go from here? Can it get worse? I'd say so. It is not difficult to imagine Bush's bold new vision being revealed further in a declaration of marshal law, cancelation of elections, abolision of Congress and rounding up the dissidents in Halliburton concentrations camps administerd by Blackwater. He can leave the federal courts as they are: stacked with ultrarightwing ideologues who can be trusted to side with the government.
It's bold alright. But sure is ugly.
School Boards demand that a PHD be placed in every school as the Principle.
WHY WOULD WE ACCEPT LESS FOR OUR PRESIDENT????
Good point and maybe that's why schools are doing so poorly...PhDs...maybe we should stop requiring them and actually penalize PhD holders for not having practical knowledge to be running schools...they are doing a terrible job at it.
Because that would be unconstitutional... and fairly meaningless to boot when scum like Rumsfeld and Card can rack up honorary degrees in poli-sci and unaccredited bible-colleges just for being the scum that they are (Rummy has ELEVEN).
That goes against everything liberal. What if someone is too poor to goto college?
BOfever, are you even trying anymore? What kind of half-hearted response was that? Do you just throw out the term "liberal" in reply to any post?
Contextual intelligence and the next President...kind of gives the concept of mutual exclusivity whole new meaning. Throw in foreign policy prowess and you have the mutually exclusive trifecta.
I don't think Hillary does well in terms of contextual intelligence.
I think, like LBJ, she is a piecemeal thinker, and to secure some prized legislation, she'll ensure that she can't be attacked from the right on foreign policy, and maybe, for getting us out of Iraq, she'll nuke Iran (if she and her Kyl-Lieberman folly won't make that moot BEFORE reaching office).
Her driven quality will be counterproductive, because it narrows the vision.
America is in a terrible spot right now. No one person can have the answers.
This is a republic. We will save this country in a republican manner- that is, as a nation, or not at all. The nation is far ahead of the political class right now- and Hillary, like LBJ, is the consummate political operator.
Not what we need.
Obama gets my vote, by default.
Interesting point.
I always figured LBJ was the most qualified person to ever become President. Certainly the most "experienced in obtaining and using political power. And he was a failure in the most spectacular fashion. After having done great things.
Of course Kennedy died before the chickens came home to roost but it was similar argument in 1960. Did you trust Kennedy's judgment or LBJ's experience.
Turns out judgment was the much better call. . . Go Obama!!!!
The so called unipolar superpower military status enjoyed by the US at the end of the cold war (a concept, not a reality - but that doesn't always matter) should have been used to organize the world in ways advantageous to the US. Instead we had very narrow interests taking American military superiority very literally to engage in silly little military conflicts which they saw as "projecting" strength which they then used to gain ephemeral advantages in place like Europe, the MidEast, Central Asia, etc. The truth of the matter was that the biggest beneficiary of peace would have been the USA.
Winning battles did nothing for the USA. Key quote from Madeleine Albright to the Pentagon, the rhetorical question:
"What are these wonderful weapons good for if we are not going to use them?"
Obviously Madeleine Albright doesn't get it at all. She is Hilary's foreign policy guru. Her protege Holbrooke who would be Hilary's Sec. of State is only margnally better.
BushCheney knew an attack was coming. They actively disregarded reports and even enabled the hijackers by diverting resources. To fault him for the 'inspiration' thing is ridiculous. He is a war criminal and cannot be analyzed as anything else or in any other context. Just you wait, war with Iran is imminent. He will attack without congressional approval. He will declare martial law and suspend the constitution. He will also authorize Blackwater to act as his SS rounding up political enemies. Congress will be dissolved and we will live in fear. Not of terrorists, but of our own government.
This is my worst nightmare. Every unconstitutional step, every signing statement, every cavalier discounting of wise counsel have been steps toward total abrogation of the Constitution, declaration of martial law, and suspension of elections. I read "The Handmaid's Tale" years ago, and I see a real chance of something similar happening here.
I hope you guys are wrong. If that happens our options will be "criminal resistance", by
which I mean any resistance no matter how peaceful the intent will be considered criminal and violence will be provided by the state. Our other options are leaving the country or living on our knees.
I have read your essay further. The U.S. may not be an empire in the colonial sense , but the U.S. government certainly acts imperially by parking its military on every continent on the globe. This is why the 9/11 attacks were allowed to occur: eventually such reckless regard for the sovereignty of others would catch up to us. And "we the consumers" (formerly We the People) would be the ones to ultimately pay the price in blood and Treasury.
