Fact and Instinct

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.” — Bertrand Russell

The Twisted Logic of Dreams

Only the twisted logic of dreams can explain why the United States thinks that the aggressive pursuit of contradictory goals—promoting democracy, affirming U.S. hegemony, and ensuring stable energy supplies—will produce success: Slavoj Zizek

Franklin Roosevelt and the Difficult Balance of Liberty with Equality

President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to reform the U.S. government and economy, in a time of great economic and political distress. He attempted to balance liberty with equality and do so in a domestic dichotomy of irrational obstructionism and abject desperation at home, and the rise of Fascism and Militarism around the globe.

Liberty and equality are at first blush, concepts that seem difficult to mesh. Yet liberty without out equality disadvantages people whose skill set isn’t aggressively mercantile. Equality without liberty disadvantages everyone, except the least capable. Equality, with liberty may lead to meaningful prosperity and freedom. Liberty without guidelines is license, and equality without freedom is servitude.

The President attempted to find a way to combine Liberty with Equality harmoniously within our historical and cultural context. He was never able to counter the false argument that one can only lose ones liberty to the government per se. One can lose their liberty to the private bureaucracy of corporations and not even have the recourse to a democratic vote. Though he pushed the matter in his desired direction, further than ever before in our history, Roosevelt’s victory was incomplete and failed to revive the economy.

In 1937 President Roosevelt announced plans to reform the Supreme Court. This attempt at reform failed in the wake of charges of court packing. On March 9th, 1937 the President gave a speech, one of his famous fireside chats, in which he defended his policy. The President reiterates a metaphor previously used, of the government as a three horse team. He states that the Supreme Courts both exceeds their authority in the area of judicial review but also, do so out of base motives of personal opinion. The President indicates that his own motives are the good of the country as a whole, and probably were. Nevertheless the charge of court packing sticks and the President may not have been fully forthcoming in his stated opinion. The fact remains that these nine justices have been an impediment and irritant throughout our history. The Supreme Court doesn’t have the power or support to execute a coherent policy, but they can gum up the works, and do so with regularity. The court restructuring plan fails.

The President argues the case that the Constitution allows for the federal government to engage in economic activity for the benefit of the general welfare. The issues would be “that they were all the powers needed to meet each and every problem which then had a national character and which could not be met by merely local action.” The implication is that the government can actively work toward equality without impairing constitutional liberty. The President is using a more original definition of liberty. For many of those opposed to Roosevelt’s policies liberty means individual property rights, taken to an extreme. Yet it seems an obvious fact that without government sponsorship large scale, large risk, and multi-state projects would not occur without government participation. Rural Electrification, and various power generation projects helped both the people as a whole and corporate investors. The obvious benefit to all seems apparent, and there is no diminution of personal or property rights.

There were those, like Herbert Hoover, who claimed that The President was pursuing security at the expense of liberty. Then Hoover condemns the centralization, he and others too, thought that The President’s policies would require. A crushing soviet style bureaucracy was anathema to Hoover, but also to Roosevelt. Hoover equates security with equality, and finds it undesirable. Equality is conflated with Communism though that is an unsupportable belief. This is an old and continuing debate, as yet unsettled.

Hoover seems to support an idea of liberty that would allow people who can act, to do so regardless of consequence. Hoover can see no time when nongovernmental action would result in denial of liberty. Hoover’s fear of centralizing tendencies and security seems a fear of restriction not on personal liberty but property. Hoover seems to view liberty as unique and absolute, rooted in property control. The President seemed to envisage liberty as meaningful only when people were free to choose without calamity.

Hoover feared that a centralizing government would have to avail itself of Fascist or Soviet methods of repression. He couldn’t see that liberty in name, without economic power is no liberty. He failed to realize that the public bureaucracies of the federal government he feared weren’t the present threat, but that the private bureaucracies of corporatism were deniers of liberty. Somehow, in the American lexicon, private is synonymous with free, irrespective of the evidence.

Interestingly Hoover condemned the American Liberty League, which he argued favored “the Wall Street model” of liberty. The Wall Street model of liberty is the sovereign ability to dispose of property as one wishes, and the people be damned. The difference between the Hoover and Wall Street definitions of liberty seem to be that Hoover believed in good faith, and he saw only cynical bad faith in Wall Street. Hoover never considered that there isn’t a practical difference between the two from the bottom.

