hard v. soft power

[Overpaid Slacker]

You don't disappoint, Supe. "[C]lean-up operation for our international reputation" is exactly the type of complete hollow nonsense our multi-culti buddies at the UN and State try to sell us. These phantoms amount to nothing, and without them the soft power myth largely evaporates. How many "battles" have we been able to avoid by our international reputation alone? How many trade concessions have we received due to the esteem of Eurocrats? So, w/o this great rep nobody will take our foreign aid anymore? We'll get lower prices for our goods abroad? Greenbacks won't be welcome anywhere in the world? This reputation crap is pure fantasy -- they're out to cut our economic throat (Kyoto, anyone?), and they'll be more than happy to smile at us when they do it.

You think France (for example) cares how much it's loved around the world, when it trades with, and supports, autocratic murderous regimes (Hussein's Iraq, the Sudan, Nigeria, etc.) and goes into its former colonies to rob and murder opponents WITHOUT U.N. APPROVAL?!? No ****ing Way ... wake up. This "loss of worldwide" esteem bullshyt is passive agressive propaganda to appeal to the softheads in the absence of principled, measurable consequences. And it's searingly hypocritical coming from most of its proponents. Don't fall for it.

Military action is a necessary evil to effect the outcome, whether there's territory to take or not. As Epaminodas, Sherman and Patton proved very well, you don't need to exterminate your enemy to defeat them (so it's not about finding and killing every terrorist, or not making new ones) you need to convince them that they can't win. Taking the fight to them, killing them where they live and showing the predicate behind the righteousness to be a farce is an essential part of this strategy.

Epaminodas took a group of Theban farmers right to the gates of Sparta, proving to them the weren't invincible and could be beaten -- without fighting enormous setpiece battles exterminating Sparta and every last Spartan. He destroyed the Spartan helotage by showing them their society and culture were built on lies.

Sherman marched to the sea, avoiding major setpiece confrontations, but destroying the notion that the South was untouchable, safe or protected by some divine right. He destroyed much of the South's means to supply itself and put the lie to the notion that their slave society was inferior. While Grant was trading body blows and putting men through the meatgrinder, Sherman was destroying the South's will to fight, and their ability to supply themselves. Obviously he didn't exterminate every last southerner, but he is largely responsible for ending the war by convincing the South they couldn't win and they were vulnerable.

Patton's march into Germany can be similarly characterized, I believe.

So fight them where you find them and do not relent -- you win not when you kill every actual and potential terrorist, but when you've proven to them that they can't win, their efforts are in vain, and they have better opportunities than to take arms against the entire civilized world. This is why Kerry's keening is so dangerous -- it plants the notion that the US is unsure it can win, or win this way, or win here, etc. In order to win we need to project not only force, but the confidence that we will win, to crush the will of our enemies.

JP

[Superman]

So, all diplomacy is useless cowardice?

The sole means to economic health is through the barrel of a gun?

It is our right and duty to pound the world into capitalistic submission, using our military?

Now, there's the Genius' Guide to International Relations.

I should not have even posted. We've got guys here who are apparently convinced that if we have yet to meet a goal (keeping jobs here, fighting terrorism, etc), any goal, then it just means we have not ground the rest of the world into fine enough dust. Might makes right, and Dubya's strategy is the one we want because it makes no difference at all whether we have friends and allies. It makes no difference what Middle Eastern people think of us, as long as we've got the best military.

If you guys really believe that, then I give up on you. I'll take to thinking people instead. Far more intellectually stimulating, and less frustrating.

Hey, I've admitted what I see as positive effects of our actions in Iraq. I've even admitted how someone could view the Iraq decision as good even in the absence of the WMD issue or the Saddam/BinLaden link issue - although the current administration has kept their eggs in those two baskets. And all I get is this crap about how dems are wimps and all we have to do is pulverize people in other countries until they bow to our superior firepower. I'm not in the habit of wasting debate resources on Neanderthals. So, have your "president" and all the bombs you can drop. You've probably got four more years to feather Dubya's next and that of the rest of the Petrol industry, at your obvious but accepted expense. Enjoy giving to the Dubya Foundation, with your money and your job security and the lives of your children.

[turbocarrera]

Ten score years ago, defeat the kingly foe
A wondrous dream came into being
Tame the trackless waste, no virgin land left chaste
All shining eyes, but never seeing

Beneath the noble bird
Between the proudest words
Behind the beauty, cracks appear
Once with heads held high
They sang out to the sky
Why do their shadows bow in fear?

Watch the cities rise
Another ship arrives
Earth's melting pot and ever growing
Fantastic dreams come true
Inventing something new
The greatest minds, and never knowing

The guns replace the plow, facades are tarnished now
The principles have been betrayed
The dreams's gone stale, but still, let hope prevail
History's debt won't be repaid

[Overpaid Slacker]

Supe, you claim some intellectual superiority (which honor I haven't seen bestowed hereon) but fundamentally mischaracterize opponents' arguments -- a tactic of the weak or desperate -- and don't respond in any manner to the principle of my argument, for which I've provided historical examples and interpretations thereof. So, run if you must, casting aspersions you're not deserving of using, nor licensed to handle. It fits the type. Especially if the only "thinking" people you know are those that "think" like you. Pathetic.

