How do you say I told you so in Mayan?

Posted By David Rothkopf Tuesday, January 3, 2012 - 12:13 PM

First day back at work in the New Year. Blearily open eyes on computer screen. First story I see: Muslim Brotherhood says they won't recognize Israel. Second story: Muslim Brotherhood closer to running lower house in Egyptian parliament. Third story: Islamists form government in Morocco. Next story: Israelis, prepare for peace talks by announcing new construction beyond Green Line in Jerusalem. Next story: Iranian rattling sabers in the Gulf. Next story: Taliban setting up shop in Qatar thanks to rapprochement with government. Next story: Arab League sham intervention in Syria going nowhere fast.

Seriously. That's how 2012 started for me. So, the question is: what's a guy supposed to think? Is it that 2011 was the year of giddy -- and utterly unfounded -- optimism about the Middle East?

The only person who could possibly read all those stories and be happy is Bibi Netanyahu. With elections expected in Israel this year, nothing could do more for his election chances than to have all his worst predictions about the aftermath of Arab Spring and the increasing Iranian threat appear to be coming true. All the intolerance, abuse, violence, and exacerbation of the country's problems associated with the Israeli far right and all the missteps of the Israeli Prime Minister himself may seem small price to pay if the country feels a vice grip of insecurity tightening around it throughout the year.

That's not to say I actually think that Netanyahu's combativeness and pedantry actually helps anything. I don't. It's actually more a way of saying that as bad as I think this morning's first news dump was for me, I can't help but feel worse is in store.

Beyond the problems that seem certain to deepen between Israel and the Palestinians, within Syria, with the rise of intransigent Islamic political parties, and with Iran, we also have Iraq seemingly heading straight back to the emergency room of geopolitics and, if anything, the deal the U.S. seems likely to cut with the devils we know in Afghanistan promises even less satisfactory outcomes.

Furthermore, none of these pessimistic analyzes actually have to pan out in the long run to actually have really negative consequences. For example, one of the more positive stories of the morning was the announcement that U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta was preparing a plan to cut $450 billion in U.S. defense spending over the next decade. This is in line with the very modest 8 percent cuts the administration had planned. And it's an important step in the right direction.

Almost certainly the greatest, most damaging strategic error the U.S. has made during the past couple decades is continuing our over-the-top defense spending. We have spent at many times the level we need to protect ourselves -- indeed, we have spent at a level at which the economic damage we have done the country (both in terms of deficits created and in terms of the opportunity cost of investing in our military rather than in more productive segments of the economy) vastly outstrips any potential security benefits that may have been derived. Certainly, that's been true since the fall of the USSR. In all likelihood it was true long before that.

We could cut the budget five times the level proposed and still be outspending our nearest rival many times over. But, if the Middle East -- which I would argue is not and should not be our primary security focus -- festers and boils this year as today's headlines suggest it might, then it is easy to imagine a central debate of this year's elections in the U.S. being about whether or not we should cut defense spending at all. A President with an exemplary record in terms of combating terror and getting the U.S. out of costly conflicts will suddenly find that Republicans will be able to open a different front on the national security debate where he may appear vulnerable. They will say the world is more dangerous and this is no time to be cutting defense.

And my guess is that means that when the time comes to really cut the budget nothing like these cuts will be made...and the U.S. will continue to pose the greatest danger to itself by over-spending on wasteful, bloated, duplicative defense systems it can't and shouldn't attempt to afford. The Panetta $450 billion plan will be seen as the high bid in terms of cuts and we will negotiate downward from there. The changes will be incremental and we will continue down the path to great power decline long ago limned by Paul Kennedy.

Take that and the real threats posed by the ever changing landscape in the Middle East -- uncertainty in North Korea, the rise of ever more important security challenges in Asia, the problems in the Eurozone, and bird flu (I saw "Contagion"...I know what we're up against! I saw Gwyneth Paltrow's brain!) -- and my newest New Year's resolution is to go back to bed, pull the covers over my head and wait for 2013.

OHAN ORDONEZ/AFP/Getty Image

COMMENTS (3)

EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AMERICA, AXIS OF UPHEAVAL, BARACK OBAMA, BIRD FLU, DEFENSE SPENDING

Foreign policy fast food: Analyses for the Ritalin nation

Posted By David Rothkopf Friday, November 19, 2010 - 2:19 PM

A U.S. government report indicates one in five Americans is mentally ill. This only partially explains the results of the last election.

The Davenport family of St. Petersburg, Florida on Wednesday became the first people in the country to begin waiting in line for next Friday's post-Thanksgiving Day sales. See prior point.

Susan Boyle becomes the first artist since the Beatles to top both U.S. and U.K. album sales charts simultaneously. See prior ... oh, this is becoming too easy.

Heavily armed battle tanks arrive in Afghanistan for the first time in a nearly decade long war at roughly the same time President Obama arrives in Lisbon to persuade allies and the world that things are finally going our way in that benighted country. Who are you going to believe, the president or a battle tank?

