Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

September 22, 2004
Time Horizon

From a recent StratFor piece:

Bush’s view is that every alliance must be evaluated in terms of its utility for the United States and that the United States must pursue its foreign interests, even if an existing alliance resists it. Kerry appears to be arguing that since alliances should be seen as permanent institutional frameworks, accepting limitations on American freedom of action is a small price to pay for retaining critical international institutions.
…
The real debate has always been between two schools of internationalism. … One school looks at the United Nations as a hindrance to the pursuit of national interest. The other looks at the United Nations as being at the heart of the national interest.
…
Bush represents the former view; Kerry represents the latter view.

The difference between these views has a relation to the assumed time horizon. It takes time to build coaltions and functioning international institutions. It takes time to build trust. Long term partners who trust each other will go along, even when there are some accute disagreements and no short term benefits. When this trust is broken, like it currently is in some cases, the wound is usually deep and takes a long time to heal.

Bush´s view is relying on short term allies, pressured into duty by short term relative benefits. Allies exchangable at hoc when needed. Kerry´s view relies on long term allies, were pressure is applied by the threat of changes in long term real benefits. Most non-US countries traditionally have a long term view.

This short term / long term divergence can be seen in other issues too. The small saving rate in the US vs. other countries. Houses build for decades from plywood vs. build from stone to last centuries.

Stratfor continues:

One of the things hurting Kerry is that his view has, in general, been a minority view in the United States.

Was this the minority view after the second world war? Has this dichotomy change in recent years? Has the US time horizon shortened?

Posted by b on September 22, 2004 at 14:18 UTC | Permalink
Comments

Stratfor is of very uneven quality, but this is indeed an interesting point.
Read Kagan’s Of Paradise and Power. It’s a good and interesting explanation of this new tendency for the US to focus on the short term. (Kagan, while a “neocon”, is a quite thoughtful one, and he has recently expressed serious criticism of Bush’s policies in Iraq).
But of course, it is strange that the US, which invented game theory, has forgotten one of its most interesting insights, as described in Axelrod’s famous Evolution of Cooperation.
Sorry, cannot comment more extensively now, but do read these two books anyway…
Thanks Bernhard for all the links and topics, thanks to all for many insightful comments (and thanks to all that posted at the Annex)

Posted by: Jérôme | Sep 22 2004 14:48 utc | 1

“Houses build for decades from plywood vs. build from stone to last centuries.”

Do you have any links on this topic, Bernhard?
Stratfor is right about the differences between Bush and Kerry, although I suspect they are differences of style and not of essence.
But Stratfor, again, misses the point. Bush’s idiotic experiment in Iraq iniated an indepedent german foreign policy. The germans didn’t want it right now, but they were forced by the “brilliant” neocon strategy. The new autonomy of Germany is irriversible, with or without Bush.

Posted by: Greco | Sep 22 2004 15:07 utc | 2

Yes, the rhetoric of alliance, as refined by Dean Acheson and others, put the accent on long-term structural relationships, but this rhetoric only concealed a “short-term opportunism” of the kind revealed by the invasion of Greece, the overthrow of Mossadegh and Arbenz, and the treatment of the British during the Suez crisis. A counter-argument might be made for our commitments in Viet Nam, as expressing an alliance of some kind with SEATO. But weren’t those actions really driven by the mindset of the “China Lobby” (certainly not the sort of thing that Stratfor has in mind)? I don’t think we’ve “cooperated” with anyone since WWI, the Versailles Treaty, and Bretton Woods. WWII, in my view, was an American adventure, our alliance with the USSR being typically opportunistic (it had no future after VE Day).

Posted by: alabama | Sep 22 2004 15:26 utc | 3

A guy to look into is Marshall. I’ve had this biography (sorry, no link, it’s at home, wil ltry to post it later) on my “to read” list for a long time, but could not get to it. He seems to have had a major influence on US policies at the end of WWII.

Posted by: Jérôme | Sep 22 2004 15:43 utc | 4

If we go there, Jerome (and I agree that we should), then we’ll have to differentiate between symmetrical alliances (iwhere everyone holds roughly equivalent hands) and the kind of “alliance” forged between occupying countries and the countries they occupy. And we ought to entertain the possibility that the first of our Presidents to espouse a policy of “pre-emptive” military action wasn’t Bush II (in Iraq) but Harry Truman (in Greece).

Posted by: alabama | Sep 22 2004 16:03 utc | 5

“Houses build for decades from plywood vs. build from stone to last centuries.”
Thus, they also need more repairs along the way, thus driving the great economic engine, right? Same goes with crap American cars which tend not to be nearly as reliable or durable as imports- and once again, all the parts, service and labor that goes into the vehicle drives the service sector a bit more. The tentacles of capitalism reach pretty far.
I’d guess also it is significant that, compared to the rest of the world, we are a young and very different sort of country than the world has seen yet, and have been pretty impulsive and self-centered from inception.
I think part of what’s behind the acceleration of our impatience post-WW2 is the concurrent acceleration of technology and most spicifically, military and communications technology. Computers have speeding up the pace incredibly- but then that tide should lift all the boats, though not all the the same degree, since the spread of all this technology isn’t equally distributed.