FDR quips that as for the American Liberty League their God is property, and they ignore their fellow man: quite a strange take for men who would call themselves Christian, claim to love God and their neighbor. FDR could see that liberty, without equality was empty; His measures were astute and limited. FDR was preventing more radical or revolutionary measures from taking place. For the American Liberty League, their protection of their own property was paramount. The separation of powers allows wealthy members to stymie reform with critical failure at a number of points, thus their irritation at FDR seeming enhancement of executive authority. There is a fear of the wealthy that is hard to describe, but it has a feral albeit irrational quality. A student of Soviet studies would surely recognize that FDR’s policies were not in any way shape or form like the Soviets, or the Russian revolution.

The New Deal is actually described as Totalitarian by Jouett Shouse, President of the American Liberty League. The accusation also condemns FDR creation of “new instruments of public power,” as though newness was itself, a crime. Shouett continues claiming that a political promise is a sacred promise: he seems to be eager for a return to business-government collusion.

FDR announces an Economic Bill of Rights in January of 1944. He spoke of “overcoming distinctions based upon race or creed,” certainly a self evident step necessary for equality. FDR spoke of education, health care, and housing. Liberty required protection from both government and capital. Finally FDR argues that Liberty and Equality were mutually fortifying. FDR tries to tackle the widespread belief of the wealthy that the have nots were lazy and dishonest, and that the system was fair and self correcting.

FDR tries to explain that in the context of our modern economy, protecting capital without protecting labor leaves the working man at a severe artificial disadvantage. He stresses that a high GNP, that is not equitably distributed leaves people destitute despite their hard work and that would surely deny individual pursuit of happiness. FDR states that ”necitious men are not free men.” The President remarks that industrialism and the current technology were not even known at the founding, and are solved with equality under the general welfare clause.

Equality is a man made creation not found in nature. Equality has intrinsic value in holding together a society without the need for a hierarchy. Equality is only found when either a law or a custom of equality exists. When it is not found in custom, we rely on law. FDR enumerates decent, American, Christian reasons to explain his view that we suffer from a lack of equality. The wealthy seem to have no sense of proportion, or love of country, and enough is never enough. The wealthy cannot see that FDR is preventing a revolution. FDR’s moves though described as radical by some were very conservative and favorable to his class. In fact his moves are reminiscent of reforms by late Victorian England or Bismarck’s Germany and with a similar purpose of undercutting revolutionary change. FDR wanted a system that was free and equitable, yet protected his own property rights. He rightly understood that the advantage of property and education would likely leave his class in power, but the reforms were likely to prevent a revolution. It is generally unappreciated in our day and age how close was the possibility of revolution in America.

Free Trade

Free trade in the global economy is affected by politics, and the extraordinary cheapening of transport and communication costs. The transport and communication technology’s dramatic reduction in cost and increase in speed allows for business models that were inconceivable earlier in my own lifetime, except to prescient sci fi authors.
There are significant concerns by many that globalization is leading to environmental degradation, and cultural destruction globally. The idea of sustainable use is taking hold among a segment of the population. But it remains to be seen how or whether this will be adopted by business. Business will jump on cost savings tied to environmental remediation, whether that concept is valid and can be demonstrated is an open concern.
The nations of the world are not all well integrated into the global system. Those countries that are somewhat integrated represent a crazy-quilt of regulations, laws, tariffs, and customs. There are no international standards or laws. Though some reference is made to both, that is simply an equivocation.
There is a real concern that growth is not sustainable, or that if it is, the kind of growth ensuing will lead to a widening gap between rich and poor, and possibly revolution.
Answers to these concerns are both elusive and desirable. Human tendency to put off current pain, though more costly to fix later, endures still. Human tendency towards immediate gratification, demonstrated inconstancy, and a miniscule ability to see things from other viewpoints militates against solution. However, mankind has surely proved adaptable. While we cannot seem to plan ahead our adaptability will allow some to succeed quite well. I wonder whether it will be me, my friends & family, and my country that succeeds, or fails.

