What is ... Strategy, War, and Coercion?

In preparation for Patterson’s comprehensive exams in December, I decided it would be advantageous if I formulated a logical and consistent philosophical outlook concerning strategy, war, and politics.  For what could possibly be more disheartening (and annoying) to Dr. Farley and his colleagues than my confession that I am incapable of answering any question about Syria because of my lack knowledge concerning strategic thought.   

Therefore, in order to diminish my fear of failure in December, I read numerous books this summer by strategic thinkers and reviewed relevant IR theories.  I was certain that my research and intellect would produce a foolproof worldview that would be unassailable from any professor’s attack.  Alas, I am afraid that my confidence to articulate a mature and scholarly foreign policy was dashed to pieces this week.  Instead of finding myself ready to write an incisive blog post on war, politics, and coercion, I am writing to confess that I am more confused than ever about geopolitics and that I have no idea what should be done in Syria, if anything at all.  At least I am intellectually honest, right?

And yet, after examining the United States’ foreign policy during the War on Terror, I wish our governmental leaders would be more intellectually honest and admit that like me they have no idea what to do.  Nor do our leaders seem to have a consistent and logical foreign policy, the very thing I seek after.  For whatever we have been doing in international affairs has not worked, and from the statements made from our two presidential nominees, it seems we can expect much more of the same in the future.  But I think therein lies the problem — America is consumed with doing.  That is, our country has always believed that the answer to every problem is more action.  We target a problem by throwing everything we have at it.  

U.S. inaction is not the problem; it is action born out of hubris that is the problem.  Less pride and more humility is needed in our leaders.  Our leaders must realize that the U.S. does not possess the answer to every problem, and that this is okay.  So, what should we do about doing too much?    

Enter Gary Johnson.  Last week, in an interview with MSNBC, Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson was asked: “What would you do if you were elected about Aleppo?”  To the horror of his supporters Johnson replied, “What is Aleppo?”  Although it is unfortunate and astounding for a presidential candidate to not know what is “Aleppo,” I mysteriously found his answer refreshing.  Here is someone who admitted that he did not know the answer to a particular question.  And honestly, “what is Aleppo” sounds better than “I alone can fix it.”  

Maybe it is not the policy wonk the U.S. needs, but someone with enough humility and courage to publicly admit that the U.S. government does not have all the answers and that the best thing to do is nothing. 

I still believe it would be advantageous for me to go into comps with a worldview that can offer a credible answer to any question.  But I also must prepare for questions that may reveal inconsistencies in my thought process.  Will I have the courage and humility to admit that this is so?  


Disclaimer: I am not a Gary Johnson supporter.

   

How Much Do Your Values Matter to You?

Four thousand  Native Americans from approximately 90 different tribes have come together in a way never seen before to protest the incursion of almost $4 billon dollar Dakota Access Pipeline that will cut through their territory land, sacred burial sites, disrupt farming practices, and possibly ruin their clean water source. The government and mainstream media due to America’s national security is ignoring the largest gathering of protesting Indians in decades. National security is defined as the protection of national interest, or in other words, American values such as democracy, economic growth and, above all, protection from harm. Ironically, there are times America takes actions in the name of national security for the protection of national values that directly trample on said national values. The Dakota Access Pipeline is a great example of this.

 The pipeline will lessen United States dependence on foreign oil and therefore protect the United States from outside harm and influence. However, by creating the pipeline the government is breaking several Native American agreements including the Self-Determination and Education Act, which recognizes Indian country as sovereign land. Due to this act, any and all encroachment in Indian country must be consulted and agreed upon by Indian inhabitants. The Sioux Tribe claim little communication went on with the Army Corps of Engineers that granted construction of the pipeline. Further more, “the Tribe has voiced its strong opposition to the company, to the federal government, to Congress, and to the State” which was all ignored.  As the government builds closer to energy independence, the government falls further away from its values. The government is burying Indians’ rights to be heard, territorial integrity and justice before the law with every oil cylinder put into the ground. 

American values are what define us as a country. Our values are our pride and joy, what we believe makes America so great. We are “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” We believe in equality, justice, protection of the minority and a government not above the law. These are the values the United States goes to war to protect. Yet throughout history, in our own country, we are directly contradicting these values due to national security in cases such as Indian lands and the Dakota Access Pipeline. The pipeline shines a light on an ever-growing list of how our actions, in the name of national security, contradict our values. The question is, “is it worth it?” Is our national security worth throwing our values to the wind? This isn’t a question one blogger or any one person can answer. This is a question that we as America have to answer together. With the rising terrorist attacks, in the last few months, in Germany, France, Turkey and other countries it is a question we may have to answer soon. Are we willing to loose ourselves to protect our selves?

#IStandWithStandingRock

To Talk to the Nerds, You Must Become the Nerds.

When thinking about national security decision making, it is useful to think about nerds and nerdspeak. For our purposes here, let us define nerds as qualified national security experts and nerdspeak as the rhetoric and jargon such experts use to discuss their craft.

A prominent concept in  the study of national security decision making involves splitting decisions into two categories: root decisions and branch decisions. Scholar Charles E. Lindblom wrote an article in 1959 on branch decisions in which he explained the difference between the two types. Root decisions are based on principles and morals. They involve grand strategic goals and big picture ideas. Branch decisions are more technical actions, including logistical preparations, tactical directions, and smaller-scale plans of action. Discussing branch decisions often requires taking root decisions for granted, and any attempt to bring root discussions into branch decision can often be met with apathy, ridicule, or contempt.

The acts of discussing options and forming a decision intrinsically involve the intricacies of language and rhetoric. In a field like foreign policy or national security, which involve high level theory and a degree of technical knowledge, jargon and complicated rhetoric are hard to avoid among nerds. This brings us to George Orwell and Carol Cohn, two highly impressive nerds in their own right.

In his groundbreaking essay Politics and the English Language, Orwell discusses the concept that thought and language influence and limit one another, and that this can be used for nefarious purposes. Orwell further explored this idea in 1984, where the fictional government in the novel is actually restructuring English so that criticism of the state would be grammatically unintelligible. This new English, designed from the ground up to exclude certain tracks of thought, was called Newspeak. This may be a bit abstract, but the general concept articulated by Orwell has been documented in national security spheres.

Building a similar argument to Orwell's, academic Carol Cohn wrote a fascinating essay suggesting that the core concept of Orwell's Newspeak and the particular brand of nerdspeak spoken by nuclear strategists might be more closely linked than we'd be comfortable with. Cohn undertook a sort of anthropological field study of nuclear-focused defense intellectuals. She infiltrated the nerds and studied their nerdy ways. Cohn first learned to speak nuclear nerdspeak, a substantial process involving an understanding of highly gendered and technical jargon, as well as countless acronyms. This nerdspeak focused exclusively on branch decisions. When Cohn attempted to discuss the morality of nuclear warfare with her new nerd friends, she discovered that there wasn't a structure of nuke nerdspeak that would a) allow her to adequately articulate moral concerns and b) be taken seriously by the nuke nerds. The nerds had built a language atmosphere that excluded root decisions by its very nature.

For future national security nerds, it's important to strike a balance between mastering nerdspeak and remaining open to dissent. This requires awareness of the need for a nerdspeak that includes a structure for root discussions. Without such considerations, we risk creating (or just furthering) a culture that automatically excludes a portion of the debate. The last thing we want for national security is for the nerds to lock themselves in their metaphorical mom's basement and stop talking to the outside world. We need our nerds to be willing to look at the whole board.