Here are some good quotes from an essay by Stephen M. Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard University. He is by no means a progressive but belongs to the so-called ‘realist’ school of politics that says that the US should adopt policies that are in its own long-term interests and based on a rational weighing of evidence and not be driven by ideological motivations such as neo-conservatism or neoliberal interventionism that has got the US involved in so many unwinnable wars and locked into reflexive support for any and all of Israel’s awful polices.
His essay looks at the way that the media portrays Kim and other people who have been designated as adversaries.
“The most significant development in Singapore was to complete the transformation of Kim himself from a secretive, slightly comical, definitely murderous, and possibly irrational leader of a ‘Hermit Kingdom’ into a serious and engaged world leader of some stature,” he added.
…“America’s self-defeating tendency [is] to portray adversaries as irrational, crazy, deluded, risk-seeking, suicidal, or just plain nuts,” he wrote. “Instead of seeing foreign-policy disputes as the product of straightforward conflicts of interest or clashing political values, even well- experienced U.S. officials and knowledgeable pundits are prone to seeing them as a reflection of personality defects, paranoia, or distorted views of reality.”
“Similarly, many Americans continue to view international terrorists as deeply disturbed, irrational, deluded, or simply crazy individuals, instead of seeing them as politically motivated, calculating, and more or less rational actors who have adopted a particular tactic (sometimes including the use of suicide bombers) because they believe (with some basis) that it offers the best chance of realizing their political aims,” he added.
He then wrote, “Some of the individual attackers may indeed by driven by wholly fictitious beliefs, but to dismiss these groups and their leaders as simply crazy underestimates their own resilience, strategic behavior, and capacity to adapt.”
“And while we’re talking about perceived irrational behavior, Americans might want to be a bit more self-reflective. We like to portray our enemies as irrational and foolhardy, but we’ve been guilty of no small amount of crazy behavior ourselves,” he continued.
He also turns a critical eye on Trump’s behavior and what it might suggest to other world leaders about how they should treat the US.
“Lastly but by no means least, what are other states to make of a president who can’t get through a day without telling a bald-faced lie (or several), insults the leaders of our closest allies not just once but repeatedly, and who changes course so frequently that neither friends nor foes can be confident that an agreement reached today will be abided tomorrow,” he wrote.
“Unlike some of his critics, I don’t think President Trump is crazy or in the early stages of dementia (although reading the clinical description of narcissistic personality disorder is more than a little worrisome). But based on his performance thus far, it’s easy to see why major world leaders might conclude that there was no point in trying to accommodate, mollify, appeal to, or compromise with a leader as capricious and vindictive as Trump,” he suggested.
“Kim Jong Un seems to have demonstrated that one gets more respect from Trump by defying him than trying to get along. If other leaders reach the same conclusion, they will devote less effort to remaining on good terms with the United States and concentrate instead on building cooperative arrangements with each other,” he warned before concluding, “At this point, they’d be crazy not to.”
The US has achieved global dominance not just because of its military and economic power but because it has built alliances of nations (NATO, G7, G20, etc.) that have been willing to let the US set the agenda and follow along. If those alliances crumble, then the economic power may soon follow suit, leaving the US with only military dominance. And history has many lessons about nations that had only military power without a supporting economic foundation.
… history has many lessons about nations that had only military power without a supporting economic foundation.
Most recently the USSR -- purportedly ruined by an arms race and a military quagmire in Afghanistan… cunningly set up by a nation now devastating itself economically by military quagrmires in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and an arms race with figments of its own nightmare-ridden imagination.
The US, due to its size and natural resources, could be quite isolated and still do fine. It’d probably boost the economy, for decades.
Quite refreshing candid admissions. Too bad there are not more voices like this.
This process had already begun with the Paris climate accord; Trump harmed USA’s international standing by removing it as one of the steerers of that agreement. This process will only gather momentum as long as Trump remains in office.
Holms @4
Yes, indeed, “if those alliances crumble” as they probably will if Trump is re-elected, many nations might discover that they can and must survive without the US. I’m sure some countries’ strategic planners are developing scenarios. Unfortunately the void left by the withdrawal of American power might be filled by China.
Mano,
US support for Israel is one of life’s mysteries.
Germany’s former foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel suggests that Europe should focus on post-Trump America. And take the ball in own hands.
“So let’s not deceive ourselves. We cannot rely on this American president on questions of defense or on trade. And we do not know whether things will change when Mr. Trump leaves office. The old rules no longer apply, but moaning about the situation helps no one. The US president reveals our weaknesses to us. Right now he is chasing America’s erstwhile allies around like a flock of startled sheep. Yesterday it was trade, today Iran. Tomorrow it could be NATO’s turn.”
(…)
“We should start major exchange programs for the young people who will make up America’s leadership elites of tomorrow. Aimed, above all, at Hispanics, Asian-Americans and African-Americans.”
https://global.handelsblatt.com/opinion/the-old-world-is-dying-and-europe-must-seize-the-moment-germany-sigmar-gabriel-trump-us-eu-935196
Ancient Romans said divide&impera. Trump has been good at divide, but impera is missing.
American global hegemony is deep-rooted, and closely connected to the structure and functioning of its economy and that of the capitalist world-system as a whole (which, let’s note, includes both Russia and China). It would take a long time -- or an absolute disaster such as nuclear war -- to end it. My hunch is that if Trump’s antics appear to be a real threat to it (which so far, they don’t), then he will be in real danger of impeachment. One thing on which the great majority of Democratic and Republican leaders, funders and Congresspersons have agreed ever since 1945 is that this hegemony must be maintained and if possible, strengthened.
rjw1@5,
China is in no position to fill such a void, nor will it be for several decades at least. While its economy approaches that of the USA in total size, it lacks the fleet, the military-industrial complex, and most important of all the huge network of alliances and military bases, to rival the USA militarily. Hence the Chinese leadership’s main foreign policy aim is to avoid any military confrontation with the USA.
Not at all. Israel is strategically located, militarily formidable, and firmly tied to the USA by the hostility of its neighbours and decades of military aid -- meaning it has to maintain access to American military technology. It is therefore an extremely useful ally, and no remotely adequate potential substitute exists.
Lassi Hippeläinen@6
But it’s surely obvious that the EU is in far more immediate danger of disintegration than the USA is of losing its alliances, Trump notwithstanding.
KG @ 7
China is indeed, in a position to fill the void. The country is already exercising soft or hard power on its neighbors. Chinese companies abroad are expected to carry out the objectives of the ruling Party by spying on and subverting foreign governments. The IT giant Huawei is a notorious example. It’s both simplistic and complacent to assume that power is measured only by counting a nation’s military bases or size of its war machine.
As for Israel, the country has the characteristics of a Crusader enclave in the ME. Support for Israel’s expansionist policies results in hostility to the US, hardly an intelligent foreign policy. Few strategists in the West would have argued that support for the apartheid regime in South Africa was sound policy for much the same reasons.
Israel’s enemies became America’s enemies, most have been reduced to chaos and massacre, only Iran remains.
US support for Israel is hare-brained and morally bankrupt.