The United States needs to rediscover how to be a "smart power." That was the conclusion of a bipartisan commission that I recently co-chaired with Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state in the Bush administration. A group of Republican and Democratic members of Congress, former ambassadors, retired military officers and heads of non-profit organizations was convened by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. We concluded that America's image and influence had declined in recent years, and that the United States had to change from exporting fear to inspiring optimism and hope.
The CSIS Smart Power Commission is not alone in this conclusion. Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for the U.S. government to commit more money and effort to soft power tools including diplomacy, economic assistance and communications because the military alone cannot defend America's interests around the world. He pointed out that military spending totals nearly half a trillion dollars annually compared with a State Department budget of $36 billion. In his words, "I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to used soft power and for better integrating it with hard power." He acknowledged that for the head of the Pentagon to plead for more resources for the State Department was as odd as a man biting a dog, but these are not normal times.
Smart power is the ability to combine hard and soft power into a successful strategy. By and large, the United States managed such a combination during the Cold War, but more recently U.S. foreign policy has tended to over-rely on hard power because it is the most direct and visible source of American strength. The Pentagon is the best trained and best resourced arm of the government, but there are limits to what hard power can achieve on its own. Promoting democracy, human rights and development of civil society are not best handled with the barrel of a gun. It is true that the American military has an impressive operational capacity, but the practice of turning to the Pentagon because it can get things done leads to an image of an over-militarized foreign policy.
Diplomacy and foreign assistance are often under-funded and neglected, in part because of the difficulty of demonstrating their short term impact on critical challenges. In addition, wielding soft power is difficult because many of America's soft power resources lie outside of government in the private sector and civil society, in its bilateral alliances, multilateral institutions, and transnational contacts. Moreover, American foreign policy institutions and personnel are fractured and compartmentalized and there is not an adequate inter-agency process for developing and funding a smart power strategy.
The effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks have thrown us off course. Since the shock of 9/11, the United States has been exporting fear and anger rather than our more traditional values of hope and optimism. Guantanamo has become a more powerful global icon than the Statue of Liberty. The CSIS Smart Power Commission acknowledged that terrorism is a real threat and likely to be with us for decades, but we pointed out that over-responding to the provocations of extremists does us more damage than the terrorists ever could. The commission argued that success in the struggle against terrorism means finding a new central premise for American foreign policy to replace the current theme of a "war on terror." A commitment to providing global public goods can provide that premise.
For more details, see the report on the CSIS website.
Sorry about the bad edit.
There clearly needs to be a presumption against the use of force, as a rule, if liberal values are to be taken seriously. Otherwise, they really do become meaningless. And there is no meaningful distinction between your ideas and those of Nazism, Communism, and Islamism.
I think you do believe in a distinction between your ideas and those ideologies and the thinking of any and all despots, gangsters, and terrorists. But you will need to outline a distinction that makes that clear. And a presumption against the use of force, as a rule - the least possible necessary aggression or necessary force - really is the only logical presumption to do that.
Ben Sutherland
http://benfrankln.blogspot.com/
Insert British for American in that sentence, Joe, and anyone not defending American power can see the problem with this conception of power using more or less coercive means to get what we want.
Power and aggression are necessary for dealing with matters of self-defense and the defense of others. But they are perpetually rationalized for whatever purposes we please. Some "smart" combination of power has been used by every despot, gangster, or terrorist who has ever lived. Dictators provide public goods as well as oppress and politically imprison. Gangsters seduce and give incentives as well as rob and plunder. Terrorists persuade as well as murder.
The use of hard and soft power, irrespective of the interests or liberty of others, has been rationalized for every purpose, for the length of humanity's history.
That is why it is so important to create a presumption against power as a means of coercing for whatever we please and in favor of liberal values and the freedom that sustains them.
Everything else is exactly what Lord Acton warned us of. And it is clear that it no longer matters whether it is done in the name of liberalism, conservativism, or any other ideology.
American power is and will be humbled. And no combination of hard or soft power will avoid the humbling of those who would try to center coercion rather than persuasion, conscience and thought at the center of our liberal values. Theorists gave hope to those who sought freedom and independence in the New World. But it was their thirst for freedom that finally threw off the shackles of empire.
And no amount of hard or soft power could have possibly have trumped that commitment to freedom and the values of liberal democracy.
Ben Sutherland
http://benfrankln.blogspot.com/
Richard Armitage did not do enough to object to President Bush's invasion of Iraq. As a military man, he should have known the consequences. A well timed resignation would have been an excellent use of smart power.
The US uses a much greater percentage of world resources than equal distribution of resources by population would entitle it to. This creates a real conflict of interest with China and India. Perhaps even with Europe.
This conflict is not going to go away, or be resolved just by the US becoming "smarter".
The US, currently the preeminent power, faces competition from a rising China {and to a lesser extent, India. Historically, rising powers usually have arguments with the current top dog; since they think their increases in power should be reflected diplomatically and the top dog doesn't.
