,
11 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I liked this essay, and thought it raised points worth thinking about. There's an incoherence in it, though, in that its conceit is that the author is rigorously realistic, not ideological, about the nature of the world.
But his policy recommendations are pure fairy tale. He calls for us to "start from scratch" in our strategic thinking, which means "realizing that however inspiring the dreams of our elite are--
--those dreams will be stillborn if not grounded in both granular, local realities around the world and widespread public support at home that spans party lines—and that must be sustained over the long-term--
--We must be respectful of local realities, whether in Wyoming or Afghanistan."
In other words, he suggests that the US become another country entirely, which is anything but realistic.
In other words, he suggests that the US become another country entirely, which is anything but realistic.
He rightly stresses that China's culture gives it an advantage in imperialism that we don't possess. We neither possess institutions nor a widespread culture that lends itself to being "respectful of granular, local realities" abroad--or even aware of them.
(For evidence: headline after headline reports that US is sending "1,000 troops to the Middle East." It occurred to not one of the outlets that ran the headline that absent further context, this means nothing.)
Americans, as of now, do not think of the world in granular, local terms. Nor is there much hope now of any policy, no less a foreign policy grand strategy, with "widespread public support at home that spans party lines."
If having a nation of the kind he describes is the prerequisite for remaining a great power in the 21st century, we're doomed. We're not going to systematically replace our population with citizens who are more like the Chinese.
We're a silly, self-absorbed, hysterical and tribalized people who (as he notes) are unable look ourselves in the mirror and see our flaws and limitations, and who (as he notes) are unable to elect even halfway serious leaders.
Perhaps he thinks his article will change that, but I don't. I don't see any realistic way to become the kind of America he thinks we need to be to manage this challenge. So his stern realism only takes us so far:
If you don't have the raw materials--in intellect, in institutions--to pursue a foreign policy grand strategy based on rigorous realism, it won't happen.
