- FEBRUARY 10, 2010
-
-
IRAN
Green: The Color of Freedom
-
NATIONAL SECURITY
Where is NSA Jim Jones?
-
OBAMA'S BUDGET
How the Deficit Threatens U.S. Power
Is "smart power" stupid?
Posted By Christian Brose
Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 5:11 AM
Share
By Christian Brose
I'm coming a day late to this, and but I can't pass up a few words on this from Hillary Clinton's opening statement:
We must use what has been called “smart power,” the full range of tools at our disposal -- diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural -- picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy.
Now, America needs many things right now, but another contribution to the foreign policy lexicon is not one of them. The whole hard power/soft power thing always seemed too much like a Cialis commercial to me. And smart power isn't much of an improvement. True, as Laura helpfully reminds us, "smart power" is not Hillary Clinton's creation. It was born on the pages of that other foreign policy magazine. And there it should have stayed.
Yes, every secretary of state needs to put her own unique rhetorical brand on the foreign policy she will be practicing. I get that. Heck, I've even been complicit in it (and not just once). But smart power? Come on. The thing that bothers me about it is that it's a description of means, process. It has nothing to say about what the purposes of our foreign policy should be. I'm all for phrases and brands. But they should offer more than just a vague recipe for how we mix together our various kinds of power -- hard, soft, happy, grumpy, sneezy, whatever.
I liked the idea of "a world of liberty under law" that Anne-Marie Slaughter's Princeton Project came up with. Slaughter, so we hear, will be Clinton's policy planning director, so maybe there's still hope for better phrasing to come. But for now we have smart power: an unclear phrase that's all about process and void of strategic direction. The bureaucracy is going to love this.
That's the irony. With a fake president as president - i.e. who is too confused and ignorant to have a proper vision of US foreign policy and lives off little else than hype - we hand over the state department to someone whose vision consists of career advancement - hence process, process, process.
In a sense, that's what State is about - process. As it has absolutely no vision whatsoever, beyond diplomatic parties, and keeping up appearances - oh and earning a few bucks off those visa fees, and measly expat services. Did I forget to mention the occasional webcast?
Vision needs to come from the Head of State. In the case of Obama, his "vision" is pretty clear - outsource "vision" to celebrity-politicians. Brand your way through politics. So we get the Geithers and Volckers, Clintons and Summers and Rosses. Throw in the occasional superstar academic - Sunstein, and you've got your Brand Obama presidency.
Changing the world one consumer impression at a time.
If you think my opinion too vile, relax, its an antidote to the asinine and uncritical Obama-fawning tour. History will likely prove it prescient.
Its nothing personal against Obama - but the stupidity of crowds - always waiting for a Messiah, and thinking that the best way to change the world is also the cheapest - cast a ballot once in four years, and then feel like you've done your part. As Thomas Sowell put it, politics is about promising the impossible. Only fools get carried away believing they are about to have it served on a boilerplate.
Good comments - The last part about "cheap change" reminds me of an article I read a few months ago, about the book "Nudge," which involves behavioral economics - what LITTLE things can be done to actually change behavior and actions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/books/review/Friedman-t.html?_r=2&8bu&emc=bua2&oref=slogin
It also discusses how Obama is using some Nudge-like policies. Obviously the rules are a bit different in foreign vs. domestic policy (or so one with limited understanding would think), but what is the "sweet spot?" Historically, in most cases, it has taken many years of fairly radical action in order to create a substantial change.
Today though, what does the US do when the timeline for implementing effective policy is only a few years (e.g., the time it might take for Iran to develop nuclear technology)?
That's the irony. With a fake president as president - i.e. who is too confused and ignorant to have a proper vision of US foreign policy and lives off little else than hype - we hand over the state department to someone whose vision consists of career advancement - hence process, process, process.
For a fake President (is that a hint of bitterness I detect?), Obama sure seemed actively and disciplined on the campaign trail.
In a sense, that's what State is about - process. As it has absolutely no vision whatsoever, beyond diplomatic parties, and keeping up appearances - oh and earning a few bucks off those visa fees, and measly expat services. Did I forget to mention the occasional webcast?
You mean aside from negotiating treaties for the past 225 years and sending diplomats all over the world?
Brand your way through politics. So we get the Geithers and Volckers, Clintons and Summers and Rosses. Throw in the occasional superstar academic - Sunstein, and you've got your Brand Obama presidency.
Bush II did the exact same thing - Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and the like were all experienced professionals (or seemed like it at the time), and Condi Rice was a major academic powerhouse.
Of course, considering that health care is a major issue, it's rather interesting that he didn't pick a "brand" to head it, and stuck with the Bush appointee for Secretary of Defense, hmm? You need to get those stupid McCain commercials out of your head.
Its nothing personal against Obama - but the stupidity of crowds - always waiting for a Messiah, and thinking that the best way to change the world is also the cheapest
The alternative - an elderly Senator with his idiotic running mate - wasn't exactly an inspiring alternative.
Sec. Gates has been using the term, Members of Congress have been using the term, "the other" foreign policy journal has been using the term, a major CSIS report was framed around the term. Not really new stuff, just a bit inside the beltway. Probably worth ignoring outside of budget disputes. It's a semi-catchy way of nodding towards the discrepancy in resources allocated to the different instruments of national power ($680B for Defense, $40B for State and USAID annually).
Best,
DD
www.devilanddevelopment.blogspot.com
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More
January/February 2010
-
Cover Story
-
Dispatch
-
Feature
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE