At the Washington Post Dan Drezner commemorates the 70th anniversary of George Kennan’s “Long Telegram” by calling for a similar missive with respect to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia:
No, if there’s a place I want to see a Long Telegram from, it’s Saudi Arabia. Last week in the Atlantic, Sarah Chayes and (my Fletcher School colleague) Alex DeWaal offered up quite the warning about the protector of Mecca and Medina…
As you may recall George Kennan’s “Long Telegram” set the agenda for our Cold War policy with the Soviet Union. IMO there’s more than one country for which we could use a change in strategy and, despite all of the mau-mauing in the op-ed pages of the NYT, WP, and WSJ, Russia and China are far down on the list. The KSA is a good pick. How about Israel?
I’d say China & Russia are both better places to start than the KSA & Israel. (I really think that’s one issue, not two.) After all, Russia has as many nukes as we do, and China’s economy is about the size of ours.
I’d rather see a letter from Mexico, which would have to cover people coming TO Mexico to get to the USA.
Most importantly for the people in DC, NYC, LA & Silicon Valley, I think those assholes need a letter from what’s derisively called “FLYOVER COUNTRY”.
The reaction to the Russian moves in Syria reminds me that we as a country don’t seem able to focus clearly on what we want. And that’s crucial.
The knee-jerk response has been wounded pride, a sense that Putin is taking something from us. What exactly is he taking? Is there something in Syria that we want? Is there some profit to be made? Is there security to be bought? Would forcing Putin out of Syria somehow improve our position in the world? Or are we just toddlers who react furiously when someone picks up one of “our” toys?
We need to walk this all back to basics. I think we want is a world where we can trade freely and where our people can move with a reasonable degree of security. We want our major overseas markets (EU, Japan, China) to be stable. And we want to keep all of “that” over “there” and not here.
The outsized emphasis on the ME comes from our dependency on Saudi oil. Our emotional commitment to Israel is the second link in our chain of involvement. Our concern about the growth of radical Islam, which arguably threatens the stability of the EU via terrorism and refugee invasion, is the third link. And our concern for human rights is also a factor.
So, here’s my plan:
1) Continue the all-of-the-above approach to replacing ME oil. We shouldn’t do unnecessary damage to the environment, and we should prioritize clean energy, but the cost of dependency is dead soldiers and a huge defense budget, so we should balance eco-concerns against that.
2) We should develop a military strategy aimed at a version of suppressive fire – using drones, air power, naval fire, special forces, bribery and diplomacy not to turn the ME into Vermont, nor to impose governments on the people there, but to deny stability and consolidation to rising forces such as ISIS. The goal is not to make perfect but to impede and complicate the rise of malign forces. Governments and forces that leave us and our allies alone, we ignore. Governments and forces we dislike spend their days searching the sky for Predators. The governments and forces who leave us alone will have an advantage and should in time replace those more militant forces.
3) In concert with the above, successful terrorist attacks against the US or NATO should be met with massive, disproportionate retaliation. No eye-for-an-eye. If you attack the US it’s a head for an eye. We have essentially placed a low price on dead Americans, a price it makes sense for ISIS or Al Qaeda to pay. We should raise the price beyond their ability or willingness to pay.
4) We should end all immigration out of the ME, excepting only those who have actively aided us. (Interpreters and the like.) We should severely restrict all visitor visas for people wishing to come from unstable countries, from countries that sponsor terrorism and countries that preach violent anti-Americanism. We should urge our EU friends to take similar measures.
Basically, reduce the importance of the ME to the US, handicap potentially effective anti-American forces like ISIS, raise the price for killing American citizens, and throw barbed wire around crazy town.
Definitely Israel. Too much of our foreign policy is outsourced to them. We need to bring it back in house. I would like a letter to Russia, but since the neocons just want war with Russia, or something hostile, I am sure i would not get the letter I want.
Michael-3000 dead in 9/11. We responded by killing 100,000 Iraqis and spending trillions of dollars. We invaded and occupied Afghanistan, killing thousands more. Spent billions more. That, per your plan, stopped all future attacks. Yes?
Steve
No, Steve, we did not respond by killing 100k Iraqis in retaliation for 911, we knocked the Taliban out of power in reaction to 911. And had we stopped there, had we done severe and lasting damage to the Taliban rather than trying to pull off a feckless occupation, the message would have been delivered.
There are four ways to respond to a terrorist attack from abroad. We can do nothing, we can become a paranoid security state, we can retaliate proportionally, or we can retaliate massively. Doing nothing is politically impossible and amounts to surrender. Becoming a security state increases the damage we suffer. Retaliating proportionally sets a price on American lives which terrorists are happy to pay. Massive, disproportionate retaliation raises the price on American lives.
Let’s say we warn ISIS to evacuate Raqqa within 48 hours. And then we obliterate Raqqa. If they’ve evacuated they lose a city but few lives. If they refuse to evacuate they lose a city, plus a lot of lives. Either way they’ve been hurt and humiliated.
Having seen the obliteration of Raqqa, are the Turks more or less likely to want to play footsie with ISIS? How about the Saudis? How about the Sunni tribes? Would Assad be strengthened or weakened in his ability to retake ISIS territory? How would ISIS’s claims to a Caliphate look? How many young Londoners would rush to die in the next massive retaliatory bombing?