This conflict will not go away just because the US becomes "smarter".
The large US current account deficit represents a subsidy by the rest of the world to US consumption. At some point it come to an end.
The US government will then face a crisis.
This conflict of interest is real, and will not be solved by the US becoming "smarter".
In short, the US has real international relations problems unrelated to the idiocies of the current administration. We're going to have to deal with it.
Sadly, there have been a few who succumbed to the pro-war pressure and went into battle (Johnson got us into Vietnam right after the Kennedy assassination). Ironically, it was the first war we lost, as there was no real justification on our part to prop up a corrupt government which was not popular with the people of that country.
In Johnson's case, it was the military that became eager for war and pushed him towards it. In our current fiasco, the military did not want to engage in Iraq, but our Chicken-Hawk administration were too eager to reap the monetary profits, and went recklessly ahead, while our mission in Afghanistan (capturing Bin-Laden and bringing him to justice) is still not achieved.
We've had many "false-flag" operations deliberately designed to garner support from our citizens for a military action. One has to wonder WHO was really behind 9/11. That question can be answered by seeing who gains from this military engagement.
-Pre-emptive war
-Lying to its people/world
-Guatanamo detention camp
-Abu Grav
-Torture
-Waterboarding not torture
-Blackwater mercenaries indiscriminant murder
-Suspending Habeus Corpus
-Spying on citizens w/o cause nor court approvals
-Training firefighters to spy and report "suspicious" activities like dissent
(Violation of Admendments #1 and #4)
-Corruption and criminal activities
-Hypocracy
-Sexual Scandals
-Channeling the US treasury to their friends
-Exploiting disasters, diasater capitalism: Katrina, 9/11
-Secrecy
-Slime
-Rewriting history
-Chicken Hawks running the war
-Incompetance
-Stealing elections
-Perverting American democracy at home
-Expansion of American predatory capitialism throught the world also known as imperilism
-Marriage of gov't and corportions for the purpose of enriching the owners of gov't - Fascism
-Redistricing throughout the states to favor repigs in elections.
-many many more I have probably forgotten since there this administration has flung so much against the wall and has resorted to "smart power" to exploit and enrich themselves committing so many crimes and violations that it will take decades to assimilate and undo if at all possible.
What do we really have to fear from terrorism? Talk about grievances and the opportunity or lack of opportunity to do something about them, And the essential fact that a terrorist has no power. If he did, he would mass his armies on the border, invade and have his way. And this lack of any real formidable strength leads them to become guerrilla fighters.
Certainly it would not be a pleasant prospect to be the target of a terrorist act or have your friends or loved ones involved but let's recall why they are called "terrorists" and that is because they are limited in their power to doing what? Terrorizing! That's it. They can't overwhelm a country and take control of it. All they can do is attempt to scare people into overwhelming themselves and voluntarily relinquishing the lifestyle they love so isn't it frustrating and disappointing when the establishment, our own government, does the heavy lifting for them?
There have always been and always will be terrorists in the world. The successful (and rational) response will involve the competent presentation of ideas and philosophies; an understanding of similarities and differences among people and how our lives and our actions effect one another. And I'm afraid this will involve -- horror of horrors! -- talking to people we may not agree with.
So, how does one explain the right wing insistence on attacking other countries? Is it because they are dumb, or because they can make more money by going to war against counries that are no threat to us and did not attack us?
Attacking Iraq after 9/11 made about as much sense as attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor, to paraphrase Sen. Kerry. I therefore pretty much have to conclude that the lies told to the American people and to the Congress by this administration to get the OK for the invasion were for the purpose of securing power and making money.
On the video one of the Israelies said, "Our purpose was to document the event." How does one "document" an event they knew nothing of before the event?
See what you think of it. That's what the man said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Finfowars%2Enet%2Farticles%2Fapril2007%2F230407vans%2Ehtm
Armitage on the other hand is an ass.
He has helped put us in the terrible position we are in.
How can America represent Democracy and Freedom when the American people are losing Freedom at an alarming pace; when the President clearly breaks the law of the land and congress doesn't do its job to hold him accountable. I am speaking of Bush_Cheney violating FISA.
The USA has to focus on restoring the Rule of law and the Constitution before it can do anything about Freedom and decency in the rest of the world.
Repealing the so called Patriot Act would be a good start.
When the President can declare an American citizen an "enemy combatant" without the Constitutional requirements of due process and hold that American citizen indefinitely as is now the case, American Freedom is in grave danger.
I hope the Soviet Style of government that Bush ,enabled by Dems and repubs in Congress, have created in America will be dealt with before anything else.
Whenever I hear liberals use the word "smart" the hackles go up. Okay Mr. Nye, how do you apply "smart" power in the case of Iran? Darfur? Pakistan? The West Bank or Gaza? Syria?
Classroom theory--sounds great in position papers, not so effective in the real world.