Satellite imagery confirms that the North Koreans are building a new nuclear reactor. They would do more to send a message of progress to the world if the satellites sent back a snapshot of the opening of a Best Buy in Pyongyang (and you can be sure the Davenport family would be camped out in front for the grand opening.)

Protests over Haiti's cholera outbreak have turned violent. Meanwhile, UN Haiti recovery champion Bill Clinton wraps up shooting for his cameo in "The Hangover II" in Thailand.

EU leaders pressure the Irish to raise their too-low corporate tax arguing that the country has gone bust trying to make itself attractive to foreign investors. Are you paying attention, Washington?

In an effort to win the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Michigan Republican Fred Upton has promised to reconsider his support for phasing out incandescent light bulbs. This comes in response to right wing attacks on what they characterize as "socialist" support for more efficient "squiggly" bulbs. (Note: Bloggers everywhere appreciate the recent proliferation of such self-ridiculing stories. A real time-saver.)

The Nobel Committee announces that China's "unprecedented" campaign to shut down the peace prize ceremonies for Liu Xiaobo by keeping his family away and pressuring countries not to attend may succeed. Beijing could not have thought of a better way to validate Liu or to bring more attention to his award.

In related news, China sentences a woman to a year in a labor camp for retweeting a satirical message and thus "disrupting the social order." Yes, that's the same China that George Soros says is better run than the U.S. (but then perhaps he feels the same way I do about Twitter.)

Aung San Suu Kyi is finally freed in what the press characterizes as a "Mandela moment" but she notes that in many ways South Africa had it easier. She and Liu remind us that the real progress hasn't a thing to do with technology, economic growth or the shape of our lightbulbs.

P.S. Due to the tremendous response to this week's Snookiism post, I wanted to more clearly define what I mean by the term. To me Snookiism is any movement that depends on the stupidity of its main actors or its supporters for its success. In instances of extreme Snookiism, it relies on both.

DMITRY ASTAKHOV/AFP/Getty Images

COMMENTS (1)

EXPLORE:AXIS OF UPHEAVAL, CULTURE, ELECTIONS, FUN STUFF, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

Beware the Axis of Nostalgia

Posted By David Rothkopf Monday, November 15, 2010 - 2:42 PM

While we Americans contribute to global warming with overheated rhetoric (and little else) about 21st century competitiveness, our enemies around the world are employing a different strategy. Being sensible arch-villains, they know that the future is uncertain. (Just what exactly are all those green jobs anyway? And weren't we all supposed to have flying cars by now?)

So, they have concluded, "Why fool around with tomorrow when yesterday is a sure thing?"

That is the only way to explain the most recent move by Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Daniel Ortega -- yesterday's men, each and every one of them -- that proclaims loudly that those who repeat the past may not be doomed to be forgotten.

According to a story in Ha'aretz, Venezuela, Iran, and Nicaragua are quietly hatching a plan to build a competitor to the Panama Canal along an alternative route that was considered and dismissed roughly a century ago -- back when canals were the "plastics" of their era.

Given the megalomania of this trio, one can only imagine that they will soon join with like-minded maniacs elsewhere on the planet to boldly go where everyone has been before.

Among their likely next initiatives:

A major project with the Burmese thugocracy to transfer Naypyidaw airport into the world's leading dirigible port.
The establishment of a maritime skunk works in North Korea to produce an entire navy of stealthy (absolutely silent), green (wind-powered) vessels (clipper ships).
And revealing his particularly sweeping retroactive vision, Mahmoud the Backwards Looking, will soon unveil his plan to actually set back clocks around the world by 1400 years or so -- or as he likes to call it, Tehran Standard Time. This will put us all squarely in his favorite century which featured, among other highlights: major Muslim military victories in Palestine, the sack of Mexico's most important city, the establishment of Guanzhou, China as one of the world's most important ports, major Persian attempts to gain influence in what is today Turkey, the conquest of Kabul, multiple Islamic civil wars, and the beginning of anti-Christian persecution in China. (Come to think of it, it's no wonder he feels perfectly comfortable in the 7th century.)

Fortunately, we have little to worry about. Because we are protected against the plans of this Axis of Nostalgia by our own advanced defenses and worldview, which, although firmly rooted in the last century, still place us decades and in some cases millennia ahead of our potential opponents.

JUAN BARRETO/AFP/Getty Images

COMMENTS (4)

EXPLORE:SOUTH AMERICA, AXIS OF UPHEAVAL, DEVELOPMENT, HISTORY, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, IRAN

The axis of stability

Posted By David Rothkopf Friday, February 20, 2009 - 3:53 PM

At my summer camp in Maine -- which was really the equivalent of that South Pacific manhood ritual where they attach vines to a teenaged boy's testicles and throw him off a tree -- on the very first day they would gather all the new campers around and teach them the camp song. It was entitled "Oh, Camp We Love" and, as the budding concentration camp guards they called counselors used to point out, "it's sung to the same tune as the Canadian national anthem, "O Canada.'" Naturally, this generated confusion and blank stares from all the boys present because the comment was roughly as helpful as suggesting the camp talent show utilize the same narrative technique as The Tale of Genji. I mean, for goodness sake, we were from New Jersey. We knew Canada was up there somewhere between Boston and the North Pole and that they played hockey there, but beyond that, details were scarce.