At the root, you conflate diplomacy with being "liked". The two only coincidentally intersect. Effective diplomacy must be backed up by means to enforce pacts and punish transgressors -- witness the efficacy with which Monaco, Switzerland and Lesotho can effect change to their benefit through what you too loosely refer to as "diplomacy."

I'll keep an eye out for a GOP policy statement promoting the grinding of the rest of the world into fine enough dust... it must be out there somewhere, b/c a "thinker" wouldn't retreat to adolescent hyperbolic mischaracterization to make what he considers to be a point.

JP

[Burnin' oil]

Supe,

You are the master of the straw man:

Straw man = a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.

Reading your posts makes me wonder if there is another dimension to this board that only you can see . . .

[dd74]

Before you guys jump all over Jim for his beliefs in what diplomacy should be, maybe it would be better to realize there are possibly two camps of diplomacy; 1) A diplomacy of force, which we are witnessing now, and 2) A diplomacy of reason and/or negotiation.

Force works: it did for the Roman Empire, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan.

Reason and/or negotiation works: Sadat/Begin, for example and Reagan/Gorbachev.

But there are tangibles in negotiations that have to be understood. One has to know with whom they are negotiating. Are they agressive, passive, will they listen, will they not, etc?

Allowing the possibility Iraq at one time was not an agressor nation, it certainly is now. Whereas diplomacy of reason may have once worked, it no longer is an option - that idea has expired with Bush's determination of how dangerous the regime and country was. Now on into the forseeable future, in regard to Iraq, force must be used. As to whether current diplomacy will work in the long run for our benefit and Iraq's, who's to say. It's truly a crap shoot right now.

[Burnin' oil]

dd,

I do not have a problem with Super's beliefs. I take issue with his hyperbolic characterizations of members of this board. Read his most recent post in this thread and tell me who he is describing because I sure do not know.

[dd74]

I just call them as I see them. Some of the Repubs on this board have been as nasty, one-sided, mean-spirited and vitriol as the Libs.

It's like the WWF but with keyboards and computer screens.

[emcon5]

Originally posted by dd74
Before you guys jump all over Jim for his beliefs in what diplomacy should be, maybe it would be better to realize there are possibly two camps of diplomacy; 1) A diplomacy of force, which we are witnessing now, and 2) A diplomacy of reason and/or negotiation.

Force works: it did for the Roman Empire, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan.

Reason and/or negotiation works: Sadat/Begin, for example and Reagan/Gorbachev.

Diplomacy isn't either force or negotiation, it is a combination of both. Negotiation only goes so far, and there needs to be a consequence if the negotiations fail. You can only say "Stop, or I'll say stop again" so many times. The force isn't always military though, it can also be economic.

As to Sadat/Begin/Reagan/Gorbachev, the involved nations had been at war either directly (6 day, Yom Kippur war) or indirectly (Korea/Vietnam/Afghanistan) for years. There was still a carot and a stick, just in these cases the stick came long before the carot.

Your choice of words "force" vs "reason" implies you believe force is never necessary, and all that is required is for "reasonable" diplomats to talk things over and end with a nice group hug. The problem is, not everyone is reasonable. Sometimes the carot doesn't work, and the only effective stick is a sharp one.



Tom

[dd74]

Your implications of my words are wrong, Tom. Where did I "imply" via reason is the only way to negotiate?

[emcon5]

Originally posted by dd74
Your implications of my words are wrong, Tom. Where did I "imply" via reason is the only way to negotiate?

Your use of the word "reason" for negotiation implies that when negotiation doesn't work those involved are without reason, or irrational.

Your choice of examples leans this way. Napoleon and Ghengis Kahn? A diminutive megalomaniac bent on world conquest, and the leader of the barbarian horde? Niether evokes a positive image. There are many other examples of leaders who have used force, how about F.D. Roosevelt, Lincoln, or any of these guys.

There are some other examples of "reason and/or negotiation" you missed, like Neville Chamberlan and Edouard Daladier.

If you say that you didn't mean it the way I read it, my apologies.

Tom

[dd74]

Originally posted by emcon5
Your use of the word "reason" for negotiation implies that when negotiation doesn't work those involved are without reason, or irrational.

Your choice of examples leans this way. Napoleon and Ghengis Kahn? A diminutive megalomaniac bent on world conquest, and the leader of the barbarian horde? Niether evokes a positive image. There are many other examples of leaders who have used force, how about F.D. Roosevelt, Lincoln, or any of these guys.

There are some other examples of "reason and/or negotiation" you missed, like Neville Chamberlan and Edouard Daladier.

If you say that you didn't mean it the way I read it, my apologies.