The people running ISIS and AQ calculate the cost. One dead American = a Predator strike on whoever is number 3 in ISIS that week. They weigh that against the publicity, new enlistment, money from Saudis, and they decide, “Okay, we can turn a profit on this deal.” They aren’t irrational, they’re just doing the math.
911 happened because AQ and the Taliban decided we weren’t too much of a threat. They could still see profit. But ask yourself whether the Taliban would still have played host to Osama and his crew if they had known in advance that the price would be, say, half a dozen nukes permanently closing strategic mountain passes. Ask yourself how many Saudis would be writing checks to ISIS if they believed it would cost them Medina or Jeddah.
We kept the USSR at bay for 40 years because they believed that we were willing to turn Moscow into a big radioactive hole in the ground – even in the face of a disastrous counterattack. And that was the Russians, who are not known for being easily intimidated.
Or put it in more personal terms. Say you want to punch me. Say I threaten to punch you back. Well, that’s essentially a negotiation. Now let’s say you want to punch me, but I’m holding a 12 gauge shotgun to your head. Still want to punch me?
Which, by the way, is why I still despise Jimmy Carter. The winning move was not to mope and wheedle and prioritize the lives of the hostages. The winning move was to go on TV and say that we’ll be very sorry to lose those those hostages, but the B-52s are en route.
Had Carter played it that way we A) would not have had 8 years of Reagan, and B) would not have had 911. Have you ever read the story of Norwegian heavy water? Various raids did lots of damage, but in the end the Nazis tried to get the heavy water out of Norway to Germany. Part of the route was via passenger ferry – a ferry with Norwegian civilians aboard.
The UK’s SOE (commandos) asked the Norwegian government in exile what they thought about sinking that ferry. The Norwegians signed off on it. 14 Norwegian civilians died, the Nazi A-Bomb effort was set back, and Hitler never got his bomb. Thankfully the Norwegian government in exile had the courage to do the necessary, and saved the world.
” And had we stopped there, had we done severe and lasting damage to the Taliban rather than trying to pull off a feckless occupation, the message would have been delivered.”
Reminds me of the Spartans response to Philip II. If.
Steve
Too much of our foreign policy is outsourced to them. We need to bring it back in house.
Right idea, wrong direction. The Israelis have outsourced their foreign policy to us. And just as soon as you can get pols to disavow Jewish billionaire money, maybe you can get somewhere. Good luck with that.
I would like a letter to Russia, but since the neocons just want war with Russia, or something hostile, I am sure i would not get the letter I want.
You mean like the Obama State Department? Those neocons?
Had Carter played it that way we A) would not have had 8 years of Reagan….
Because if only we had had four more years of Carter, everything would have been great!
Seriously, I have never heard of Michael saying anything good about any Republican that lived at any point after the death of US Grant.
“You mean like the Obama State Department? Those neocons?”
His entire State Dept are not neocons, but way too many are. So yes, those ones too. When we have President Trump, they will all be neocons.
Steve
Also, I think you misunderstand me. We have outsourced our foreign policy decision making to Israel. They have outsourced the bleeding and paying trillions of dollars part to us.
Steve
“Seriously, I have never heard of Michael saying anything good about any Republican that lived…….”
“Hate” and “despise” do seem to be prevalent. But there are therapists to deal with those aspects of poor mental health. He’s not afraid to incinerate some beards, though. So you got that……..
His entire State Dept are not neocons, but way too many are. So yes, those ones too. When we have President Trump, they will all be neocons.
Hmmm, Trump who has said we need to stay out of Syria and let Putin and Assad take care of business. Trump who has said we should let the Chinese handle the NorKs. Yep, sounds dangerously interventionist. He’ll probably do some dumb shit like overthrow a dictatorship at the behest of the Europeans or draw red lines in the sand about going to war. Clearly a dangerous man.
At some point, steve, you need to acknowledge that your leader, Obama, is actually the person in charge, and is actually the person making the decisions, and is the one responsible for those decisions. Libya and Syria are his messes. As is the Ukraine. He’s the boss, he’s the one that fucked up, and that’s his problem.
He’s not afraid to incinerate some beards, though.
What’s his beef with closeted gays?
I can say plenty of nice things about Republicans since Grant. TR did good work with the national parks. Ike was a great political general (not a fighting general) and an inoffensive president. Nixon did good work with China and the EPA. And I will always value Reagan’s “Tear down this wall…”
I have nothing bad to say about Republicans tonight. Even I would never pick on someone on their death bed.
“Hmmm, Trump who has said we need to stay out of Syria and let Putin and Assad take care of business. Trump who has said we should let the Chinese handle the NorKs.”
Hmm, is this the same Trump who has contradicted himself dozens of times? The same one who wants to up the bombing? (And we know where that usually leads.) The same one who is clueless about foreign policy?
Your point about Obama being responsible since he is in charge is a fair one. However, if you follow foreign policy on a regular basis, it is also pretty clear that advisers are important. A president just can’t know everything about every issue and every country. They really are dependent upon those people. So, with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice coaching him, Bush screwed up about as badly as possible. When he actually ran for office he claimed he opposed what he ended up doing. Trump has no prior experience in politics. He is going to end up with the same advisers we had with Bush. I think we should expect the same results.
Steve