Can Musharraf Survive?

The author discusses the prospect of the survival of Musharraf as leader of Pakistan, a brief history of Pakistan, and the impact of a radicalization of a post Musharraf nuclear armed Pakistan. The author describes briefly how Musharraf came to power and the difficulties he faces holding onto power.
Should Musharraf lose power to radical Islamists, Pakistan’s status as a nuclear armed state makes that threat a real one, unlike the imaginary threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The author describes the pitiful options left to the U.S. should radicals seize control of Pakistan. The author ruminates on the paradox that faces the U.S., the more it pushes Musharraf to seize Taliban strongholds in the regions bordering Afghanistan, the more it strengthens radical Islam; and threatens Musharraf overthrow. But if no action is taken, the Taliban become stronger, Musharraf can better hold onto power but is then he worthless to America, even an obstacle.

Wallerstein,I. (2007, August 1st). Can Musharraf survive? Retrieved August 5th, 2007 from http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=1332

Iraqi government in deepest crisis

This article relates to all the geographic themes. Once again the government would have us believe that despite the thorough and predictable failure of our efforts to occupy and remake Iraq, that somehow the succession of failures can add up to success. Our presence is causing the internal confluct in Iraq and putting us at risk for retaliation. It is apparent that no one in charge is a Geographer or Historian.
The author repeats the use of terms like ‘stability’ and ‘close to collapse’ to lead the reader to believe success is possible. But is it? To date no one to my knowledge has cited a model of success. We have been told this is new, but it is not. Western countries have been unable to hold non western countries in thrall when those non western countries have peoples with a sense of national identity. The brief period European neo-colonialism from the mid 18th to the mid 19th century was exceptional, not normative.
In any case this article gives credence to a patently untrue notion that ‘the mission’ is difficult, when it is impossible. What a waste!

Dagher, S. (July 27st 2007). Iraqi government in deepest crisis. Retrieved July 27st, 2007 from http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0727/p01s05-wome.htm

The Arab story: the big one waiting to be told

Kouri offers us the Arab perspective concerning the armed conflict in Iraq, and the wider social conflict in Western Asia. He makes clear that his opinion is that American journalists and media outlets are missing the true picture of Iraq. Americans are focused on their own needs, feelings, and losses. The big story according to the author is the intra Arab social conflict that is distorted by incompetent and violent foreign meddling.
The author wants American readers to better understand Arab aspirations and hopes. He specifically points out that though terrorists do come from among the Arab population, that these terrorists represent a vanishingly small percent of the population, and that most Arabs want a decent life with a government that is accountable to them. The author defines three important consequences of the skewed media coverage of Iraq, and Western Asia. First, many Americans have a one-dimensionally negative, and paranoid opinion of Arabs. Second, the continuation of failed policies that are demonstrably disastrous for all parties. Third, terrorist attacks against America that are done to lash out against a symbol of their sense of their rage and humiliation.

Kouri, R. G. (July 21st 2007). The Arab story: the big one waiting to be told. Retrieved July 21st, 2007 from http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=1322

Iran Asks Japan to Pay Yen for Oil, Start Immediately

This article relates to the geographic themes of Movement of Goods/Oil and Human-Environmental Interactions/dependence. We in the U.S. are dependant on overseas oil for our economic well being and prosperity. We also gain a benefit not seen in other countries by having oil priced in dollars; that is we have only price volatility, whereas other countries have that plus currency volatility. The author warns us that the era of dollar supremacy is ending, in an orgy of inflation and incredibly bad foreign policy decisions. The culture of Iran has remained constant in spite of the hostility of the U.S., and the rule of gangsters who call themselves clerics. We see that the span of the world is small in an era of cheap energy and we see that our leaders lack wisdom. Yet, due to the intransigence of cultural archetypes, and the distance of space, a student of geography can observe the ultimate futility of the foregoing policies.