Tom

I give you credit: I had to think of a response, which is this: diplomatically speaking "force" is subjective in lieu of positive images, or anything positive for that matter. In all, I never intended to show Napoleon or Khan in positive light.

Secondly, you cite inadequate examples toward what I'm talking about, and indeed the theme of this thread; hard vs. soft, which in lieu of current events, has to do with Iraq and how to diplomatically appease the situation. I brought up conquerers (Napoleon, Khan, Reagan - conquered communism, and Sadat/Begin - each hoped to conquer the other's country by taking land) in comparison with a forced eradication of a despot and in return, a forced introduction of western-style democracy to Iraq, which is a modern-day conquering. This cannot be denied.

Conversely, your examples involve men who were instrumental in a revolt from Britain ("the signers"), whose country was attacked (Roosevelt) and under civil war (Lincoln). The positions these men took were those of defense, and not agressor, which was one reason they did not come to my mention. Also, none of the examples you bring up sought to bring their influence onto an unrelated country. So the men you mention don't apply.

I will admit that no conquerer is in his or her most strict terms a "benevolent conquerer." I think we can agree on those grounds.

However, where we probably disagree is upon the belief Bush is a benevolent conquerer. Possibly diminutive and meglomaniac, yes. Napoleon-like? Well, he won't have enough time in office to prove such historic wherewithall as Bonaparte.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by dd74
Conversely, your examples involve men who were instrumental in a revolt from Britain ("the signers"), whose country was attacked (Roosevelt) and under civil war (Lincoln). The positions these men took were those of defense, and not agressor, which was one reason they did not come to my mention. Also, none of the examples you bring up sought to bring their influence onto an unrelated country. So the men you mention don't apply.

Not the point of the post, but I have to cry foul when you include Lincoln with non-aggressors...in a position of defense. On the contrary...he was the ultimate aggressor...attacking peacefully seceding states and torching them.

[dd74]

Originally posted by fintstone
Not the point of the post, but I have to cry foul when you include Lincoln with non-aggressors...in a position of defense. On the contrary...he was the ultimate aggressor...attacking peacefully seceding states and torching them.

LOL! Well, hmmm...

Much like my little monniker: "If they move, kill them!"

[nostatic]

soft power is not Democratic invention, but actually democracy in action. In a digital world, soft power has the capability to transform politics and business. But if you want to ignore it, or belittle it, party on Francis. And bring a fiddle to play while your central power structures fall into dissarray..

[dd74]

Originally posted by nostatic
soft power is not Democratic invention, but actually democracy in action. In a digital world, soft power has the capability to transform politics and business. But if you want to ignore it, or belittle it, party on Francis. And bring a fiddle to play while your central power structures fall into dissarray..

Okay, what's the Readers' Digest explanation of soft power? Where's it being employed? By digital, I assume you mean The Internet.

[Mule]

OK boys, tell me one place where diplomacy has been effective when dealing with the practicioners of the religion of peace.

[Superman]

I'm in a hurry again (probably a good thing I don't have much time for this), but a couple of things:

Listen, I don't mean to cast aspersions, engage in hyperbole or insult anyone here. I'm frustrated. It's like this: There are two general ways to negotiate a labor agreement, for example. One is you come in with ridiculous demands and don't move an inch for weeks. Throw fits, send nastygrams, issue threats, engage in brinkmanship. And then you go back to your constituents with your "enemy"'s blood dripping from yoru sabre and shout slogans. Your hope of course, is that the bargained "price" will move nearer your ridiculous position than it would have had you bargained in better faith. the other method of approaching negotiations is the "good faith" kind.

I'll admit that a violent response is what the world expects to see from America, and I personally feel this is what the world SHOULD see. And I see the value in having the world just understand this. That if you kill Americans, blood will flow. I'm totally okay with that.

But the bloodthirst thing is like the ridiculous bargaining position. You guys are pretending that that's all there is to solving this problem of terrorism, and to that I say, respectfully, not at all wishing to insult anyone, that you've got no idea how problems are actually solved. Tom mentions that both hard and soft power is necessary, in combination. I respectfully suggest that some of you guys just consider the possiblity that this notion might have some merit. In fact, I think that if you think hard enough you will notice that it is the SOFT power that actually effects change. But the most frustrating thing is that I think some of you know this. And are sticking to the "bad faith" method of discussion. In defense of someone whose understanding of international relations seems to be as simple as those same, ignorant assumptions that bombing is all we really need to do. I guess you need to pretend like it's that simple, because to your Commander in Chief, it IS that simple. And that's really frightening to everyone in the world who understands how problems really ARE solved, and what's potentially at stake.

So again, I'm regretful if I have offended. These are my opinions and you guys can call me smart or dumb. And you guys can pretend it's hyperbole (you have to, I guess, to defend your guy), but the world is frightened by this guy. "This guy" is not saddam or Osama.

Call me whatever you like.

[turbo6bar]

Is the UN handling of Sudan a case of soft power?

[Burnin' oil]

Super,

Try, just one time, to state your position without personal attacks.