Grand Strategy for a Divided America

[GAP]

Maybe we should take a page out of the Soviet doctrine. They were brutal when it came to them being hit by anything....it got the message out quickly and effectively.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Let me ask a couple of questions. If we accept that a campaign strategy that worked in one theatre will probably fail given a different set of circumstances, how would you apply containment that was successful against the Soviets to the Islamist crescent with its fairly wide variations in culture and the contradictions caused by various branches of creed and tribal/ethnic background? It may be that frontier soldiering like we practiced in NATO for 40 years would be counter-productive.

On another tack, given that appeasement and apologies can be treated with suspicion and/or considered a sign of weakness, how do we convince them restraint on the part of the west is not a sign of fear?

Interesting question ... which I do not propose to answer but which caused me to revisit The Sources of Soviet Conduct which was published in Foreign Affairs in 1947. It was 'signed' by X but it as open secret that X was George Kennan.

I have highlighted some parts of The Sources of Soviet Conduct that I guess Kennan might have used had he been writing 60+ years later about the Islamic Crescent.

Emphasis and edits are mine
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/23331/x/the-sources-of-soviet-conduct?page=show

The Sources of Soviet Conduct

By "X" (George F. Kennan)

July 1947

The political personality of Soviet Islamist power as we know it today is the product of ideology and circumstances: ideology inherited by the present Soviet Islamist leaders from the movement in which they had their political origin, and circumstances of the power which they now have exercised for nearly three decades in Russia the Islamic regions. There can be few tasks of psychological analysis more difficult than to try to trace the interaction of these two forces and the relative role of each in the determination of official Soviet conduct. Yet the attempt must be made if that conduct is to be understood and effectively countered.

It is difficult to summarize the set of ideological concepts with which the Soviet leaders came into power. Marxian ideology, in its Russian-Communist projection, has always been in process of subtle evolution. The materials on which it bases itself are extensive and complex. But the outstanding features of Communist thought as it existed in 1916 may perhaps be summarized as follows: (a) that the central factor in the life of man, the factor which determines the character of public life and the "physiognomy of society," is the system by which material goods are produced and exchanged their god's will as handed down to them in their Quran; (b) that the capitalist system of production is a nefarious one which inevitably leads to the exploitation of the working class by the capital-owning class and is incapable of developing adequately the economic resources of society or of distributing fairly the material goods produced by human labor; (c) that Wetern capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction and must, in view of the inability of the capital-owning class to adjust itself to economic change, result eventually and inescapably in a revolutionary transfer of power to the working class the Muslim god's will; and (d) that imperialism, the final phase of capitalism, leads directly to war and revolution.

The rest may be outlined in Lenin's own words: "Unevenness of economic and political development is the inflexible law of capitalism. It follows from this that the victory of Socialism may come originally in a few capitalist countries or even in a single capitalist country. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and having organized Socialist production at home, would rise against the remaining capitalist world, drawing to itself in the process the oppressed classes of other countries." [see endnote 1] It must be noted that there was no assumption that capitalism would perish without proletarian revolution. A final push was needed from a revolutionary proletariat movement in order to tip over the tottering structure. But it was regarded as inevitable that sooner or later that push be given.

For 50 years prior to the outbreak of the Revolution, this pattern of thought had exercised great fascination for the members of the Russian revolutionary movement. Frustrated, discontented, hopeless of finding self-expression -- or too impatient to seek it -- in the confining limits of the Tsarist existing political system, yet lacking wide popular support for their choice of bloody revolution as a means of social betterment, these revolutionists found in Marxist fundamentalist Islamic theory dogma a highly convenient rationalization for their own instinctive desires. It afforded pseudo-scientific religious justification for their impatience, for their categorical denial of all value in the Tsarist existing system, for their yearning for power and revenge and for their inclination to cut corners in the pursuit of it. It is therefore no wonder that they had come to believe implicitly in the truth and soundness of the Marxian-Leninist teachings, so congenial to their own impulses and emotions. Their sincerity need not be impugned. This is a phenomenon as old as human nature itself. It has never been more aptly described than by Edward Gibbon, who wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "From enthusiasm to imposture the step is perilous and slippery; the demon of Socrates affords a memorable instance how a wise man may deceive himself, how a good man may deceive others, how the conscience may slumber in a mixed and middle state between self-illusion and voluntary fraud." And it was with this set of conceptions that the members of the Bolshevik Party entered into power.

Now it must be noted that through all the years of preparation for revolution, the attention of these men, as indeed of Marx himself, had been centered less on the future form which Socialism [see endnote 2] would take than on the necessary overthrow of rival power which, in their view, had to precede the introduction of Socialism. Their views, therefore, on the positive program to be put into effect, once power was attained, were for the most part nebulous, visionary and impractical. Beyond the nationalization of industry and the expropriation of large private capital holdings there was no agreed program. The treatment of the peasantry, which according to the Marxist formulation was not of the proletariat, had always been a vague spot in the pattern of Communist thought; and it remained an object of controversy and vacillation for the first ten years of Communist power.

The circumstances of the immediate post-revolution period -- the existence in Russia of civil war and foreign intervention, together with the obvious fact that the Communists represented only a tiny minority of the Russian people -- made the establishment of dictatorial power a necessity. The experiment with "war Communism" and the abrupt attempt to eliminate private production and trade had unfortunate economic consequences and caused further bitterness against the new revolutionary regime. While the temporary relaxation of the effort to communize Russia, represented by the New Economic Policy, alleviated some of this economic distress and thereby served its purpose, it also made it evident that the "capitalistic sector of society" was still prepared to profit at once from any relaxation of governmental pressure, and would, if permitted to continue to exist, always constitute a powerful opposing element to the Soviet regime and a serious rival for influence in the country. Somewhat the same situation prevailed with respect to the individual peasant who, in his own small way, was also a private producer.

Lenin, had he lived, might have proved a great enough man to reconcile these conflicting forces to the ultimate benefit of Russian society, though this is questionable. But be that as it may, Stalin, and those whom he led in the struggle for succession to Lenin's position of leadership, were not the men to tolerate rival political forces in the sphere of power which they coveted. Their sense of insecurity was too great. Their particular brand of fanaticism, unmodified by any of the Anglo-Saxon traditions of compromise, was too fierce and too jealous to envisage any permanent sharing of power. From the Russian-Asiatic world out of which they had emerged they carried with them a skepticism as to the possibilities of permanent and peaceful coexistence of rival forces. Easily persuaded of their own doctrinaire "rightness," they insisted on the submission or destruction of all competing power. Outside of the Communist Party, Russian society was to have no rigidity. There were to be no forms of collective human activity or association which would not be dominated by the Party. No other force in Russian society was to be permitted to achieve vitality or integrity. Only the Party was to have structure. All else was to be an amorphous mass.