Since then, throughout my life, I have always found that when giving a talk, a reference to Canada is reliably good for a laugh. Making fun of Canada seldom offends any American and Canadians tend to be too polite to object. And it it's funny because Canada is so darned unthreatening, bland enough to make your average bowl of tapioca seem muy caliente. (The only thing more boring than Canada? Coldplay. "Viva la vida?!" Seriously. Viva la sominex.) Of course, I'm not the only one who has gone after Canada. Take for example the greatest song ever written about international relations, "Blame Canada." (Which song clearly kicks the ass of anything Coldplay has ever written. Of course, so too does anything ever done by that immortal Canadian-Egyptian-Armenian, Raffi.)

It's all a bit unfair actually. A lot unfair. And I was thinking this as I was watching President Obama's press conference with Prime Minister Harper. Harper's year has been as politically star-crossed as Obama's has been seemingly guided by a lucky star. But together yesterday, these two were the picture of what good allies should be. They were polite, respectful, at times deferential, honest about areas of concern and seemingly sincere in their desire to work through potential trouble spots whether they be sclerotic border crossings or the potential for turbulence on trade. Both were gracious, articulate, and statesmanlike.

The U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue they announced was an excellent step to strengthen an already rock-solid relationship by collaborating on an issue where common interests abound.

During the news conference held by Harper and Obama, each of the men warmly characterized the state of the relationship between the two countries. Framing his remarks in the context of Obama's ascendancy to office, Harper said:

His election to the presidency launches a new chapter in the rich history of Canada-U.S. relations. It is a relationship between allies, partners, neighbors, and the closest of friends; a relationship built on our shared values -- freedom, democracy, and equality of opportunity epitomized by the President himself."

Obama, speaking next said:

I came to Canada on my first trip as President to underscore the closeness and importance of the relationship between our two nations, and to reaffirm the commitment of the United States to work with friends and partners to meet the common challenges of our time. As neighbors, we are so closely linked that sometimes we may have a tendency to take our relationship for granted, but the very success of our friendship throughout history demands that we renew and deepen our cooperation here in the 21st century.

"We're joined together," he continued, "by the world's largest trading relationship and countless daily interactions that keep our borders open and secure. We share core democratic values and a commitment to work on behalf of peace, prosperity, and human rights around the world."

Usually such words exchanged between political leaders are empty rhetoric. But, in the case of the U.S. and Canada, even with the ups and downs the relationship has been through, they ring true.

It underscored a reality that doesn't earn magazine covers in the way problems such as those highlighted in FP's Axis of Upheaval do. It is natural to focus on problems and threats. But throughout human history and especially in the current era, instability and failed states are really "dog bites man."

What is rare, exceptional really, are the cases of the special relationships, the alliances that transcend treaties and become true and enduring partnerships. In many of the most important elements of life and foreign policy, boring is good. Boring is the foundation that allows us to stand the upheaval. Boring is constant in an inconstant world and as such is indispensable and invaluable. (The very best marriages for similar reasons, are sometimes perceived as boring. My wife for example, likes both Canada and Coldplay very much. Come to think of it, I'd probably better move on to the next thought...)

I would go further, it may well be that among the relationships of neighboring states, particularly among comparatively powerful neighbors, the U.S.-Canada relationship may be unique in history. Oh sure, once, long ago, we had that little "Fifty-four Forty or Fight" issue, but that was with the British and frankly with all that manifest destiny testosterone pulsing through our then adolescent veins we were bound to get into trouble with anyone we encountered.

To put it into context, go through history in your mind. Pick two neighbors anywhere. Now find a pair that have gotten along better, avoided war (save for the conflicts depicted in "Canadian Bacon" and that in the aforementioned classic "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.")

Go further, in the vein of my post last week on America's worst alliances, make a list of America's best alliances. Canada tops the list so easily that it is hard to find anyone else that is close. There's the United Kingdom, of course, but we did get off to a bit of a rocky start with them and there was that pesky War of 1812 and they were, despite being officially neutral, not entirely constructive during the Civil War.

And then the next best ally? Ah, while the choices are few they are so tempting. Readership-baiting is so gratifying. (Really, you guys are so easy to toy with. It's like having a dog that always goes after the stick.) I guess the next best ally we have had is Israel. (There, I've said it. Come on all you "realists" time to line up and give it your best shot. I'll even provide your first line for you: "Some of my best friends are Jews, but...") Or, offering the kind of paradox that makes such analyses so much fun (and explains everything about our relationship with the French) perhaps number three is actually France. Ah, this really is too enjoyable.

I think I will stop writing and just warmly contemplate your reactions out there in Wonkavia, land of the Foreign Policy geeks. (And congratulate myself for having gotten through an entire piece about Canada without a single joke about Celine Dion.)

DAVID BOILY/AFP/Getty Images