Posted by: æ | Sep 22 2004 17:05 utc | 6

I am not sure of the timeline idea–at least in the context of Bush and alliances.
What is going on here is much more primitive than that. There is no deep geopolitical calculus going on in Bush’s head in which he weighs the present against the future.
Bush doesn’t govern from the brain but from his primeval gut.
Primordially,–what we have here is a country that has found itself militarily unopposed in the world. Such a situation will necessarily lead to temptations. Just as being bigger and more muscular invites bullying behavior, even so does having the largest military invite its use.
Absolute power tempts absolutely.
Bush and his followers hate the UN, and hate treaties and alliances because they would tie their hands–just as a bully hates his school principal.
Any sort of analysis has got to incorporate the basic human nature of a bully–BECAUSE, that is the level of sophistication we are dealing with here.
I’ve seen anti-UN signs and flags across America. I’ve spoken with anti-UN Americans. I’ve heard their rhetoric and distilled it. It all comes down to this:
Imagine a mammoth manichean cowboy pumped with muscles and hung with all manner of weaponry.
How do you ask a bear to not use its claws or a scorpion not to use its stinger? Or such a cowboy as that, not to swagger the globe?
There is only one answer: All the David’s of the world must help Goliath to go broke.

Posted by: koreyel | Sep 22 2004 17:07 utc | 7

koreyel:There is only one answer: All the David’s of the world must help Goliath to go broke.
Or grab up torches and pitchforks and reinstitute the guillotine. You said a mouthful, koreyel. I’ll admit to holding the idea that there is no way simple “voting” can fix what ails the notion of democracy on the “Happy Planet”. The system is too entrenched. It will take something more, and hopefully replaces with something that is not just another set of greedy dominators replacing the old bosses.

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Sep 22 2004 17:17 utc | 8

found the link to the Marshall biography, it’s the one by Forrest pogue.
Alabama – I agree that the alliances were not symmetrical, but neither were they one-way streets.
Actually, one of the reasons the US went alone in Afghanistan (without using the “article 5” offer from other NATO members) was the experience of the Kosovo campaign, where the US took into account objections by other NATO countries (France, most of the time, as usual) in the bombing campaign (this is what savec most of Belgrade’s bridges, for instance). Needless to say, that experience was frustrating for the US military, i.e. having to defer somewhat to allies who did not even contribute meaningfully to the campaign.
Assymetrical alliances are still a form of cooperation, if only because you listen to the others, even if you don’t always take it into account. Bush is not not even listening.

Posted by: Jérôme | Sep 22 2004 18:58 utc | 9

I agree with B that timing is a neglected topic in world politics. We have all been solicited to believe that our reactions on the moment to ongoing events have some importance, are of relevance. In the long run it is not so.
The below is sort of along koreyel’s line.
Bush´s view is relying on short term allies, pressured into duty by short term relative benefits.
Bush’s Coalition of the Willing or the Wailing (or whatever) in the Iraq invasion are not allies but vassals and victims of blackmail or paid-for proxies. Micronesia? Huh? Poland? Poland obviously hoped for a lot of cash with little outlay, and loved anything that hooked them to some anti-Communist superior power (excuse superficiality, any Poles about?) These allies were co-opted and then and listed, at the start, only for respectability and legitmacy as they would be viewed by the US TV public. The significance on the ground, or for the future, was nil. It was a PR op, no more. Only the Brits counted. Australians, more than one knows right now – that is another story.
Kerry is not different. Distanced and supposedly irresponsible for the present murderous quagmire, he can blah about longer term, more solid, alliances. He has not had the oppo’ to forge them and in this case could not have – it is just Pol Smoke. That is all.
He has said quite clearly that alliances would (should have, hopefully will..) permit the US to push the burden of fighting on others. How he is to manage to co-opt these proxy fighters is a mystery.
Does Kerry think because he speaks French he will charm Chirac? Maybe Terry and Bernadette can discuss perfume and cassoulet and all will be hunky dory? Yikes.
And, btw, alliances fo what – killing a lot of Muslims or Ay-rabs in a ressource war dressed up as a religious-cum-cultural crusade hardly seems a worthy cause for gathering up allies.

Posted by: Blackie | Sep 22 2004 19:15 utc | 10

@Grecco 11:07
“Houses build for decades from plywood vs. build from stone to last centuries.”
That is my impression from watching the buildup of the Reston, Va. area 1995 to 2002 and various travels throughout the US an Europe. Some stats are at census.gov Principal Type of Exterior Wall Material of New One-Family Houses Completed
Brick & Stucco ~ 40%
Wood & Vinyl ~ 50%
In main European countries brick etc is about 80-90%. It´s often difficult to even get a permit or credit for wood housing in Germany.