And within the Party the same principle was to apply. The mass of Party members might go through the motions of election, deliberation, decision and action; but in these motions they were to be animated not by their own individual wills but by the awesome breath of the Party leadership and the over-brooding presence of "the word."

Let it be stressed again that subjectively these men probably did not seek absolutism for its own sake. They doubtless believed -- and found it easy to believe -- that they alone knew what was good for society and that they would accomplish that good once their power was secure and unchallengeable. But in seeking that security of their own rule they were prepared to recognize no restrictions, either of God or man, on the character of their methods. And until such time as that security might be achieved, they placed far down on their scale of operational priorities the comforts and happiness of the peoples entrusted to their care.

Now the outstanding circumstance concerning the Soviet regime is that down to the present day this process of political consolidation has never been completed and the men in the Kremlin have continued to be predominantly absorbed with the struggle to secure and make absolute the power which they seized in November 1917. They have endeavored to secure it primarily against forces at home, within Soviet society itself. But they have also endeavored to secure it against the outside world. For ideology, as we have seen, taught them that the outside world was hostile and that it was their duty eventually to overthrow the political forces beyond their borders. The powerful hands of Russian history and tradition reached up to sustain them in this feeling. Finally, their own aggressive intransigence with respect to the outside world began to find its own reaction; and they were soon forced, to use another Gibbonesque phrase, "to chastise the contumacy" which they themselves had provoked. It is an undeniable privilege of every man to prove himself right in the thesis that the world is his enemy; for if he reiterates it frequently enough and makes it the background of his conduct he is bound eventually to be right.

Now it lies in the nature of the mental world of the Soviet leaders, as well as in the character of their ideology, that no opposition to them can be officially recognized as having any merit or justification whatsoever. Such opposition can flow, in theory, only from the hostile and incorrigible forces of dying capitalism. As long as remnants of capitalism were officially recognized as existing in Russia, it was possible to place on them, as an internal element, part of the blame for the maintenance of a dictatorial form of society. But as these remnants were liquidated, little by little, this justification fell away; and when it was indicated officially that they had been finally destroyed, it disappeared altogether. And this fact created one of the most basic of the compulsions which came to act upon the Soviet regime: since capitalism no longer existed in Russia and since it could not be admitted that there could be serious or widespread opposition to the Kremlin springing spontaneously from the liberated masses under its authority, it became necessary to justify the retention of the dictatorship by stressing the menace of capitalism abroad.

This began at an early date. In 1924 Stalin specifically defended the retention of the "organs of suppression," meaning, among others, the army and the secret police, on the ground that "as long as there is a capitalist encirclement there will be danger of intervention with all the consequences that flow from that danger." In accordance with that theory, and from that time on, all internal opposition forces in Russia have consistently been portrayed as the agents of foreign forces of reaction antagonistic to Soviet power.

By the same token, tremendous emphasis has been placed on the original Communist thesis of a basic antagonism between the capitalist and Socialist worlds. It is clear, from many indications, that this emphasis is not founded in reality. The real facts concerning it have been confused by the existence abroad of genuine resentment provoked by Soviet philosophy and tactics and occasionally by the existence of great centers of military power, notably the Nazi regime in Germany and the Japanese Government of the late 1930s, which did indeed have aggressive designs against the Soviet Union. But there is ample evidence that the stress laid in Moscow on the menace confronting Soviet society from the world outside its borders is founded not in the realities of foreign antagonism but in the necessity of explaining away the maintenance of dictatorial authority at home.

Now the maintenance of this pattern of Soviet Islamist power, namely, the pursuit of unlimited authority domestically, accompanied by the cultivation of the semi-myth of implacable foreign hostility, has gone far to shape the actual machinery of Soviet power as we know it today in some countries where fundamentalist Islamist regimes have taken power. Internal organs of administration which did not serve this purpose withered on the vine. Organs which did serve this purpose became vastly swollen. The security of Soviet Islamist power came to rest on the iron discipline of the Party, on the severity and ubiquity of the secret police, and on the uncompromising economic monopolism of the state. The "organs of suppression," in which the Soviet leaders had sought security from rival forces, became in large measure the masters of those whom they were designed to serve. Today the major part of the structure of Soviet power is committed to the perfection of the dictatorship and to the maintenance of the concept of Russia as in a state of siege, with the enemy lowering beyond the walls. And the millions of human beings who form that part of the structure of power must defend at all costs this concept of Russia's position, for without it they are themselves superfluous.

As things stand today, the rulers can no longer dream of parting with these organs of suppression. The quest for absolute power, pursued now for nearly three decades with a ruthlessness unparalleled (in scope at least) in modern times, has again produced internally, as it did externally, its own reaction. The excesses of the police apparatus have fanned the potential opposition to the regime into something far greater and more dangerous than it could have been before those excesses began.

But least of all can the rulers dispense with the fiction by which the maintenance of dictatorial power has been defended. For this fiction has been canonized in Soviet philosophy by the excesses already committed in its name; and it is now anchored in the Soviet structure of thought by bonds far greater than those of mere ideology.

 

[Old Sweat]

This could lead to the somewhat inappropriate self-licking ice cream cone analogy where the ramifications not so serious. Unlike Communism, where the system came to exist for the benefit of the party, and not the masses, Islam as a guide for life could appeal to the population as a whole. The disparities in rewards found in some Gulf states may lead to their replacement by more radical but economically egalitarian regimes. However, some of the more radical groups such as the Taliban, by their excesses may not enjoy as wide spread support as they believe. They certainly were prone to imposing their will by draconian measures. This lack of widespread rewards and the need to enforce the doctrine also ultimately was one of the great weaknesses of Communism. It still remains that Islamist indoctrination could prove to be more successful as a popular movement than Communism ever was, which brings me back to my original question - re how to contain it until it ultimately falters of its own contradictions?

It seems to me that as a principle to appease or to condone outrages against the greater world community outside the cresecent can not be allowed. At the same time, the application of economic power to force them into a race they cannot would seem fruitful, even if it is a long term goal.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Continuing with The Sources of Soviet Conduct:

So much for the historical background. What does it spell in terms of the political personality of Soviet power as we know it today?

Of the original ideology, nothing has been officially junked. Belief is maintained in the basic badness of capitalism, in the inevitability of its destruction, in the obligation of the proletariat to assist in that destruction and to take power into its own hands. But stress has come to be laid primarily on those concepts which relate most specifically to the Soviet regime itself: to its position as the sole truly Socialist regime in a dark and misguided world, and to the relationships of power within it.

