THE THIRD REBUTTAL: HISTORY AND SPREADING DEMOCRACY [Updated}
This is the third and final installment of the Demarche Challenge debate on History and Spreading Democracy between myself and Cheryl ” CKR” Rofer of Whirledview. For those starting their reading of the debate for the first time, here is a quick reference:
CKR Original Post vs. Zenpundit Original Post Part I. & Part II.
CKR First Rebuttal vs. Zenpundit First Rebuttal
CKR Second Rebuttal vs. Zenpundit Second Rebuttal
I should begin by stating that this debate has been for me a very productive dialogue with Cheryl where ideas moreso than partisan positions were central to the discussion. Cheryl’s commentary on the different nature and ramifications of the European Enlightenment compared to our Anglo-American understanding of that legacy, is a subject that would merit further examination in its own right.
I believe a meeting of the minds was reached in terms of the value and method of ” applied History” to forming current policy by getting historians to shift gears toward using their vast wealth of information for purposes of synthesis. In her second rebuttal, Cheryl noted a very important point:
“Strategic thinking states assumptions and the paths or scenarios that result from these scenarios. It seems that this might be a method that would allow academic historians to test syntheses and apply them to policy”
The great error in most American political debates over foreign policy is to confuse strategy with tactics or even methods of executing policy. The temptation becomes overwhelming to seize on a supposed ” inconsistency” in an opposing administration’s diplomacy and triumphally declare them to be souless cynics and hypocrites. Or more harmfully, for purist zealots to demand- and worst of all, legislate – a zero tolerance rigidity in the execution of a strategy by an administration of their own side. We like to call important foreign policy consensus concepts ” Doctrines” but dogma is something best left to the theologians, not diplomats.
( One example of the latter phenomenon is America’s Cuba policy. I’m proud to say I was an anticommunist hardliner from my earliest days of political awareness. However, it takes a certain amount of stupidity not to realize that the maniacal rigidity and self-defeating execution of the embargo has helped keep that bearded bastard in power for 46 years )
Strategy is about defining and accomplishing goals within a dynamic system which requires recognizing the variables and being honest with oneself what will move them. Tactics are the how and when you move the variables. A statesman needs cognitive facility with both elements of policy planning. Lacking tactical skill, a briliantly conceived grand strategy gets mired in unanticipated conflicts, distractions and lost opportunities. Without a strategy, you may be solving the wrong problem with your good tactics while your opponent is clearing the board. Nixon and Kissinger were one of the most effective foreign policy teams in American history because they paired a visionary geopolitical strategist (Nixon) with a brilliant tactician ( Kissinger) to pull off a string of diplomatic achievements that neither man could have managed alone.
Page 1 of 2 | Next page