Response to MD-man

Matthew's got some good questions for me.

Also see his comment to my last post.

He writes on American foreign policy:

Someone told me the other day, repeating a joke he'd heard, that "liberals have no ideas; conservatives bad ones". Whether it's funny or not, let's just assume that such is the most pessimistic view of both. That is, pessimistic, but true to some extent. If you cared about this "Long War", this "World War IV", this "Great Struggle of our Time" — between analyses within circles liberal and conservative, which would you pay more attention to — the one with no ideas, or the one with bad ones? Obviously, the latter.

Now, and this get to his point about asking me why the use of colors in my last post, if the choice is between no ideas and bad ideas (and it basically is at this point) , then I argue that the right approach is not to go to the bad ideas. At least not at first. I suggest instead creating good ideas. The use of colors was to say that all our thinking on this subject to date is firs-tier, to use a worn out phrase. It's not gonna work.

Call them yellow, integral, radical middle, post-conservative/liberal whatever, but the ideas are already out there, they just fit into the categories of conservative/liberal and don't get the face/blogosphere time of others.

I suggest someone like Thomas Barnett or see Robert Wright's article on a new foreign policy framework (for liberals!!!) here. He calls it progressive realism. It fits nicely with Barnett's notions of the Gap/Core and The New Map. Merges idealism/progressivism (humanitarianism) with realism (national security).

This combination is important because as Matthew writes:

to me an enormous issue for Americans is this: to what extent should our humanitarian concerns be secondary to our national interests? This is a moral question; perhaps the preeminent geopolitical one of our time.

To wit, the simple answer, I think, is the humanitarian/national interest question is a false dichtomy. Progressive realism, yellow, integral foreign policy, recognizes that humanitarianism, properly done is the single greatest promoter of our national interest.

In a globalized world instability abroad can (and does) have immediate impact at home. Gone is isolationism. The threat of British airliners today brings that point home again (Pakistanis and Bangladeshis it seems at this point).

Take the SE Asian tsunami. The US sent massive aid and relief to Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation on the planet, which generally had had negative views of the US/West. But our help there positively affected our standing immensely (no bombs, no guns needed). But we didn't follow it up with sustained development, and now sharia is being introduced in Banda Aceh.

Or again the Pakistani earthquake, same deal--cheers at the beginning but no sustaining.

Now of course the US can't be all over the world everywhere. Which is why both Bush's arrogance and Chirac/Schroeder's cowardice (the breaking of the traditional Atlantic alliance) has caused so many problems. The greeny Euros are all pacifist and the Bushies are all war-mongering. The Europeans, Aussies, Canadians, they are the ones needed for the future maintenance, reconstruction. Along with the Chinese if only we would make a military connection with them and force them to actually do something positive for the world's order instead of just taking from it.

So that is why I focus so heavily on economic connectivity, technological sharing, insitution building, cultural exchange. Interior change involves will and responsibility, which ultimately rests in the hands of those involved.

I'm not a right-hand determinist though. Clearly this isn't going to work in every and all situations. See North Korea. Sometimes military exercises are necessary. But those military incursions, as Iraq and Lebanon have shown are not prepared to deal with the enemy now faced.

And worse even in situations where we do knock out a military enemy (The Baath regime, The Taliban), we have no capacity to follow it up.

We are winning the war, losing the peace. And no talk of Clash of Civilizations, WWIV or whatever gets that. The idea of a lasting peace, instead of a total destruction of the enemy (as with the Nazis) is missed in that jargon.

As we see, terrorism is more like a virus then Islamo-fascism. And to use the analogy, viruses continually ex-ist with computers, but generally the system holds. But they will always be there it seems.

Which is why we need to start focusing on connection and building states insteading of just killing terrorists.

We have a Secretary of Defense (or Offense) that dominated the first administration and the Iraq War. The second term is controlled by Condi and the State Dept on Iran. But both policies are substantial failures. Because both are built on the assumption of just "national security", enforcing US will, either with an army or through vague "diplomatic pressure". It is a sad consequence of living in our victimhood around 9/11, and not seeing beyond that tragedy.

And this mental logjam, explains why the administration looks like the proverbial Dutch boy with his fingers in the dike just trying to plus leaks after they have already started. Our foreign policy is so reactive.

Until there is a Dept. of Reconstruction/Infrastructure there is no going forward in this, liberally or conservatively. Without this department and its linking--in a yellow governance--to a military wing, humanitarianism will be a "green" form of such work. And it will be easily manipulated by those with red/blue regimes, leaving the West further weakened. But minus such humanitarianism, the West offers no vision to the Muslim world. And then the Clash of Civilizations becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Minus that a humanitarian/national security issue will find some less than good balance, I guess, but frankly if we don't find that higher pitch, I think it won't matter too much.