The first of these concepts is that of the innate antagonism between capitalism and Socialism secularism and Islamist beliefs. We have seen how deeply that concept has become imbedded in foundations of Soviet power in several Muslim states. It has profound implications for Russia's their conduct as a members of international society. It means that there can never be on Moscow's their side any sincere assumption of a community of aims between the Soviet Union them and powers which are regarded as capitalist secular - including China. It must invariably be assumed in Moscow Muslim capitals that the aims of the capitalist secular world are antagonistic to the Soviet Muslim regime, and therefore to the interests of the peoples it controls. If the Soviet Muslim government occasionally sets its signature to documents which would indicate the contrary, this is to be regarded as a tactical maneuver permissible in dealing with the enemy (who is without honor) and should be taken in the spirit of caveat emptor. Basically, the antagonism remains. It is postulated. And from it flow many of the phenomena which we find disturbing in the Kremlin's many Muslim countries' conduct of foreign policy: the secretiveness, the lack of frankness, the duplicity, the wary suspiciousness and the basic unfriendliness of purpose. These phenomena are there to stay, for the foreseeable future. There can be variations of degree and of emphasis. When there is something the Russians want from us, one or the other of these features of their policy may be thrust temporarily into the background; and when that happens there will always be Americans who will leap forward with gleeful announcements that "the Russians have changed," and some who will even try to take credit for having brought about such "changes." But we should not be misled by tactical maneuvers. These characteristics of Soviet policy, like the postulate from which they flow, are basic to the internal nature of Soviet power, and will be with us, whether in the foreground or the background, until the internal nature of Soviet power is changed.

This means that we are going to continue for a long time to find the Russians Muslims difficult to deal with. It does not mean that they should be considered as embarked upon a do-or-die program to overthrow our society by a given date. The theory of the inevitability of the eventual fall of capitalism secularism has the fortunate connotation that there is no hurry about it. The forces of progress can take their time in preparing the final coup de gráce. Meanwhile, what is vital is that the "Socialist fatherland" "umma" -- that oasis of power which has been already won for Socialism Islam in the person of the Soviet Union -- should be cherished and defended by all good color=orange]Communists Muslims at home and abroad, its fortunes promoted, its enemies badgered and confounded.[/color] The promotion of premature, "adventuristic" revolutionary projects abroad which might embarrass Soviet power in any way would be an inexcusable, even a counterrevolutionary act. The cause of Socialism is the support and promotion of Soviet power, as defined in Moscow.

This brings us to the second of the concepts important to contemporary Soviet outlook. That is the infallibility of the Kremlin Quran. The Soviet concept of power, which permits no focal points of organization outside the Party itself, requires that the Party leadership remain in theory the sole repository of truth. For if truth were to be found elsewhere, there would be justification for its expression in organized activity. But it is precisely that which the Kremlin cannot and will not permit.

The leadership of the Communist Party is therefore always right, and has been always right ever since in 1929 Stalin formalized his personal power by announcing that decisions of the Politburo were being taken unanimously.

On the principle of infallibility there rests the iron discipline of the Communist Party Islamaist revolutionary movements. In fact, the two concepts are mutually self-supporting. Perfect discipline requires recognition of infallibility. Infallibility requires the observance of discipline. And the two together go far to determine the behaviorism of the entire Soviet Islamist apparatus of power. But their effect cannot be understood unless a third factor be taken into account: namely, the fact that the leadership is at liberty to put forward for tactical purposes any particular thesis which it finds useful to the cause at any particular moment and to require the faithful and unquestioning acceptance of the thesis by the members of the movement as a whole. This means that truth is not a constant but is actually created, for all intents and purposes, by the Soviet fundamentalist Islamist leaders themselves. It may vary from week to week, month to month. It is nothing absolute and immutable -- nothing which flows from objective reality. It is only the most recent manifestation of the wisdom of those in whom the ultimate wisdom is supposed to reside, because they represent the logic of history world of god. The accumulative effect of these factors is to give to the whole subordinate apparatus of Soviet Islamist power an unshakable stubbornness and steadfastness in its orientation. This orientation can be changed at will by the Kremlin but by no other power. Once a given party line has been laid down on a given issue of current policy, the whole Soviet governmental machine, including the mechanism of diplomacy, moves inexorably along the prescribed path, like a persistent toy automobile wound up and headed in a given direction, stopping only when it meets with some unanswerable force. The individuals who are the components of this machine are unamenable to argument or reason which comes to them from outside sources. Their whole training has taught them to mistrust and discount the glib persuasiveness of the outside world. Like the white dog before the phonograph, they hear only the "master's voice." And if they are to be called off from the purposes last dictated to them, it is the master who must call them off. Thus the foreign representative cannot hope that his words will make any impression on them. The most that he can hope is that they will be transmitted to those at the top, who are capable of changing the party line. But even those are not likely to be swayed by any normal logic in the words of the bourgeois representative. Since there can be no appeal to common purposes, there can be no appeal to common mental approaches. For this reason, facts speak louder than words to the ears of the Kremlin; and words carry the greatest weight when they have the ring of reflecting, or being backed up by, facts of unchallengeable validity.

But we have seen that the Kremlin Islamist leadership is under no ideological compulsion to accomplish its purposes in a hurry. Like the Christian Church, it is dealing in ideological concepts which are of long-term validity, and it can afford to be patient. It has no right to risk the existing achievements of the revolution for the sake of vain baubles of the future. The very teachings of Lenin the prophet Mohamed  himself require great caution and flexibility in the pursuit of Communist Islamist purposes. Again, these precepts are fortified by the lessons of Russian history: of centuries of obscure battles between nomadic forces over the stretches of a vast unfortified plain. Here caution, circumspection, flexibility and deception are the valuable qualities; and their value finds natural appreciation in the Russian or the oriental North  African, Middle Eastern and West Asian mind. Thus the Kremlin Islamist leadership has no compunction about retreating in the face of superior force. And being under the compulsion of no timetable, it does not get panicky under the necessity for such retreat. Its political action is a fluid stream which moves constantly, wherever it is permitted to move, toward a given goal. Its main concern is to make sure that it has filled every nook and cranny available to it in the basin of world power. But if it finds unassailable barriers in its path, it accepts these philosophically and accommodates itself to them. The main thing is that there should always be pressure, unceasing constant pressure, toward the desired goal.[/color] There is no trace of any feeling in Soviet psychology that that goal must be reached at any given time.