I say "allowed" because nothing was done to stop the 9/11 attacks from happening, despite advanced intelligence warnings. Conspiracy, you may say, predictably? Or business as usual? You can't attempt a unipolar world without a justification.
Revolution now.
In a not unrelated development, it's reported that Admiral William Fallon, Chief of CENTCOM, has just resigned effective the end of this month.
This is an event practically unprecedented in modern US military history. The last time a commander of a similar major US combat command was either fired or resigned in time of war was at the beginning of World War II when Admiral Kimmel was relieved of command of US Pacific forces following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
The bone of contention seems to be Admiral Fallon's disagreement with President Bush over a military attack on Iran. Bush wants one, the Admiral and most of the US military leadership does not.
The Bush administration has consistently pushed the case for an attack on Iran over the last year with reported pushback from most in the military community. About the only support Bush has received for his proposed attack is from the Israeli military community who have publicly called for a US nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
I'm reminded by a friend that General Douglas MacArthur was the last military commander of a major US command to be sacked. Gen. MacArthur was relieved in a disagreement with President Truman. I'm still unable to recall a resignation in similar circumstances. This may be the most significant resignation, if not in US military history, at least in military history since World War II.
Don't forget Robert MacNamara's 1968 resignation as Defence Secretary (the true turning point in the Vietnam War).
Another difference between Bush Jr. and FDR is that FDR wasn't batshit insane.
Sociopath. The word is "sociopath." Bush is not insane; he's incapable of empathy or introspection. Google the definition and tell me it doesn't fit.
Neither were his Vice Presidents.
One of the main problems is that the Neo-Cons confused military power with strength. The US by the time Bush took office was already too dependent upon foreign production and labor, even with the budget surplus, to possess true economic stamina. The combination of ill advised tax cuts, the expansion of the federal government and unchecked military spending led to the economic morass today.
Just as Spain was bankrupted by her wars of empire, so goes the US. Whoever heads the next administration will have to be capable of building traditional coalitions of allies in order to achieve our policy goals in ways which do not involve the military. The period of redeveloping our economy, since we no longer manufacture anything of note, must go hand in hand with with rebuilding and restaffing our armed forces for our future security.
Hillary has Sandy Berger as a Foreign Policy Advisor.
He was Bill's National Security Chief. In 2003 he removed
documents from the National Archives Reading Room.
How will Hillary conduct Foreign Policy while Bill is
jetting around the world brokering deals for good friends Burkle
and GIUSTRA?
How will she deal with the Saudis while they pour millions
into Bill's Foundation?
Hillary's Speech on so called "War Vote"... ( SJ 45 PCS )
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
SJ 45 PCS Text...
http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/sjiraqres45pcs100902.html
Questions for Senator Obama... Answers NEEDED...
You desire to fill the Office of President and Commander in Chief...
# 1 : Is it Constitutional for the President to Declare WAR?
# 2 : S. J. RES. 45 ( September 26, 2002 ) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq... Is this a WAR Authorization in your mind, or an Authorization to use our U S Armed Forces against Iraq as an OPTION???
# 3 : Is a Military Option to use U S Armed Forces a Commitment to War (and only to WAR ) in your mind, or are there many Military Options, such as just the threat, or a well targeted missile, or a smart bomb, or Arming Opposition, etc???
# 4 : In your mind, because G W Bush Invaded/ Occupied Iraq, citing this SJ 45 Bill, should Congress NEVER trust another President with a Authorization to use United States Armed Forces??? Would that take a "use Armed Forces" support Vote off the table for you???
# 5 : Did the U. S. declare WAR on Iraq and is there a Iraq WAR??? If not, how is it possible for Hillary to have Voted for a WAR that does not exist??? Did you spin a Lie to us???
# 6 : Have you Honestly read what Hillary actually was Voting for and on???
Question for you:
If getting shot at and bombed doesn't constitute a "WAR," then what the hell is the Army doing over there in Baghdad? Playing pinochle?
You Hillarybots have lost it.
So you do NOT believe in following the Constitution???
Kills like a war, costs like a war, must be a war. Or were you refereing to the specious and unprosecuted "war on terror"?
Loading comments…
Posted March 11, 2008 | 04:25 PM (EST)