The Russians are coming; the Russians are coming!

When I was a kid, we had A bomb drills in school.  The fear of a Soviet sneak attack was that great.  It was part of our national psyche.  My parents didn’t build a bomb shelter in the backyard but we wouldn’t have been alone if they had. 

When the Soviet Union collapsed, it revealed the weaknesses of an economic and political system that ignored sound principles of economic freedom and human rights.  We have had little to fear from Russia since.  Not only are they weak economically but also they are weak militarily. 

The Russian sphere of influence has shifted east and west for centuries.  It has never extended so far to the west as it did during the Cold War and it has never been so far east as it is now.  The Russians would like to change that. 

Toward that end, they have struck deals with countries like Ukraine, Poland and Germany to sell them oil and gas. And, they haven’t been shy about using their customers’ reliance upon them for energy as a means to influence international events.  Energy exporting nations in South Asia and the Middle East are their economic competitors.  So, they seek to extend their sphere of influence southward as well. 

By contrast, the United States is an economic and military juggernaut, a maritime nation whose integration into the global supply-chain (and our ability to keep it secure) makes it in everyone’s interest to be our ally. 

So, how does Russia end up taking us to school over the handling of Syria?  Or, to put it differently, why we are playing a weak hand when we have a strong one?

The U.S. has a conflict between ideology and military strategy.  Our beliefs – the why of what we know we should do – are based on human rights, the manifestation of which, at least in the case of Syria, is our opposition to weapons of mass destruction.  Moreover, we’ve been sensitized to the specter of mass genocide.  Many people – despite their opposition to war – think we could have prevented the death of hundreds of thousands if we had acted sooner in Rwanda and Bosnia.

So, there is constant friction between what we believe and what we do.  Firing missiles, dropping bombs and sending in the Marines is not the best way to promote human rights.

Our original strategy vis-à-vis Syria was to strike in a limited way.  It would not have had a big effect.  It wouldn’t have destroyed the chemical weapons and wouldn’t have toppled the Assad regime.  It would have been painful while it lasted but not debilitating to a dictator who is in the middle of a long war and who would easily be resupplied by his Russian allies. 

So, why do it?  Like most diplomatic moves played out on the world stage, it’s a gesture.  A gesture to express our unhappiness. 

Unfortunately, the result was to send a signal it doesn’t really matter if we are unhappy!  Our military power should be feared but our diplomatic waffling undermines our intentions. The outcome has been to hand Russia an opportunity to appear to be our equals (or perhaps our superior) by brokering a solution that allows us to back down in the face of popular opposition. 

Our President seems unable to decide if he wants to be George W. Bush or Jimmy Carter and is, therefore, ineffective at being either.  Nations with a strong interest in becoming reliable allies in the region – from Azerbaijan to Turkey to Poland – may now see us as unreliable partners.  The image of Russia forcing us to back down and appearing to be our equals for the first time since the Cold War is bound to have an influence for a very long time. 

International diplomacy is a game of carrots and sticks.  We should reserve our carrots for those who mirror our values and reserve our sticks for those who pose a serious threat. 

The economic and military power of the United States provides us an opportunity to LEAD.  Our values, our economic and political systems are based on human rights, economic freedom and the rule of law.  Promoting these values and helping our allies develop liberal institutions to implement them will lead to global stability and prosperity.  Our long-term national and economic security depends upon it.

WHO WILL LEAD? 

Good, Better, Best... Never Let It Rest

When I was a kid, my mother taught me a little poem by way of encouraging me to be my best.  It went like this:

Good, better, best

Never let it rest

Until your good is better

And your better, best

My grandparents emigrated here from the old country, Mom reminded us.  We were obligated to take advantage of that opportunity.  We weren’t expected just to be good; we were expected to be exceptional.

Our political discourse is littered with the term “American exceptionalism” these days.  Conservatives like to remind voters of the loss of traditional values and its impact on society and our place in the world.  Liberals point out that our greatness was enabled by government and social structures that were the creation of a central government.   