These considerations make Soviet diplomacy at once easier and more difficult to deal with than the diplomacy of individual aggressive leaders like Napoleon and Hitler. On the one hand it is more sensitive to contrary force, more ready to yield on individual sectors of the diplomatic front when that force is felt to be too strong, and thus more rational in the logic and rhetoric of power. On the other hand it cannot be easily defeated or discouraged by a single victory on the part of its opponents. And the patient persistence by which it is animated means that it can be effectively countered not by sporadic acts which represent the momentary whims of democratic opinion but only by intelligent long-range policies on the part of Russia's adversaries -- policies no less steady in their purpose, and no less variegated and resourceful in their application, than those of the Soviet Union itself.

In these circumstances it is clear that the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian Islamist expansive tendencies. It is important to note, however, that such a policy has nothing to do with outward histrionics: with threats or blustering or superfluous gestures of outward "toughness." While the Kremlin Islamist leadership is basically flexible in its reaction to political realities, it is by no means unamenable to considerations of prestige. Like almost any other government, it can be placed by tactless and threatening gestures in a position where it cannot afford to yield even though this might be dictated by its sense of realism. The Russian Islamist leaders are keen judges of human psychology, and as such they are highly conscious that loss of temper and of self-control is never a source of strength in political affairs. They are quick to exploit such evidences of weakness. For these reasons, it is a sine qua non of successful dealing with Russia Muslim states that the foreign government in question should remain at all times cool and collected and that its demands on Russian policy should be put forward in such a manner as to leave the way open for a compliance not too detrimental to Russian their prestige.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The 3rd of 4 parts of The Sources of Soviet Conduct (which deals, mainly, with the internal contradictions in the USSR's system):

In the light of the above, it will be clearly seen that the Soviet Islamist pressure against the free institutions of the Western world is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy the Islamist threat, but which cannot be charmed or talked out of existence. The Russians Islamist look forward to a duel of infinite duration, and they see that already they have scored great successes. It must be borne in mind that there was a time when the Communist Party represented far more of a minority in the sphere of Russian national life than Soviet power today represents in the world community.

But if ideology convinces the rulers of Russia that truth is on their side and that they can therefore afford to wait, those of us on whom that ideology has no claim are free to examine objectively the validity of that premise. The Soviet thesis not only implies complete lack of control by the west over its own economic destiny, it likewise assumes Russian unity, discipline and patience over an infinite period. Let us bring this apocalyptic vision down to earth, and suppose that the western world finds the strength and resourcefulness to contain Soviet power over a period of ten to fifteen years. What does that spell for Russia itself?

The Soviet leaders, taking advantage of the contributions of modern technique to the arts of despotism, have solved the question of obedience within the confines of their power. Few challenge their authority; and even those who do are unable to make that challenge valid as against the organs of suppression of the state.

The Kremlin has also proved able to accomplish its purpose of building up in Russia, regardless of the interests of the inhabitants, an industrial foundation of heavy metallurgy, which is, to be sure, not yet complete but which is nevertheless continuing to grow and is approaching those of the other major industrial countries. All of this, however, both the maintenance of internal political security and the building of heavy industry, has been carried out at a terrible cost in human life and in human hopes and energies. It has necessitated the use of forced labor on a scale unprecedented in modern times under conditions of peace. It has involved the neglect or abuse of other phases of Soviet economic life, particularly agriculture, consumers' goods production, housing and transportation.

To all that, the war has added its tremendous toll of destruction, death and human exhaustion. In consequence of this, we have in Russia today a population which is physically and spiritually tired. The mass of the people are disillusioned, skeptical and no longer as accessible as they once were to the magical attraction which Soviet power still radiates to its followers abroad. The avidity with which people seized upon the slight respite accorded to the Church for tactical reasons during the war was eloquent testimony to the fact that their capacity for faith and devotion found little expression in the purposes of the regime.

In these circumstances, there are limits to the physical and nervous strength of people themselves. These limits are absolute ones, and are binding even for the cruelest dictatorship, because beyond them people cannot be driven. The forced labor camps and the other agencies of constraint provide temporary means of compelling people to work longer hours than their own volition or mere economic pressure would dictate; but if people survive them at all they become old before their time and must be considered as human casualties to the demands of dictatorship. In either case their best powers are no longer available to society and can no longer be enlisted in the service of the state.

Here only the younger generation can help. The younger generation, despite all vicissitudes and sufferings, is numerous and vigorous; and the Russians are a talented people. But it still remains to be seen what will be the effects on mature performance of the abnormal emotional strains of childhood which Soviet dictatorship created and which were enormously increased by the war. Such things as normal security and placidity of home environment have practically ceased to exist in the Soviet Union outside of the most remote farms and villages. And observers are not yet sure whether that is not going to leave its mark on the overall capacity of the generation now coming into maturity.

In addition to this, we have the fact that Soviet economic development, while it can list certain formidable achievements, has been precariously spotty and uneven. Russian Communists who speak of the "uneven development of capitalism" should blush at the contemplation of their own national economy. Here certain branches of economic life, such as the metallurgical and machine industries, have been pushed out of all proportion to other sectors of economy. Here is a nation striving to become in a short period one of the great industrial nations of the world while it still has no highway network worthy of the name and only a relatively primitive network of railways. Much has been done to increase efficiency of labor and to teach primitive peasants something about the operation of machines. But maintenance is still a crying deficiency of all Soviet economy. Construction is hasty and poor in quality. Depreciation must be enormous. And in vast sectors of economic life it has not yet been possible to instill into labor anything like that general culture of production and technical self-respect which characterizes the skilled worker of the west.

It is difficult to see how these deficiencies can be corrected at an early date by a tired and dispirited population working largely under the shadow of fear and compulsion. And as long as they are not overcome, Russia will remain economically a vulnerable, and in a certain sense an impotent, nation, capable of exporting its enthusiasm and of radiating the strange charm of its primitive political vitality but unable to back up those articles of export by the real evidences of material power and prosperity.

Meanwhile, a great uncertainty hangs over the political life of the Soviet Union. That is the uncertainty involved in the transfer of power from one individual or group of individuals to others.

This is, of course, outstandingly the problem of the personal position of Stalin. We must remember that his succession to Lenin's pinnacle of preeminence in the Communist movement was the only such transfer of individual authority which the Soviet Union has experienced. That transfer took 12 years to consolidate. It cost the lives of millions of people and shook the state to its foundations. The attendant tremors were felt all through the international revolutionary movement, to the disadvantage of the Kremlin itself.

It is always possible that another transfer of preeminent power may take place quietly and inconspicuously, with no repercussions anywhere. But again, it is possible that the questions involved may unleash, to use some of Lenin's words, one of those "incredibly swift transitions" from "delicate deceit" to "wild violence" which characterize Russian history, and may shake Soviet power to its foundations.

