Nodular Doctrine
Finished writing Nov 7, 10 AM
Posted 1 day later due to technical delay on becoming a member
of the Democratic Underground.
A return to Kissingerian Realpolitic---Recognize that U.S.
resources are finite and start to be more selective in the use
of power. A pullback from the starry eyed idealism of the
Bush administration and recognition that sometimes there is a
difference between ideals, like the US commitment to democracy
around the world and the contingencies of strategic reality.
We already recognize this of course, in the standard example
of current U. S. pragmatism: Pakistan. We do, theoretically,
stand for the principle that the Pakistani people have a right
to a democratic government. But strategic considerations come
first, so we in fact support a military dictatorship.
In Russia, the U. S. needs to stand in principle for
democracy in Russia and independence of former Soviet states
but this needs to sometimes be distinguished from the
realpolitik needs at the core of our relations with that
country. In the bipolar world of the Cold War, serious
pressure on Russia to democratize enhanced the security of the
US by weakening the Soviet regime that opposed US interests
and undermined our security around the world. This fact, and
not just the ideal of democracy, drove our aggressive, “poke a
stick in their eye,” style of diplomacy.
Now, Russia’s position and ours are different. In the
unipolar world of today, the US is more powerful in an
absolute sense but, paradoxically, has more trouble marshaling
allies which sometimes can make us effectively less powerful.
Ironically, this trouble in marshaling allies is partially the
result of the lack of a Soviet empire to scare people into our
camp. Russia is much less powerful than they were in the
Cold war, but paradoxically has greater freedom of maneuver
and less responsibility.
Simply put, we now have an “empire,” in a sense, and they
don’t. In addition, despite having the greatest force
projection capability in the history of the planet Earth, our
power is still affected by distance and no one is further away
from us than Russia and China. (In addition to the pure
question of distance, Russia is largely “insulated” from the
projection of US naval power because it is generally
surrounded by other land-contiguous countries and only has a
small amount of warm water coastline---that coastline remote
from the bulk of its population and important assets).
Furthermore, the US has already substantially increased its
military pressure on Russia in recent years by the very large
expansion of NATO. It is time for the US to focus on
consolidation of these gains instead of overextending itself
into Central Asia.
The answer to the quandaries created by Russia is to maintain
our tough stance but focus our power on issues that matter
most. These issues changes over time of course, but right
now, the principal focus should be to get Russia more on board
with the effort to deny Iran nuclear weapons. One of the
biggest current threats to US security is the possibility of
Iran achieving nuclear weapons (in conjunction with their
already-existing and steadily-growing missile capability and
their heavy association with terrorism).
Other objectives, like democracy in Russia and even
independence of former Soviet states (other than Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Georgia) which we have a limited
ability to achieve in any case, need to be seen in the
perspective of US security. In general, we need to reduce the
emphasis on attempting to influence former Soviet republics.
It is a failed strategy that only accomplishes the alienation
of Russia with little long term positive results. The
rationale is the old military dictum: He who defends
everything defends nothing.
Iraq---A solid majority of Americans agree that we need to
exit Iraq as soon as possible---but that a precipitate
withdrawal would be wrong. I propose that the US create a
Quadrilateral Negotiating Group to try to help the three major
groups in Iraq: the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds, find a
peaceful way out of the current violence and create a stable
situation to facilitate American withdrawal. The
Quadrilateral Negotiating Group, which would be based in the
Baghdad Green Zone, would be composed of three teams, each
team to work directly with one of the three Iraqi groups: a
Shiite Team, a Sunni Team, and a Kurd Team. A fourth team,
the Intergroup Team, would represent all the groups equally.
All members of the Quadrilateral Negotiating Group would be
American citizens, some of Iraqi descent, some not. Each team
would work closely and our informal basis with members of its
respective group, including legislators, religious and
community leaders, etc. Every possible reasonable solution to
the Iraqi problem would be on the table. This would represent
an American attempt to help find a political solution and
break the current deadlock. As part of this process, American
troops would become somewhat less active and reduce their
level of intervention in recognition of the fact that there is
no military solution to the current problems. This would
hopefully reduce American casualties and make America less the
focus of what is going on.
We need to reduce our emphasis on “Middle Eastern Democracy”
(something that realistically, we lack the power to create).