Posted by: b | Sep 22 2004 19:33 utc | 11

Houses built in plywood: Well, just look at Florida. How people can have such crappy houses, or even worse, actually live in trailers in such a hurricane-ridden area, is beyond me. Same with crappy houses in earthquake areas, and in tornade areas.
What you build show how far you plan and think. Egyptian pyramids are still there and would partly survive a nuclear explosion. Most American homes are just flushed away when the first strong wind arrives. Apparently, most Americans don’t think their civilization will last more than a couple of decades, and they don’t seem to care either.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Sep 22 2004 22:16 utc | 12

Blackie:
Australians, more than one knows right now – that is another story.
We’re listening. What’s the story?

Posted by: DM | Sep 23 2004 0:16 utc | 13

Jerome, I wasn’t just referring to “symmetrical” and “asymmetrical” alliances. I was referring to the bonds of the US with its nominal “allies” in the Post-WW II period. Those “allies” were occupied by Americans, and some still are. Other countries–Spain, for example–didn’t become allies until they agreed to be occupied by our military forces. Or, to put it bluntly, and borrowing your own words: it would be nice if the US would listen, but I’m really wondering whether it ever listens to anyone. Bush is only an ugly caricature of American Presidents since Roosevelt, and the U.S. will only learn to listen when it becomes a diminished power, truly needing the assistance of other countries. I look forward to the day when our Secretary of State has to speak Chinese.

Posted by: alabama | Sep 23 2004 1:03 utc | 14

@ houses,
I know this is not that important but, having spent a long time in & out of building biz, would say most current codes demand res. housing built to very high engineering and energy standards (especially in earthquake prone areas). Most of the weak points are in the use of materials that have poor weather resistance quality ie particle board type stuff. Plywood is actually a very resiilent, strong and long lasting.
Trailers? Thats another thing

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 23 2004 3:00 utc | 15

Re: short time (attention) spans, isn’t this rather typical of nouveaux riches and shady characters throughout the business world? The fast-moving sharks, looking for the quick buck and the fast scam, focussed relentlessly on this quarter’s earnings, skating perilously ahead of the accounting department, hoping to pay off personal favours and get out while the stock is still hot?
There are business sectors that think in decades (Swiss Re does, I’ll bet) and those that think in years, but most US business seems to think in quarters. Perhaps one reason for this is the (imho lethal) shift of emphasis from manufacturing and other “real” areas of effort to finance capitalism and a rentier/speculator economy.
There’s not much point in thinking about the multi-decade future of a business if your plan is to inflate its stock value by whatever means necessary (outright lying is favourite, it seems), cash in your holdings and skip town. Or (alternatively) to use it as a shell, liquidate/loot its physical plant and with a bit of quick legerdemain spirit the money off to someplace dark and quiet and write it off as a loss (tax benefits galore).
In other words I think BushCo’s appalling mannerisms and flailing style are fairly typical of US business practise. Rove is the epitome of all that is worst in marketing departments, and Bush of all that is worst in CEOs. America has been worshiping Business for long enough that now it’s run like one 🙂 nice, isn’t it.

Posted by: DeAnander | Sep 23 2004 5:12 utc | 16

Australia is incredibly important to the US. Australia fought in every war on the same side as the US (including Vietnam.) John Howard’s Australia is 100% behind the US, although often it doesn’t look much like it, as most Australians feel the way Europeans do.
The US-Aus. free trade agreement has come into being. ANZUS — defense alliance (which now no longer includes US – New Zeeland) is incredibly strong and the ‘Howard Doctrine’ proposes that Australia and the US protect their shared interests “beyond the nominal commitments of a defense alliance.” Afaik, both countries are working on making their armies compatible, though I have read that there are some quarrels about how this is to proceed.
Howard has steadily increased military spending (2 billion plus Aus. more for the next 5 years, to be spent…) Australia participates in the Joint Strike Fighter program. It supports the US National Missile Defense system. It has joined the Proliferation Security Initiative. There are 30 US bases in Australia; the largest US satellite ground station is in Australia (Pine Gap), I have read.
Howard eagerly awaited the Iraq invasion.
Howard is doing a ‘return to roots’ (White, Western, Democratic) to the detriment of Asian ties.
The US needs Australia to dominate the Asia-Pacific region and perhaps ultimately oppose China (?). Australia needs the US as … it has decided it does, for its security, much in the way Britain did, but with far more fervor and forward planning. Then there is energy and ‘terrorism’.
Corrections welcome.

Posted by: Blackie | Sep 23 2004 13:21 utc | 17

The US and Australia have been fighting about wheat since the invasion. The quarrel was about who would get to sell the most wheat to Iraq, after, of course, Iraq became less able to feed itself and became powerless to choose from whom it would buy. This brawl has been a flamboyant roller-coaster affair, with spectacular ups and downs. It was not bruited about in the mainstream press – a fight between friends is often kept quiet. It continues in its superbly camouflaged fashion, as is evident from two articles that pop up at the top of Google News today:
Australia’s AWB Won’t Comment On Iraq Wheat Sale Report (i.e. the sales of Australia to Iraq.)
Link
Rumours of US sale of wheat to Iraq
Link
Freedom wheat, anyone? Wheat is big bucks, contrary to fries.

Posted by: Blackie | Sep 23 2004 16:03 utc | 18

Back to Main