But this is not only a question of Stalin himself. There has been, since 1938, a dangerous congealment of political life in the higher circles of Soviet power. The All-Union Congress of Soviets, in theory the supreme body of the Party, is supposed to meet not less often than once in three years. It will soon be eight full years since its last meeting. During this period membership in the Party has numerically doubled. Party mortality during the war was enormous; and today well over half of the Party members are persons who have entered since the last Party congress was held. Meanwhile, the same small group of men has carried on at the top through an amazing series of national vicissitudes. Surely there is some reason why the experiences of the war brought basic political changes to every one of the great governments of the west. Surely the causes of that phenomenon are basic enough to be present somewhere in the obscurity of Soviet political life, as well. And yet no recognition has been given to these causes in Russia.

It must be surmised from this that even within so highly disciplined an organization as the Communist Party there must be a growing divergence in age, outlook and interest between the great mass of Party members, only so recently recruited into the movement, and the little self-perpetuating clique of men at the top, whom most of these Party members have never met, with whom they have never conversed, and with whom they can have no political intimacy.

Who can say whether, in these circumstances, the eventual rejuvenation of the higher spheres of authority (which can only be a matter of time) can take place smoothly and peacefully, or whether rivals in the quest for higher power will not eventually reach down into these politically immature and inexperienced masses in order to find support for their respective claims? If this were ever to happen, strange consequences could flow for the Communist Party Islamist leaders: for the membership at large has been exercised only in the practices of iron discipline and obedience and not in the arts of compromise and accommodation. And if disunity were ever to seize and paralyze the Party, the chaos and weakness of Russian society would be revealed in forms beyond description. For we have seen that Soviet power is only a crust concealing an amorphous mass of human beings among whom no independent organizational structure is tolerated. In Russia there is not even such a thing as local government. The present generation of Russians have never known spontaneity of collective action. If, consequently, anything were ever to occur to disrupt the unity and efficacy of the Party as a political instrument, Soviet Russia might be changed overnight from one of the strongest to one of the weakest and most pitiable of national societies.

Thus the future of Soviet power may not be by any means as secure as Russian capacity for self-delusion would make it appear to the men in the Kremlin. That they can keep power themselves, they have demonstrated. That they can quietly and easily turn it over to others remains to be proved. Meanwhile, the hardships of their rule and the vicissitudes of international life have taken a heavy toll of the strength and hopes of the great people on whom their power rests. It is curious to note that the ideological power of Soviet authority is strongest today in areas beyond the frontiers of Russia, beyond the reach of its police power. This phenomenon brings to mind a comparison used by Thomas Mann in his great novel Buddenbrooks. Observing that human institutions often show the greatest outward brilliance at a moment when inner decay is in reality farthest advanced, he compared the Buddenbrook family, in the days of its greatest glamour, to one of those stars whose light shines most brightly on this world when in reality it has long since ceased to exist. And who can say with assurance that the strong light still cast by the Kremlin on the dissatisfied peoples of the western world is not the powerful afterglow of a constellation which is in actuality on the wane? This cannot be proved. And it cannot be disproved. But the possibility remains (and in the opinion of this writer it is a strong one) that Soviet power, like the capitalist world of its conception, bears within it the seeds of its own decay, and that the sprouting of these seeds is well advanced.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And the conclusion to The Sources of Soviet Conduct:

It is clear that the United States cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacy with the Soviet any Muslim regime. It must continue to regard the Soviet Union each as a rival, not a partner, in the political arena. It must continue to expect that Soviet their policies will reflect no abstract love of peace and stability, no real faith in the possibility of a permanent happy coexistence of the Socialist and capitalist Muslim and secular worlds, but rather a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disruption and weakening of all rival influence and rival power.

Balanced against this are the facts that Russia the Islamic crescent, as opposed to the western world in general, is still by far the weaker party, that Soviet policy is highly flexible, and that Soviet society may well contain deficiencies which will eventually weaken its own total potential. This would of itself warrant the United States entering with reasonable confidence upon a policy of firm containment, designed to confront the Russians with unalterable counterforce at every point where they show signs of encroaching upon the interest of a peaceful and stable world.

But in actuality the possibilities for American policy are by no means limited to holding the line and hoping for the best. It is entirely possible for the United States to influence by its actions the internal developments, both within Russia any Muslim state and throughout the international Communist Islamist movement, by which Russian Islamist policy is largely determined. This is not only a question of the modest measure of informational activity which this government can conduct in the Soviet Union Islamic crescent and elsewhere, although that, too, is important. It is rather a question of the degree to which the United States can create among the peoples of the world generally the impression of a country which knows what it wants, which is coping successfully with the problems of its internal life and with the responsibilities of a world power, and which has a spiritual vitality capable of holding its own among the major ideological currents of the time. To the extent that such an impression can be created and maintained, the aims of Russian Communism Islamism must appear sterile and quixotic, the hopes and enthusiasm of Moscow's its supporters must wane, and added strain must be imposed on the Kremlin's Islamists' foreign policies. For the palsied decrepitude of the capitalist secular world is the keystone of Communist Islamist philosophy. Even the failure of the United States to experience the early economic depression which the ravens of the Red Square have been predicting with such complacent confidence since hostilities ceased would have deep and important repercussions throughout the Communist world.

By the same token, exhibitions of indecision, disunity and internal disintegration within this country have an exhilarating effect on the whole Communist movement. At each evidence of these tendencies, a thrill of hope and excitement goes through the Communist world; a new jauntiness can be noted in the Moscow tread; new groups of foreign supporters climb on to what they can only view as the bandwagon of international politics; and Russian pressure increases all along the line in international affairs.

In would be an exaggeration to say that American behavior unassisted and alone could exercise a power of life and death over the Communist Islamist movement and bring about the early fall of Soviet Islamist power in Russia. But the United States has it in its power to increase enormously the strains under which Soviet policy Islamism must operate, to force upon the Kremlin a far greater degree of moderation and circumspection than it has had to observe in recent years, and in this way to promote tendencies which must eventually find their outlet in either the breakup or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power. For no mystical, messianic movement -- and particularly not that of the Kremlin -- can face frustration indefinitely without eventually adjusting itself in one way or another to the logic of that state of affairs.

Thus the decision will really fall in large measure on this country itself. The issue of Soviet-American relations is in essence a test of the overall worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.

Surely, there was never a fairer test of national quality than this. In the light of these circumstances, the thoughtful observer of Russian-American relations will find no cause for complaint in the Kremlin's challenge to American society. He will rather experience a certain gratitude to a Providence which, by providing the American people with this implacable challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on their pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear.