We need to work with Saudis, Pakistanis, Egyptians, and others
to oppose Iran based on pragmatism. We need more use of the
“stick” with Egypt to attain better cooperation on Israeli
security vis a vis prevention of entry of terrorists and
weapons into Gaza. (We already give Egyptians a $3 billion a
year carrot, the stick would mainly consist of reductions of
that amount if they fail to give us anything in return.
Recently, the US government has become aware of this problem
and has begun to act, but they need to do more.)
In reference to China, I support the current trend in Japan
toward strengthening their conventional defenses and
increasing their defense budget to help contain the growing
military threat posed by China. The economic burden of
worldwide defense is thereby shared and the American component
ultimately reduced. We should also continue to extend our
“nuclear umbrella” of protection to Japan and South Korea and
continue to strongly discourage the Japanese or South Koreans
from developing their own nuclear weapons.
In reference to the book In Praise of Hard
Industries, (IPHI) by Eamonn Fingleton, 1999---we need to
pursue pro-manufacturing policies to raise wages for less
skilled workers and cut the wage gap. He emphasizes “hard
industries” to distinguish them from industries based on
assembly, which are obviously, for the most part, headed to
low-wage countries. Hard industries are industries that
require expensive machinery and complex technology.
Fingleton makes the claim that the postindustrialist strategy
of the United States which emphasizes new industries like
software, financial engineering, legal services, web site
building, healthcare, consulting, or telecommunications over
old industries like manufacturing has three major flaws: 1) an
unbalanced mix of jobs, 2) slow income growth, and 3) poor
export prospects. To these three flaws I would add the
closely related one of an increasingly bifurcated job market,
with an ever widening gap between the affluent and the working
class.
Fingleton's first point is that most of the jobs
created in these new industries are for people with much
higher than average intelligence, typically with IQs in the
top 20%, and for some areas, IQs in the top 5%. "As
estimated by the postindustrial economic commentator Michael
Rothschild, up to 20% of the American workforce will be
marginalized by the move to an information based
economy." (IPHI, p. 6) The obvious advantage of
manufacturing is that it creates jobs for a wide range of
people. Even in the most sophisticated areas of
manufacturing, there are plenty of jobs for blue-collar
workers. In addition, much of the knowledge required it to do
modern manufacturing is built into the production machines.
Even many quite sophisticated machines are relatively easy to
use---this is the nature of how software and digital
technology affects machinery.
Fingleton's second point is that the postindustrial strategy
results in slow income growth. According to the publication
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
the authoritative OECD in Figures (1998), the per capita
income in United States trailed those of eight other nations
including Switzerland, “Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and
Austria, all of which devote a larger share of their labor
force to manufacturing in the United States.” (IPHI, p. 7)
From 1980 (about when the United States started consciously
pursuing a postindustrial list policy) to 1996 (latest OECD
data for this book), no less than 12 OECD nations outpaced the
U. S. in terms of income growth.
To update the results of the book somewhat, I believe per
capita growth in the United States has done well since 1996.
However, income distribution continues to worsen, and the
people in the bottom economic half of the country continue to
stagnate in the face of significant economic growth---further
supporting Fingleton's basic contention that the move from
industrialization has fundamentally reduced the opportunity
available in the United States for a very large portion of its
population.
The third weakness of the postindustrial strategy is the
lower rate of exports in postindustrial economies compared to
those with hard industries. It stems from a combination of
complex factors including language barriers, cultural
barriers, regulation, and the overall difficulty of defending
property rights for ideas. Fingleton’s interesting book
touches on many other factors as well and is worth
consideration for US policymakers and voters.
Anti-illegal immigration---Leadership of both Republican and
Democratic parties support comprehensive immigration reform,
including amnesty and increased immigration quotas.
Republicans support this because it means cheap labor for
business. Democrats support this because they think it means
permanent a Democratic majority.
I oppose it however. It means lower wages for working class
people---mainly Democrats. And while Hispanics initially vote
Democrat, the Republican trend of Hispanic voting is rising.
Currently, this issue is owned by grassroots Republicans. I
think Democrats need to take this issue over and make it their
own---it is classic populism, just waiting to be claimed by
the Democrats. A number of strong Democratic congressional
candidates in the Border States have already bolted from the
party line on this issue.
In addition, the open border with Mexico represents the
greatest US vulnerability to terrorists, and closing the
border is the greatest single contribution that can be made to
US security at this time.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