Yamanaka, M. (2007 July). Iran Asks Japan to Pay Yen for Oil, Start Immediately. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved July 15th, 2007 from
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=home&sid=aONF.HEKx.xU

Iraq: Its Demography and Geography as Impediments to Peace and Stability

In this article we see the constant struggle for territory driven by overpopulation and avarice, and distorted by unconscious cultural assumptions. We also see the irrational human mind at work, wherein no side in the conflict takes a thought for useful productive goals, being merely adaptive opportunists, set in a paradigm they cannot see, and will not change.

Rauf Naqishbendi (July 8, 2007). Iraq: Its Demography and Geography as Impediments to Peace and Stability, American Chronicle. Retrieved July 9, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=31624

War Against Iran Makes no Sense; I Wish that Meant it Won’t Happen

War may happen of course. But it is useful, at least for me, to remember that humans are homicidal and not suicidal as a general rule. That being the case I wouldn’t expect a war to start unless one of the major actors thinks that they have something to gain. The Iranian government is well served by our hostility. They are really better described as gangsters than clerics, they are hated by their people, but they can resist reform and count on nationalist feeling as long as we are bellicose. I see the Iranian leadership as being quite realistic in understanding what war would mean for them, I discount their President’s rhetoric because he is an outsider with little actual power. Now our President is another matter as is our government. Many of us Americans have a strange, Manichean, comic book hero view of the world. Unfortunately that would describe the current Bush administration. It is possible that our great leaders ‘gut’ will lead us into to tragedy. And there is no telling really, what they are capable of rationalizing. We should have a sense of national shame in that we are led by people who are such an ignorant, cowardly, and inept crew. It even makes me desire a constitutional change of our whole system. We need a new governing system, based upon our actual experience 200 years in duration. The Founding Fathers did an extraordinary job; now we must carry on with the accumulated wisdom and knowledge that we have gained.

We need a new government.

Geographic Ignorance has a High Price

The Mideast, or southwest Asia as we say now, has been problematic through recorded history. Our position of ‘stabilizing’ the Mideast has no exemplars of success to rely upon, and a trail of unambiguous failures, yet it is steady as she goes on the ship of state. Working backwards, I saw Iraq in 2003 not only as presenting no threat of any kind, but thought it so weak that it was only the implicit threat of U.S. action, and a lack of trust for one another that kept Iraq’s neighbors from dismembering it. I didn’t care that undemocratic Iraq annexed undemocratic Kuwait back in 1990. But I suggested it would occur in 1988 when the Iran-Iraq war came to a fruitless end. Then Saddam had a large veteran military, debts he couldn’t pay to Kuwait and elsewhere, a loss of face needing redress, and the Kuwaitis were slant drilling into Iraq and defenseless: why wouldn’t a dictator in that position invade little Kuwait.
I would never have sent Americans into Lebanon in 1982. I would have accepted the Iranian revolution, in that it over threw a truly horrible regime. I would have refused asylum to Pahlavi. And so forth back to WW1. Either leave Arabia to the Turks or let the Arabs hash out what they want for themselves. The Persians too, the Shah’s Dad was simply a military leader who threw out the old Safawid dynasty. The Pahlavi’s had no historical claim to anything; in fact the dynasty’s founder spoke Farsi with a Russian accent they say. Regardless because they have only oil to sell, it puts the purchasing countries in the driver’s seat. If we and our NATO allies plus our Pacific allies embargoed Arab/Persian oil, we all would suffer. But they would suffer more. We would be inconvenienced, they would be hungry. I’d put some Naval/Marine forces in Qatar and Oman and call it sufficient for our interests. Even a united greater Arab state poses no threat to us, because it has no homegrown industry or technology. It doesn’t matter how many arms they buy from Russia, if they can’t replace materiel losses they lose, and we can interdict supply lines of major goods from Russia or elsewhere. In fact a larger Arab state would be to Israel’s advantage, it is likely a larger Arab state covering say Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, plus parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, would have the land, the resources, and the political ability to resettle displaced Arabs and sign a peace deal.
In any case the Arabs and Muslims are not the problem; the feeble efforts directed against us could be eliminated by noninterference in their affairs. We have big problems that we are not addressing, Chinese economic and space competition, and the still overvalued the dollar.

We need some Geographers in the new government we need.