America is, indeed, exceptional largely because it has some inherent advantages.  One must start with geography.  We are the only country in the world with long navigable coasts on both the Atlantic and Pacific and we have a natural river system that seems to have been designed to deliver goods to seaports for shipment overseas.  Our land is fertile and our climate diverse enough to produce a vast array of agricultural products. 

Our second advantage is cultural.  The earliest English settlers in the 17^th Century were adventurers determined to forge a new world.  The charter for the settlement in Plymouth, Massachusetts from James I permitted the establishment of a republican government independent of the crown.  The founders of the United States were grounded in the philosophy of Locke, Spinoza, Voltaire and Adam Smith.  They gave birth to a nation that thrived on independence and achievement. 

Nineteenth century America was marked by a period of laissez-faire government that enabled entrepreneurs to create railroads and the telecommunications, steel and energy industries.  In turn, these developments enabled America to achieve global economic leadership in the 20^th Century. 

Like any nation, ours was founded by way of bloodshed as the early English, French and Spanish settlers fought with Native Americans and each other.  But, over a 150 year period, American global hegemony emerged from that bloodshed and through the strategic brilliance of American leadership.  Our mainland was secured and our economic future was insured by the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the Mexican-American War of 1845 and the Spanish-American War of 1898. 

Oklahoma Land Rush

The founders were also keenly aware of the need for a government to provide opportunity for those less fortunate.  James Madison provided for the right to a free education and public land in the Virginia constitution.  The 19^th Century saw an immigrant-driven expansion into the Great Plains enabled by the Homestead Act of 1862 which provided free land to those adventurous enough to claim it.  This egalitarian culture of governance enabled immigrants over our 236 year history to make a better life for their children and in turn drive U.S. economic growth. 

The Industrial Revolution moved bread-winners off their farms and into factories.  That corporations were not the most humane of bosses led directly to the social reforms of the 20^th Century.  Laws protecting the right of collective bargaining, worker safety rules and the development of a “social safety net” were government’s response. 

The U.S. military, which had virtually created the steel industry in the 19^th Century, evolved after World War II into a “military-industrial complex” (a phrase coined by President Eisenhower) which fostered innovation through scientific research and led to space exploration, the development of the internet and the explosion of the electronics industry.

The U.S. education system – public schools and the university system – produced the best educated workforce in the world.  World War II’s destruction of foreign industrial capacity provided a window of opportunity in post-war America to thrive economically and attract vast inflows of capital investment.

Now, many of those trends are beginning to reverse themselves.  Our education system is no longer producing the best graduates.  The shift in our economy from manufacturing to services has motivated our best and brightest to abandon science and engineering in favor of finance and law.

Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S., which peaked at over $300B in 2000, had dropped 50% by 2010.   Meanwhile U.S. multinationals and investors have increased their investment overseas to new record highs – over $400B in 2009 remaining over $350B in 2011. 

How could a country with so many natural advantages come to this point in the 21^st Century?  How is it that our political class sees everything as a battle between two world views as opposed to seeing opportunity to build on our successes of the past?

Today’s political debates over education, immigration, healthcare and the national debt offer no hope of compromise.  There are well thought out solutions to each of these major social and fiscal issues.  They are well documented and understood by leading members of Congress and the Executive branch. Yet, each side of the political divide lives in fear of being "primaried" if they compromise the core principles of the extremes of their respective political parties. 

The political forces at play during our Revolutionary War and its aftermath were marked by fierce philosophical differences as well.  Indeed, there was doubt that the 13 colonies who had defeated the British could sustain as a single nation. Each had its own political philosophy, constitution and currency.  Many in the north advocated for union while many in the south feared the influence of money center banks and a central government.  There are echoes of this debate evident even today.  Yet, with a vision of what our nation could become, the founders compromised for the greater good.

The outcome was an exceptional compromise:  the United States of America. 

WHO WILL LEAD?