(no subject)

[dlgood]

Comments re:Anti-American sentiment and US diplomacy by Stephen Holmes of NYU Law. Emphasis mine.

We should not assume, without looking into it, that anti-Americanism will necessarily affect our national interests. Indeed, hatred of the U.S. should concern our national-security community only if it galvanizes individuals and groups with the capacity to harm us, either positively, by inflicting grave injuries, or negatively, by withholding the cooperation on which we depend to solve our most urgent problems. The latter method of inflicting damage merits special emphasis. WMD proliferation and offshore plotting by terrorist cells may or may not require active sponsorship by rogue states. But they can both benefit decisively from slovenly oversight by disorganized, distracted and incompetent states. Public officials around the world can inflict the most serious imaginable damage on the U.S. by simply being negligent. And negligence, it so happens, comes effortlessly to most human beings.

Man. Is that last sentence, not the most beautiful line. Negligence comes effortlessly. Yeah. It sure does.

Comments

Remembering why I'm happy to be in Canada

[scwlc.livejournal.com]

Oy. It's time like this I'm happy all we have to worry about is the sponsorship scandal in the election race.

And speaking as a Canadian for whom an intense dislike of many many aspects of the United States is a central cultural pastime, (don't believe me? watch some of our TV sometime) it is actually fairly true that that in many cases, speaking from a purely pragmatic standpoint, anti-Americanism will not have that much of an effect on the United States as a whole. The American economy is such a powerhouse in the world markets that allowing a genuine national dislike, or even hatred, to affect relations between any government and the US is cutting off your nose to spite your face. For many countries alienating the American government would be committing economic suicide. Others fear the sheer power of the American military and the way the American government will react. Why else would Iran be so tractable over the current question of whether they have a WMD development program? They look at Iraq and decide to hell with worrying about allowing foreigners all over our country poking their noses where they aren't wanted. It's prbably safer for them, and the region, if they just let the bloody inspectors in.

It's absolutely right. Looking at national security from a purely bloodless and heartless standpoint, most of the time it will have no impact on the states. The problem is that negligence of this aspect of international relations breeds hatred. Quietly, in the backwaters of third and second world countries. There will be large numbers of those willing to circumvent the normal societal rules and demand revenge for the wrongs (whether deliberate or accidental, malicious or well intentioned, or merely imagined) committed by 'America'. That is when the effects of this negligence will become both apparent and, most likely, deadly. But until that time, with no immediate threat, there will be no actions taken on the matter because, "... negligence, it so happens, comes effortlessly to most human beings."

And ain't that nice and circular?

SCWLC

Re: Remembering why I'm happy to be in Canada

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

It's very circular.

And it shows how shortsighted the administration can be. The "bloodless approach" can be too clever by half, if you don't take the negligence aspect into account. And while maintaining good working relationships with people who might be inclined to disagree with you on specific issues you care about - it's far cheaper in the long run to work towards better relationships than it is to go alone and engender hatred.

It's self-defeating to try to have a calculating approach to relations, and not take opportunity cost into account. The Administration is pretty well up on Machiavelli's famous quote: "it is better to be feared than loved" an not so well up on the following "it is worst of all to be hated". Pennywise. Pound foolish. And that's even if you subscribe to the antiseptic approach.

Re: Remembering why I'm happy to be in Canada

[klast.livejournal.com]

Why else would Iran be so tractable over the current question of whether they have a WMD development program?

Is that a joke? Iran will have a nuclear weapon in a year.