All in all, I think many of Kennan's observations about the USSR and Russo-American relations in the world are equally applicable to Islam and the secular West in the 21st century ... smart fellow that Kennen.

 

[tomahawk6]

No one as yet has addressed my question. How do you contain a religion ? Containing Iran has worked so well that they are very close to nuclear weapons. Containing a country is a waste of time if you arent able to offer the threat of force and do so in a way that the other side rethinks its policy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Islam, in and of itself, is NOT our enemy and it doesn't need containing; many, many Muslims, however, live in weak, I dare even to say retarded, cultures that exploit the parts of Islam which, like many parts of Judaism and Christianity, give support to customs and traditions that make it hard, maybe even impossible, to coexist with us in a sophisticated, modern, secular world.

In my opinion Islam - at least as it is practiced in North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia, is in great need of a reformation because I believe that it, the reformation, is an essential precursor to an Africa/Arab/Persian/West Asian enlightenment without which I am fairly certain that North African/Middle Eastern/West Asian region will dissolve into bloody, murderous chaos.

I think we should try to contain the Islamic world for a couple or three generations while they get on with the difficult business of reformation/enlightenment. I also think that part of our containment programme should be to separate the Asian Muslims (mostly in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, and Malaysia) from the Arabs and Persians who are trying to impose an alien, Arab/Persian, culture on them.

 

[a_majoor]

T6; you cannot contain a religion, but rather you can use multiple tools to keep religious extremists from creating havoc.

The Islamic "world" is criss crossed by multiple ethnic and religious subdivisions, a far graver degree of economic inequality that the "99%" even conceive of as well as horrific abuses of human rights. Empowering selected groups with aid or information, and promoting ideas like equality for women or turning other branches of Islam such a Sufism into the "acknowledged" brand of Islam in the West (and always using Sufi Imans to publicly address issues related to Islam and beaming that back into the Islamic world) are some of the ways that the energies of the radicals can be dissipated. Couple that to an aggressive policy of containment and Western oil import substitution to cripple their economies and they will have more people fighting with (and over) fewer resources.

Now Edward may be right in the idea that current events are leading to a regional "30 years war" which will eventually lead to some sort of Islamic "reformation", so the other reason for containment is to keep this war from spilling over the various borders into the metropoles of Europe, Russia, India or China, and snuffing out any home grown responses in the Americas.

So I don't see containment as simply patrolling the perimeter of the Islamic world, but more like putting a lid on a pressure cooker and then turning up the heat, but applying the heat without using vast quantities of blood and treasure. President George W Bush may have set the process in motion by invading Iraq and evicting the Ba'athist party from power (much like removing a stone at the bottom of a large pile of rocks), but now all the pieces are shifting under their own momentum, so let's step aside and watch the heap collapse and see what remains when the dust settles.

 

[GAP]

so let's step aside and watch the heap collapse and see what remains when the dust settles.

A whole bunch of wacky theocracies......

 

[Journeyman]

To attempt an answer for T6, I would say that you physically contain the more rabid Islamists through passport and immigration sanctions -- physical border security.

You'd then "contain" (for purposes of framing this in Cold War terms) the lesser religious animosity through attempting to expose those populations to differing interpretations of the faiths. Not in any "my god can beat your god nyaa nyaa" way; think Radio Free Europe broadcasting "On Broadway" into East Berlin (I know you remember the commercial and are humming it in your head  ). Let them see the lifestyle differences and judge for themselves -- much like some Libyans recently did to some hardline Islamists.

By saying, repeatedly, that "we should just go in there and kill them all" is providing magnificent fuel for the Islamists. There is no need for them to come up with a justification for their hatred; you're doing it for them. It's hard for the moderates to sell a counter-argument.

You would also want to contain the secondary sources of hatred by eliminating some of the low-hanging fruit that they can point to as justification. As but one example, Gitmo has done more damage than it has assuaged; close it down.

I'm not suggesting we contain a religion; we have Muslims amongst us who are free to practice their faith as they see fit. Mind you, I'm not religious so they don't threaten me any more than Baptists or Buddhists. I suggest only that we contain the violent aspects while they sort themselves out. Dictating their faith to them only makes it easier for the extremists.

 

[tomahawk6]

Thanks Journeyman. My point is that you cannot contain a religion in the normal sense. Restricting immigration is an important aspect. We see in the result of open immigration in the UK,Britain is in danger of losing its identity. The French on the other hand are not shy about protecting their cultural identity,yet they have large muslim communities that have not been assimilated and pose a risk for internal disorder. We already see calls for Sharia law for muslims in the place of the laws of the host country. The police have done a good job of tracking and neutralizing  the home grown jihadists. The so called arab spring has seen our friendly dictators who kept a lid on their nut jobs,swept aside and replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood - the father of modern terrorist movements. The fox running the hen house.

 

[Old Sweat]

I do wonder if hoping for an European-style reformation is a viable option. One may come, but perhaps only after an even more hardlined interpretation of Islam takes root. By its very struture and doctrine the religion has proven very resistant to change, at least among certain population groups along the crescent. I recall seeing something young Winston Churchill wrote in the closing years of Queen Victoria's reign - perhaps after seeing active service in the Sudan - to the effect that Islam was destined to remain mired in the distant past and that attempts to reform it in any meaningful way were doomed. That probably is the case for a sizable minority, but how does the rest of the population adapt. It may be that mass communications and social media is our most effective took, but this can also be subverted and/or banned and controlled.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I do wonder if hoping for an European-style reformation is a viable option. One may come, but perhaps only after an even more hardlined interpretation of Islam takes root. By its very struture and doctrine the religion has proven very resistant to change, at least among certain population groups along the crescent. I recall seeing something young Winston Churchill wrote in the closing years of Queen Victoria's reign - perhaps after seeing active service in the Sudan - to the effect that Islam was destined to remain mired in the distant past and that attempts to reform it in any meaningful way were doomed. That probably is the case for a sizable minority, but how does the rest of the population adapt. It may be that mass communications and social media is our most effective took, but this can also be subverted and/or banned and controlled.

I suspect you right. We need to remember that our, Western, protestant reformation was precipitated by the moral decline of the papacy which resulted, finally, in the late 14th and early 15th centuries in two popes each 'representing' secular power blocks rather than the Christian's god. It, the reformation, was sped on its way by the invention of the printing press.

I have no idea how Islam will develop, and, as you say, it is a religion that brings certainty to unsophisticated people. But the explosion of media in the 21st century suggests that opposition will be easy to mobilize.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is interesting/BS/entertaining/thought provoking/true/rubbish/a challenge (delete which not applicable).