The Role of the U.S. in Global Military and Political Affairs

This paper will argue for the appropriate role of the U.S. in global military and political affairs as one of leading importance but not hegemonic power or its opposite: isolation. The paper will argue though America has an exceptionally fortunate geography and is the world’s single most powerful country with global interests, our ability to positively execute our will is severely limited. The paper will argue against the ludicrous phantom of stability, and its concommited crises, interventions, failures, and fear. We cannot police the world: and waste considerable resources and good will in that vain attempt. The collapse of the USSR made the world more chaotic, and diminished our power which now has to be measured by absolute success against an ideal instead of relative success against an opponent. It will argue for our national interests narrowly, and Western Democratic interests broadly in a world that will always be dynamic. It is of paramount importance to see the world as it really is, and let go of false paradigms. The paper will finally argue against the superstitious and Manichean notion of good versus evil, and adopt a skeptical, open, transparent and self interested view of the humanscape and our global way.

Many Americans have a strange, Manichean, comic book hero view of the world, in which we are “good” no matter what and others are measured by the quality and quantity of their philo-Americaness. This national Aspergers Syndrome, this obtuseness, leads to a general inability to appreciate the perception and consequence of our actions globally. We should renounce the right to impose our culture and any form of government on other nations, and accept as legitimate, any government that is constituted in any given country by people of that country regardless of form. It is not possible to achieve global stability: the track record of our efforts is abysmal and disastrous; we have been choice blind. The idea that the world could be worse off for lack of our interventions is highly improbable. Much of the perceived difficulty we have globally now is simply blowback from form earlier counterproductive efforts (Johnson). Our stubborn bloody-mindedness in pursuit of policies that don’t work; that are against our own interests speaks to a warped morality and worldview. And in light of the obvious counterproductive outcome of our policies making a change is critically important for our self respect and self interest. America’s manifest destiny mindset and the idea that we can do no true wrong hamstrings us from intelligent reflection on our outcomes and goals.

One can wonder if that is a failing of the human mind when presented with overwhelming wealth and power. Britain, France, Germany, Spain and other Western nations went through a period of exceptional success only to be brought low in the end. Their pride and hubris somehow did not allow for the rational and calculating decisions to be made concerning the possibility of overreach and blowback. “The United States today is discovering what other great powers have found before it: military victories can have results opposite to those intended. The world has not been made more pliant and respectful by a demonstration of American might, but is, on the contrary, more recalcitrant, sulky, and difficult than it was before the Iraq war.” (Woolacott)

We can transport soldiers globally rapidly, but once there, they move at the pace of humanity has moved through the ages (Army War College). We must remember that the combat soldier and the police officer have almost nothing in common in their duties. Between these two lies the constabulary or paramilitary police, necessary to maintain order in conquered lands. Closer to police than military, they eschew most heavy weapons of the military, though they have a military style hierarchy. The way that they are more police like is their respect for property, and their engagement with the people and community. The order needed in conquered lands is disturbed by the mayhem of military tactics. One may note that America doesn’t actually have a constabulary type force, and conclude our troubles in Iraq and Somalia may have been due in part to this. In the aftermath of WW2 we had a de facto constabulary. The military was tasked with administering conquered lands, but created a separate command for that purpose, in Germany for example the 15th Army. The 15th never fought a battle and its staffing was heavily tilted towards persons with civil skills. Our combat armies in Europe were not designed to foster order and development, they were designed to break and defeat the enemy.

The obvious failure of peace keeping to resolve any conflict argues rationally against its use (Johnson). The very presence of peacekeeping forces inhibits the traditional remedy of endangered civilians, which is to escape from the danger. Deluded into thinking that they will be protected, civilians in danger remain too long in place; and then flight is not an option. The practical consequence of peace keeping is a prolonged infliction of the agonies and indignities of conflict on defenseless people and argues against its morality. The great powers impose cease fires for reasons that are as deluded as they are frivolous. “… with combat suspended momentarily but a state of hostility prolonged indefinitely. Since no side is threatened by defeat and loss, none has a sufficient incentive to negotiate a lasting settlement; because no path to peace is even visible, the dominant priority is to prepare for future war rather than to reconstruct devastated economies and ravaged societies. Uninterrupted war would certainly have caused further suffering and led to an unjust outcome from one perspective or another, but it would also have led to a more stable situation that would have let the postwar era truly begin. Peace takes hold only when war is truly over” (Lustick). We should allow, or even on occasion help the stronger to defeat the weaker faster and more decisively; this would actually enhance the peacemaking potential of war. The final result of interventions and peacekeeping is to prevent the emergence of a coherent outcome, because it requires an imbalance of strength sufficient to end the fighting.

The degradation of the combat effectiveness of highly trained soldier ill used as a super police force is a phenomenon that is documented (Army War College). Multinational commands are worse still, and typically find it difficult to control the quality and conduct of member states’ troops, leading to a reduction of the quality and performance of all forces involved, to the lowest common denominator. Allied military forces suffer this to a somewhat lesser degree, but not by enough to overlook. Any time troops are used for interventions they should only being engaged in one of two type activities, either helping to bring an end to the war by helping the most powerful side, or facilitating the evacuation of population which we resettle in our homeland.
But by far the most disastrous of all interventions in war, and the most destructive, are humanitarian relief activities. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was established immediately after the 1948/9 Arab–Israeli war to feed, shelter, educate, and provide health services for Arab refugees who had fled Israeli zones in the former territory of Palestine. But UNRWA camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip provided on the whole a higher standard of living than most Arab villagers had previously enjoyed, with a more varied diet, organized schooling, superior medical care, and no backbreaking labor in stony fields. They had therefore the unintended consequence becoming desirable homes rather than eagerly abandoned transit camps. With the encouragement of several Arab countries, the UNRWA turned escaping civilians into lifelong refugees who gave birth to refugee children, who have in turn had refugee children of their own. During its half–century of operation, the UNRWA has thus perpetuated a Palestinian refugee nation, preserving its resentments in as fresh a condition as they were in 1948 and keeping the revanchist emotion intact. “By its very existence, the UNRWA dissuades integration into local society and inhibits emigration. The concentration of Palestinians in the camps, moreover, has facilitated the voluntary or forced enlistment of refugee youths by armed organizations that fight both Israel and each other. The UNRWA has contributed to a half–century of Arab–Israeli violence and still retards the advent of peace” (Lustick).
The only successful model of refugee resettlement model is the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Agency (UNRRA), which operated displaced–persons’ camps in Europe immediately after World War II. By virtue of keeping refugees alive in spartan conditions that encouraged their rapid emigration or local resettlement, the UNRRA’s camps in Europe had assuaged postwar resentments and helped disperse revanchist concentrations of national groups. These camps sabotage of peace is completely avoidable. Instead of creating Refugee Nations and prolonging the warfare whose consequences they ostensibly seek to mitigate, we should help with permanent resettlement.
Terrorists exist, and have since at the mid 19th century, yet they constitute a minuscule physical threat, but one that has seized our fear and imagination (Sherry). In fact we lose much more when we restrict our own liberties than harm they can ever inflict upon us materially. “The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not attack America, as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy” (Johnson). Essentially terrorist tactics are used by the powerless to fight for control of land and to undermine imposed power. Were they more powerful they would be partisans and guerillas. “While terrorism poses some level of risk to the population, the risk is wildly exaggerated; ironically, this magnification of their power is a central goal of terrorists. Our nation has a history of inventing or magnifying political threats: nuclear attacks during the Cold War, McCarthyism and the Red Menace during the fifties, and most recently WMD in Iraq. Public policy should focus on reducing collective fears and overreactions to terrorism, not on fueling them” (Taleb).

We cannot police Global climate issues; any attempt to do so is doomed for two reasons. First we have no track record of bending others to our will and doing so cost effectively, and this doesn’t include times when our will makes no sense. Second the global climate is far too complex and poorly understood for us to make sweeping and costly changes to our way of life; we don’t even fully understand geological and solar processes. That does not excuse us from best practices and good stewardship. Pollution is wasteful; it causes economic damage when in fact those are resources that should be harvested. We should use wisely our resources, reduce waste, and conserve. We should develop a more integrated economy reducing waste and boosting our economy.
We suffer from our own rhetorical flourishes, words have meaning and consequence even if one lies when one uses them (Loehr). Our politicians speak as though we respect sovereignty, but in practice we don’t, unless the country is powerful or irrelevant. There is a certain weakness inherent in the use of organized violence to maintain authority (Gonsalves). A resort to violence even when victorious contains an implication of power that is lesser than one would desire. In other words, he who fights against the weak and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. “To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish” (Harvey). I will conclude that America is once again powerful when a presidential phone call or face to face meeting between our plenipotentiary and a foreign leader is enough to get our way.
We are led by people who are an ignorant, cowardly, corrupt, and inept crew, neither they nor even the loyal opposition have any geographical sense. The stench of the current administrations’ failure can almost make one forget that our foreign policy has been weirdly counterproductive for some time, and with some exceptions, back to the Spanish-American war. It even makes me desire a constitutional change to our whole system. We lack organizational continuity, doctrinal cohesion, popular memory, and any evident connection to the past, and insanely we continue repeating the behavior of preceding generations expecting different outcomes. We need a new governing system, based upon our actual experience 200+ years in duration. The Founding Fathers did an extraordinary job; now we must carry on with the accumulated wisdom and knowledge that we have gained, and the changed circumstances that pertain.
The age of empire is over. An especially striking fact is that the most modern empires have a far shorter life span than their ancient and early modern predecessors. Though we have great power it is the power to destroy, so called hard power: brittle, we use it in fear and avarice. What we need is soft power, the power to influence without conflict and the confidence and resilience that comes with an accurate reading of the world and our place in it.
Toward a solution we can conceptualize the globe into discrete geographical compartments to resolve an intellectual dichotomy: that is the rapidity of movement available to an individual and idea through the threads of electronic media that meanwhile belie the awesome effort still required to force project around the globe. We can further define core and peripheral regions. In reference to Map A, the territories marked in green are core, all others are peripheral.
The core territories can be broadly defined as the extended North Atlantic which includes the Gulf of Mexico, the western Mediterranean, Baltic, Caribbean, Norwegian, and Barents Seas, and bordering Arctic sea zones. The great Pacific arc as far as Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan back to the western coasts of the Americas, and south to encompass Antarctica. These core territories as broadly defined constitute all the wealthy and powerful Western Democratic nations, plus Western nations aspiring to the same, with a few outliers. It is only in these territories that we should constitute treaty alliances. We should conceive the whole as an integrated one, were we have broad commitments to our allies, and they in turn have more regional commitments, except for a handful of countries besides us that would belong to both the Atlantic and the Pacific treaty organizations. The core nation’s alliances will likely intervene in conflicts that erupt on the side of the most powerful belligerent to achieve a victory and conclusion and prevent ongoing strife. The cost structure of the American military is wildly inflated and distorted; far too much money is spent in total, and of that much is misdirected. Peripheral belligerence against any core nation will result war with one or both alliances.
We need to look at our economy and energy needs strategically and therefore all vital resources and manufactures must come from the core, with at least half coming from the Americas. The looming shortfalls of fossil fuels and Uranium necessitate broad remedies that can exist within the core. We can have free trade with our first world core neighbors. The developing nations in the core would get trade privileges similar to those used by South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan to facilitate their own growth: those countries are primarily in Latin America, the Caribbean, and the North African littoral; in addition passport holders from all core countries may come to America with automatic visa rights. A new currency regime should be promulgated wherein between first world core nations the currency values are either fixed, or the same currency is used whether de facto or de jure. Developing nations of the core within limits could adjust their own currencies relation the new Western currency with an eye toward steady growth in those developing countries. International standards, laws, and codes should be refined and agreed upon by a supranational body made up of core nations. Trade will not be embargoed between core nations; agreements with peripheral nations are always subordinate to the core, and subject to review and veto.
The war on drugs at home and abroad has been a catastrophe. We continue to suffer from drug use unabated, we have lost civil liberties to an alphabet soup of police agencies, and we have brought ruination on the economies of the supplying countries. Drugs are a medical and economic problem not resolvable by force, and we should cease wasting time and money in a vain and futile struggle against human nature. We should substitute other behaviors, offer medical treatment, and regulate the process to keep prices low, and use away from public spaces.
There is no nation anywhere that constitutes a threat to America at this time. Americans seem to suffer from the concept of Zero-risk bias. This leads to erroneous and costly attempts to reduce our security risk to an improbable zero, when the critical idea should be roughly that which is economically efficient, and more relevant, and that is not bringing risk from .1% to 0%, but from 30% to 5% for example. There are extraordinary and unpredictable events in human history, but one cannot reasonably make plans based upon a statistical improbability. Nassim Taleb calls the impact of the highly improbable events Black Swans. “Just imagine how little your understanding of the world on the eve of the events of 1914 would have helped you guess what was to happen next” (Taleb).

Globally China is the lone foreseeable competitor, but that can be dealt with by first examining their sense of their history, second examining realistic not worst case scenarios, binding our core together, and pursuing and possibly excluding China from space exploration: the new high ground. China could be hemmed in to less than its approximate ancestral limits.

India has provided the world with the sole workable example of how a nation should deal with a hostile neighbor by initiating use of force to achieve an enduring solution. In 1971 India invaded East Pakistan, now known as Bangladesh, to rid itself of a pesky security problem. In a good example of economy of force India used what was necessary to win quickly. Essential to their plan was to introduce native rule. Though Pakistan became free of Great Britain, East Pakistan remained subordinate, riled by outsiders, largely West Pakistani’s Punjabi’s. India invaded and defeated the Pakistani army, recognized a native opposition group as the provisional government, and began preparations to withdraw very quickly. The Indian forces were cheered, as they left. Those borders are peaceful to this day. We should work with India as a partner in the Indian Ocean regions, as described in red on Map A. We could consider joint action with India, and encourage that great nation to use its considerable pool of talent to the benefit of themselves and the peoples of the Indian Ocean region.

Russia is a great country though, or perhaps because it has known great vicissitudes of fortune and travail. We should acknowledge their cultural sphere, and the geography of their interests. The area in blue on Map A shows the area encompassed by their interests, and ability to exercise their power, in areas peripheral to ours. Russia has shown their grit and determination in bearing the lion’s share of the war against Hitler and Nazism. They have shown their wisdom in selling us Alaska, and allowing the Soviet Empire to dissolve peacefully. Unlike their Western European neighbors, they have not recklessly started global conflicts. (Czar Nicholas II is somewhat of an exception). We can work with Russia, show them the respect they have earned, and work jointly should they desire it in the blue regions. They would be given to understand Central Europe and Scandinavia defined by the green area on Map A are off limits. Russians are essentially realistic and tend to keep their international deals.

Brazil is the leading state of the purple zone as defined on Map A. Brazil’s subtle racism has a large element of class to it, but it poses less of an obstacle than the racism found in elsewhere in America, Europe, or Asia in African development. Also the distance between Brazil and South Atlantic Ocean Africa spatially and culturally is smaller than between America and Africa. And both have experienced the destructive economic model wherein the extraction of mineral or agricultural resources is their primary economic function. In Africa either borders must change or people must move. White Western interests have done considerable damage to the people and land of Africa. The best thing we can do for Africans now is to let them keep their resources and forbid cash trade outside of the south Atlantic. We can barter capital improvements, expertise, and education for what we think we need and to recompense them for past mistreatment. We should share military expertise with Brazil upon their recognition of their sphere of influence.

We have tried to be the globes policeman since the end of WW2. It has resulted in considerable carnage and ultimately failure, as we are worse off now in Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Guatemala, Vietnam, and Nicaragua and so on for our efforts. Doing nothing would have had a better outcome. The endless wars and refugee streams cry out for a new course of action. We can’t make the entire world better, and we certainly can’t make Americans out of foreign peoples. We can protect ourselves, our friends, and within narrow limits intervene in core critical nations alone, and in peripheral nations with the cooperating power to help the stronger side win. We should be strong and resilient, instead of belligerent and arrogant. We must educate all our youth in Geography so that some day we will have leaders whose decisions will be informed by knowledge and understanding instead of ignorance and fear. It is not our job to rule the world’s outcomes, but more importantly it is impossible, and that couldn’t be any plainer.