Not a Big Truck

I couldn’t disagree more with the attitude of the MSM toward Governor Palin’s foreign policy experience.  When she says that Alaska plays an important role in protecting the United States she should not be mocked. Have we all forgotten the important lessons from the epic film “Red Dawn?”

For those who have forgotten the details of that cautionary film…the Soviet armies invaded North America through, yep, you guessed it, Alaska! Palin knows what she is talking about. She is on the front the lines. One could argue that the reason we do not have Russian soldiers and their allies running wild in our hometowns, as in the clip above, is because Palin is there, in Alaska, monitoring Russian activities.

My favorite clip:

Watch CBS Videos Online

Russia has recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.  I wonder if this is in anyway payback for or at least justified by the American recognition of Kosovo. There are certainly differences that may justify one recognition and not the other (I am not familiar with Georgian internal politics).  But, as always, there are risks to interfering with the internal affairs of sovereign states.  It is difficult to make a credible argument against Russia when, from their perspective, we have supported illegitimate seccession efforts in other states.

Of course, there are times when such intervention in sovereign states seems entirely appropriate if not morally necessary. There are negative consequences for such intervention, however, even when such intervention is morally justified.

Just about everyone who has taken a course on American foreign policy has read some George F. Kennan.  In light of the recent Russian conflict, I felt that it would be appropriate to read over some of Mr. Kennan’s writings. I had intended to find a few of his earlier pieces detailing the nature of Russia and describing her character.

The most pertinent of his observations, however, did not deal with Russia specifically. They dealt with humility and pragmatism in foreign affairs.

In American Diplomacy he wrote that the greatest fault in American foreign policy has been the tendency of the United States to implement a moralistic approach to foreign affairs.  He argues that it is foolhardy to think that it “should be possible to suppress the chaotic and dangerous aspirations of governments in the international field by the acceptance of some system of legal rules and restraints.” He attacks both the feeling of self-righteousness that accompanies much of US foreign policy and the international institutions that the US has traditionally supported.

I was most interested, however, in his attack on applying morality to international affairs and will focus primarily on that aspect of his writings–although his discussion on international institutions is somewhat related and similarly interesting. (In fact, he may have an even greater issue with these institutions than the moralism that caught my attention.)

Kennan argues that a moralistic view of foreign affairs is misguided because it incorrectly holds “that state behavior is a fit subject for moral judgment.” Infusing such morality into foreign affairs, of course, changes foriegn affairs from an ongoing series of limited battles for national interest into a uncompromising wars between the righteous and the unrighteous. “A war fought in the name of high moral principle finds no early end short of some form of total domination.”

Total war and ultimate victory often derive from morality in foreign affairs, so Kennan would argue. He states that prior to the more modern moralistic approach:

 wartime objectives were generally limited and practical ones, and it was common to measure the success of your military operations by the extent to which they brought you closer to your objectives. But where your objectives are moral and ideological ones and run to changing the attitudes and traditions of an entire people or the personality of a regime, then victory is probably something not to be achieved entirely by military means or indeed in any short space of time at all.

He wrote that the need of total victory that comes from moralism should be avoided by adopting “an attitude of detachment and soberness and readiness to reserve judgment.” He continues

It will mean that we will have the modesty to admit that our own national interest is all that we are really capable of knowing and understanding–and the courage to recognize that if our own purposes and undertakings here at home are decent ones, unsullied by arrogance or hostility toward other people or delusions of superiority, then the pursuit of our national interest can never fail to be conducive to a better world.

I can’t help but think that I had read these words early on during the invasion of Iraq and yet still supported the endeavor. I certainly disagree with some of Kennan’s points–especially about international institutions in part because I think they can be used effectively as tools to take some morality out of foreign affairs–but his call for a pragmatically cool and rational approach to foreign affairs seems to be exactly what is called for in this country.  We must not remove ourselves from the world, but a return to a policy that reflected greater humility is imperative, especially in light of American decline and the increasing relevance of non-state actors.

At the very least, it is safe to say that one holding Kennan’s view of the world could definitely give a big “told ya so” to Kristol, Perle, Krauthammer, Cheney, Bush…and, unfortunately, to me.  

Well, it seems that the conflict in Georgia is reaching some temporary resolution.  The Russians and the Georgians have agreed to a set of principles moving forward that basically resets things to where they were before Georgian troops attempted to assert their will in the disputed territories.

This situation, however, could quite easily get ugly again in the near future. According to CNN, Medvedev said that “sovereignty is based on the will of the people” and “territorial integrity can be demonstrated by the actual facts on the ground.” With territory inside of Georgia heavily populated by containing Russians, this is akin to saying that Russian regions within Georgia should have the right to secede and then be annexed by Russia.

The United States would oppose this, but does it have the moral standing to protest? The United States since the time of Wilson has supported notions of self-government and has often pursued policies that spur on nationalist fervor.  I do not mean to say that the US has supported self-determination based upon nationality in every case–it’s record has been inconsistent–but it has done so often enough that it seemingly lacks the credibility to prevent Russian regions of Georgia from breaking away.

After all, it was not too long ago that the US supported and recognized Kosovo’s effort to officially secede from Serbia, a Russian ally.  Furthermore, many in the US believe that Tibet ought to be free from Chinese rule. The US also seemingly supports a two-state solution to the problems in Palestine, based on nationality.

I know the US can and will oppose efforts by Russians in Georgia from breaking-away, but does the US have the credibility on the issue to prevent it?

If only there was a more precise set of criteria in place for us to determine which nationalities under which circumstances of the “right” to establish their own country. Basks in Spain? Kurds in northern Iraq? French Canadians? Determining what is a “nation” is so imprecise, then trying to determine what nationalities deserve or have earned their own state is even more complicated.

Unfortunately, we will have opportunities to revisit these issues in the all too near future…most likely in Georgia.