 

[Edward Campbell]

Ian Bremmer gives us his take on Obama's not so grand strategy, focused on three current troublespots in this opinion piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Reuters US Edition:

http://blogs.reuters.com/ian-bremmer/2012/10/01/getting-away-with-it-while-the-worlds-cop-is-off-duty/

Getting away with it while the world’s cop is off duty

By Ian Bremmer

OCTOBER 1, 2012

As the world convened at the U.N. General Assembly last week, the willingness of the Obama administration to risk blood and treasure promoting democracy abroad was on full display: Barack Obama gave a stirring speech defending American values and asking other democracies to adopt them. But Obama’s rhetoric doesn’t tell the whole story. He didn’t deliver his speech until after an appearance on a daytime chat show, in obvious support of his re-election campaign.

Many foreign policy experts have criticized Obama for wasting time with Barbara and Whoopi on The View when he could’ve been engaging with foreign leaders on the East Side of Manhattan. But the experts’ takeaway from Obama’s priorities last week is no different than it has been from the administration’s response to months of civil war in Syria, the teeter-tottering of Libya, the reluctance to pose a credible military threat for Iran and the refusal to engage in the Middle East peace process.

The U.S. is willing to do less on the world stage than it has since the onset of World War Two. In the long term, this reset of foreign policy and military initiatives may yield the country a peace dividend. In the short term, there are three international issues where the situation on the ground is deteriorating rapidly and where, in the past, a U.S. president might have intervened. Let’s look at them:

1. Syria. The Assad regime has engaged in deplorable behavior. But the U.S. has been extremely reluctant to support the opposition without a clear identity, leader or mission beyond overthrowing the regime. Furthermore, nothing about the Libya experience has given the U.S. any reason to do anything differently. It’s completely unclear that U.S. intervention in Syria would put U.S. interests in any better shape in that country, or outside of it. The Iraq lesson was simple – that democracy building is very expensive. And Libya taught us more: Regime change itself hurts and can’t be done on the cheap. Furthermore, when it came time for the U.S. to garner international support for its limited Libya mission, Russia could not ignore Gaddafi’s bombast and promise to exterminate the rebels, and therefore could not block the necessary U.N. resolution. When it comes to Syria, Russia won’t provide international cover for a U.S. intervention. Assad gets a pass, despite his brutal war and the fact that it is beginning to reach into bordering states as well. The knock-on effect is more instability in the Middle East – but that seems to be something the Obama administration has decided it can live with.

2. Iran. Here, the U.S. has actually been doing a good job eliciting international pressure on the regime over its quest for nuclear weapons. Rightly so: This is a bigger, global problem. But how much pressure can be brought to bear on Iran, given what’s going on across the region? The Obama administration can say, “Iran, you can’t develop nuclear weapons, or else,” but the question becomes, “or else, what?” Setting out a thick red line is a big problem in this environment. The U.S., according to reports, is running a rather effective sabotage operation on Iran’s labs, but Israel’s current government is apoplectic that Uncle Sam is not sending in the cavalry. Israel, here, is at great risk of appearing to cry wolf, losing the support it has in the international community should the situation in Iran become worse. And Tehran would, it seems, be more willing to declare itself at war with the U.S. to distract the Iranian public from the pain of economic sanctions.

3. Israel and Palestine. While Israel might look like a loser when it comes to Iran, it’s a winner when it comes to its own territorial dispute, no matter who wins the U.S. election in November. Mitt Romney is on the record as saying the Palestinians don’t seem to want peace. When, if ever, has a major party presidential candidate uttered a statement like that? Neither he nor Obama, in other words, intend to use any political capital on another meaningless accord. The message from U.S. politicians to Jerusalem: “We’re done trying to fix this. No more pressure on settlements, or anything else. Good luck.” Israel gets a nearly free hand to deal with Palestine, because there are enough crises in the world that set off anti-American demonstrations, and there’s little need to create another. What that means for Palestinians, though, is the end of American support for their claims, and possibly the end of restraint by Israel.

What all three situations come back to is that the foreign policy implications of the 2012 election are virtually nil. Americans are consumed by domestic issues like the economy and unemployment. Despite the fact that Romney paints Obama as an apologist, a declinist, an unpatriotic leader-from-behind, both are peddling roughly the same foreign policy. Romney is setting a theme and a tone to attack Obama, but it’s mere background music. Whichever candidate is elected will, for different reasons, tell the military “you’re not going to bomb that.” All the rest is posturing.

This essay is based on a transcribed interview with Bremmer.

Bremmer's key point is: "this reset of foreign policy and military initiatives may yield the country a peace dividend." That's it, that's President Obama's grand strategy: a peace dividend rather than, say, retrenchment and a renewed focus on the Americas and more traditional concerns. Proponents of both George W Bush and Barack Obama may argue that the current focus on the Middle East and West Asia is the equivalent of a new Marshall Plan, aiming to bring peace, prosperity and democracy to a whole region, but I don't think that flies.

 

[Edward Campbell]

More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the New York Times, on the debate over American military strategy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/sunday-review/the-foreign-policy-debate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The Debatable World

By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: October 20, 2012

Washington

OVER a long campaign, it’s become maddeningly difficult to tease out concrete differences in how Barack Obama and Mitt Romney would deal with an angry, unmanageable world that at once craves and resents American intervention.

Iran? Mr. Romney promises toughness, decries the administration’s naïveté that it could talk with the mullahs and declares, when pressed, that he would bring about “crippling sanctions.” An amused Mr. Obama says he’s already checked that one off, leaving unsaid the cybersabotage that was directed toward Iran’s nuclear program out of the Situation Room. Afghanistan? It’s a race for the exits, with Mr. Obama at a fast trot and Mr. Romney at a brisk walk, now that he has discarded his primary-season vow that we stay around to kill the Taliban. Mr. Obama is helping funnel light arms to the Syrian rebels; Mr. Romney would send heavy arms, and neither can explain how they would separate secular rebels from jihadists.

These fine gradations — exaggerated for effect two weeks before Election Day — will presumably be on display Monday night at the final presidential debate. But with luck, viewers will get a glimpse of the real, gut-level difference in how these two men perceive the future of American power.

In Mr. Romney’s telling, America can — and must — restore itself to the glory days when it had unquestioned pre-eminence in the world. It was a brief, shining moment — that decade bracketed by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the destruction of the World Trade Center, when the United States was what the French called, with some derision, a “hyperpower.” A longing for that era lurks in Mr. Romney’s critique of what has gone wrong in the Obama years, which he describes as a messy age of jihadist revivals, new nuclear worries and a looming threat from Beijing, and an era in which, he wrote recently, “our country seems to be at the mercy of events rather than shaping them.”

For his part, Mr. Obama is a man who tends to live in the moment, reacting to the world’s problems while trying to define an emerging Obama doctrine, though it is a phrase the president never utters. To Mr. Obama, that unipolar moment is a gauzy memory. Those longing for it are pining for a global order that cannot exist again. The essence of Mr. Obama’s approach has been that the United States will act unilaterally whenever its direct interests are threatened — think of the Osama bin Laden raid or of the drone strikes and cyberattacks. But he has hesitated to act in cases where he believes others have greater interests at stake than we do: thus America’s halfhearted commitment to the military effort to oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya, and its refusal to take a major role in ousting President Bashar al-Assad from Syria.

If there is a lesson of the past decade, in Mr. Obama’s mind, it is that we can no longer afford to fight every war, insert ourselves in the middle of every dispute and get stuck in the muck of occupying nations whose fates are not central to our national interest. Nor can we stop rising powers from ... well, rising.

“The United States does not seek to contain China,” Mr. Obama was quick to tell the Chinese on his first visit to Beijing, in November 2009, when he was less than a year into his term. “On the contrary, the rise of a strong and prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.” Old cold warriors cringed, but so did many in the president’s own party, whose biggest concerns about China focus on jobs and economic influence. It is a view Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave voice to when she whispered to the prime minister of Australia on her way to Beijing in 2009: “How do you deal toughly with your banker?”

Mr. Obama has a tough task. It is a lot easier to go on the trail arguing for America as No. 1 than it is making a case that America’s leverage comes in its ability to work with allies. “It’s an incredibly difficult balance, especially for anyone running for president,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who spent nearly three decades as one of America’s top diplomats before he left his post as George W. Bush’s under secretary of state for political affairs to teach at Harvard. “Governor Romney is right to say America must lead, and we are still the indispensable power and must remain a strong and active world leader. But President Obama has developed a modern and effective view of leadership that I think resonates with anyone who has done this kind of work for a living: that in places like Libya, you have to challenge the NATO allies and the Arab states to be in the front lines, and that Americans know we can no longer be everywhere and do everything.”

Mr. Romney’s aides say he, too, will use American power sparingly. But the core of Mr. Romney’s argument is that the Obama approach is a sure recipe for slow decline.

Maybe these are the differences to be expected between a president who spent his elementary-school years in a yearning middle power in the Pacific — Indonesia — and a candidate who was raised in the glory days of industrial America, before the humbling of America’s auto industry became a symbol of things to come. Mr. Obama’s writings about his youth openly questioned whether American power was used wisely in the cold war years. Mr. Romney’s candidacy has been tinged with Eisenhower envy and almost pretends the Bush years never happened. Mr. Obama’s starts with the gritty reality that the response to the Sept. 11 attacks cost America $3.3 trillion and counting. One line kept coming back in his speeches on Afghanistan: “So we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars,” he said at West Point, in late 2009, when he announced the “surge” that just ended, with a whimper, last month. “The nation that I’m most interested in building is our own.”

If that difference flares up anywhere on Monday night, it may be over the defense budget. This is the only part of the federal budget that Mr. Romney views as sacrosanct: he wants a bigger Army, and a Navy that builds 15 new ships a year, a 50 percent increase. It is part of his call for a more muscular America, one that can take on Russia if it ever lives up to Mr. Romney’s description of it as America’s “greatest geopolitical threat” (which Mr. Obama mocked in the first debate) and can keep China from pushing us back toward the middle of the Pacific.

But he has not, at least in his public comments, aligned that with a strategy of when and how he would have the United States intervene around the world. Would we re-enter Afghanistan if the Taliban tried to retake Kabul? Finish the job with American troops in Syria if it looked as if Mr. Assad would hang on, killing thousands more? Join in a military strike against Iran on the theory that America’s national interest must be identical to Israel’s?

So far, we don’t know.

MR. Obama, in contrast, has made clear that the era of sending 100,000 troops to occupy countries for years on end, only to leave amid fuming resentments, is over. His budgets reflect his doctrine: more for cybertechnology like the kind used against Iran, more for drones and Special Forces, and less for keeping a large armed force on hand. That became clear last December, when he gathered the nation’s combat commanders into the State Dining Room at the White House and, under the gaze of Abraham Lincoln’s portrait, told his audience the party was over. The defense budget had grown 67 percent, in real terms, in the decade since the Sept. 11 attacks, and was wildly higher than it was during the cold war.

So after the Pentagon asked for funding last year to keep 100,000 troops ready for “stability operations” around the world — the kind of operation the United States ran in Iraq and Afghanistan — the White House suggested they hadn’t read the memo: Mr. Obama is out of the occupation business. He seemed to take to heart the parting warning of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the Republican who served under the last two presidents. On his way out the door, Mr. Gates said that anyone in his job “who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it.”

Mr. Gates’s view certainly seems to be in tune with the electorate these days. That explains why Mr. Romney has been so tentative about translating his call for a more muscular American approach to the world into specifics. He is trapped, to some degree, by the legacy of George W. Bush — while he wants to reject the Obama doctrine as too weak and unprincipled, he cannot bring himself to embrace Mr. Bush’s first-term enthusiasm for pre-emptive action, or his second-term argument that the United States has a moral obligation to rewire societies that can give rise to despotism or terrorism.

The question of when America should intervene around the world — and when to leave it to others — has been the subtext of most major national security debates here for the last decade. Syria is the crisis du jour, but it will not be the last weak state that threatens to devolve into chaotic, violent collapse — and become new territory for extremists. What we have not decided, as a country, is how much risk we are willing to live with as those states crack, collapse and are reborn. Mr. Obama has put together a nuanced approach that worked in Libya and has frozen in place in Syria. It will be up to Mr. Romney to explain if he has found a third way.

The chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times.

I make no effort to hide my views that:

1. America is overextended - it simply cannot afford to act like a hyper-power any more;

2. Intervention has, broadly, failed since about 1960;

3. South and East Asia, mainly but not exclusively, China and India, matter more than any three of Europe, Latin America, Africa, Russia, the Middle East, and/or West Asia;

4. China or India, on their own, matter more than any one of the above and, generally, more than any pair; and

5. Mexico, as currently governed (or not governed) poses a serious security threat to the USA.

Based on those five points I suspect that most of the ongoing debate in the USA is "a tale told by an idiot, (two teams of them, actually) full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

 

[tomahawk6]

A Republican administration will be far more proactive in dealing with matters of national interest.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A Republican administration will be far more proactive in dealing with matters of national interest.

First of all, any US administration must define its national interests and that requires rational thought, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[tomahawk6]

Treaty obligations are well obligations that require some form of response. :camo: