Imperialism in an Age of Terror
John J. Mearsheimer, realist international relations scholar of Israel Lobby infamy, describes the liberal counterpart of neoconservatives as “liberal imperialists.” If neoconservatives are “liberals mugged by reality”, then the liberal imperialists often sound like Rudyard Kipling after a cultural sensitivity course. They espouse notes reminiscent of cultural superiority tropes of the 19th century remixed to strike a chord with the modern progressive thinker.
The ranks of liberal imperialists have thinned in recent years. After a stint as an unapologetic neoconservative Christopher Hitchens has passed on. Peter Beinart, Ken Pollack and Leslie Geib chastened by the Iraq fiasco have stepped back from their muscular insistence on hard power.
This isn’t to say that liberal imperialism is dead. The movement has suffered losses but there remain prominent voices in the wind. The most persistent and infuriating examples are Paul Berman and Walter Russell Mead.
Ordinarily I try to avoid their writing, but Elias had goaded me into reading some of Mead’s recent blog posts. Like a moth to the flame, I’m attracted to critiquing professors with terrible arguments. And thus dear reader you’re stuck with another take-down of a faculty person.
The end of the Cold War should have been the end of history. Western liberalism had prevailed over Soviet Communism. Many in liberal circles had hoped there would be a new liberal world order, stronger than the Post-WWII consensus. Representative democracy and welfare capitalism would spread to the rest of the world and create a grand new era of peace and prosperity.
Reality soon intervened.
The responsibility to protect and international human rights seemed a sad joke in the face of the reality of Somalia, the Congo and Rwanda. After a promising start the liberalization of the former Soviet Union became a quagmire of crony-capitalism and political corruption. Disappointed by this reality some liberals became neoconservatives, persuaded that the world needed muscular American nationalism and myth-making to sustain classical liberalism in an indifferent world.
Others chose the embrace of Wilsonian institutionalism. Led by a diverse voice ranging from Boutros-Ghali to Madeleine Albright they sought to create an international system where the norms of democratic self-determination would be imposed through the strength of institutions backed by hard power. Some like Boutros-Ghali wanted it to be the UN, while those like Albright sought to turn the US into the indispensable guarantor of international hard power.
9/11 was a perfect tonic for both of these factions. In radical Islam they saw a new existential threat; for neoconservatives it was a threat to the nation, for liberal imperialists it was a threat to “modernity”. These two sides found common cause, arguing for a strong American response to the threat of terrorism. Muscular intervention was the tonic to the new anarchic world of non-state actors. Anything else was a surrender to the forces of fundamentalism.
While modern liberalism may have difficulty arguing in moral terms, liberal imperialists are all about the grand sweeping narrative. Mead and Berman have made a cottage industry of this sort of moralistic modernity screed. Just a glance at their book titles gives us a sense of their weening self-importance: Special Providence, God and Gold, Terror and Liberalism, The Power of Idealists.
Mead in particular has a gift for overwrought rhetorical flourishes and purple prose worthy of Kipling himself.
Take for example this passage from his piece “Dispatches from the War Nobody Wants”:
We are fighting a battle first to contain and then to defeat a vicious ideology of murder and hate that masks itself as religious zeal. We are fighting this war both at home and abroad, and there is not an inhabited continent anywhere on Planet Earth where this threat is not a serious concern.
How stirring, how beautiful and how utterly ridiculous.
The whole piece is essentially a lament about how the “war on terror” is no longer described as such.
How, rather than leading a civilizational war against the vicious forces of backward religious zealots, the Obama Administration is content to “deny” the reality of a conflict which Mead characterizes as a monumental Manichean struggle between good and evil.
Mead does acknowledge that the Obama Administration is in fact pursuing an aggressive counter-terrorism policy where it finds the threats. He describes such a policy as “not wholly misguided”. The big problem for Mead is that this isn’t classed as the great epochal struggle of our time.
Of course this despite the fact that the Obama Administration is overstating the amount of danger that exists in the world today. As Zenko and Cohen note:
…in 2008 the Center for American Progress surveyed more than 100 foreign policy experts and found that 70 percent of them believed the world was becoming more dangerous. Perhaps more than any other idea, this belief shapes debates on U.S. foreign policy and frames the public’s understanding of international affairs. There is just one problem. It is simply wrong….
…The specter of dangers sustain and justifies the massive budgets of the military and the intelligence agencies, along with national security infrastructure that exists outside government – defense contractors, lobbying groups, thank tanks, and academic departments.
They continue:
There is also a pernicious feedback loop at work. Because of the chronic exaggeration of the threats facing the United States, Washington overemphasizes military approaches to problems (including many that could best be solved by nonmilitary means).
Mead is firmly in the camp of threat exaggeration, continually beating the drum that the Obama Administration isn’t doing enough to explain the threat posed by the ideological struggle. The problem of course is that by seeing everything as some sort of grand war of ideologies, Mead is losing sight that:
1. Not everything can be solved by military force.
2. The US has limited resources (and even more limited resources as time proceeds)
3. There are more cost-effective methods of improving global security than drones, bombs or invasions.
As pointed out by Zenko and Cohen:
Since the end of the Cold War, most improvements in U.S. security h ave not depended primarily on the country’s massive military, nor have they resulted from the constantly expanding definition of U.S. national security interests. The United STates deserves praise for promoting greater international economic interdependence and open markets and, along with a host of international and regional organizations and private actors, more limited credit for improving global public health and assisting in the development of democratic governance. But although the U.S. military strength has occasionally contributed to creating a conducive environment for positive change, those improvements were achieved mostly through the work of civilian agencies and nongovernmental actors…
(Emphasis mine)
Further the problem with viewing everything in hard power interventionist terms can be seen in the anecdotes of Former Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain. According to Chamberlain in the days after 9/11 Pervez Musharraf asked the US for substantial more development aid rather than the military aid the Bush Administration was offering. Musharraf explained that building more schools and providing basic services was a more effective weapon against the militants than any bomb or special forces raid.
The fixation on conflict and hard power is not limited to liberal imperialists, but it’s telling that their emphasis often lingers so much on hard power. So much is about signalling and showing their toughness to the world writ large. Mead and his allies have made a career out of exaggerating threats, playing up the importance of American power and emphasizing the ideological nature of their supposed foe.
We are now finding ourselves at the end point of that militarization. Six years of neglect was too much to recover from in Afghanistan. The Pakistani government, having spent more money on missiles, bombs and AKs now faces an increasingly powerful militant movement in its northwestern frontier. The current Administration’s policies are as much hemmed in by the results of decisions made eight years ago as much as by their own choices. If foreign aid continues to be targeted for reductions, Libya may very well end up that way in six years time.
The reduction in emphasis on fighting a global “war” on terrorism is a good thing. One could also hope that we’d reduce the emphasis (and voices) of people who have been and continue to be, so disastrously wrong in foreign affairs. The liberal imperialist should like their Kipyardian predecessors be consigned to the dustbin of history.
I’m thinking you might need to read “Special Providence” or some of Meade’s other books. In Meade’s view, military force is only a tiny component of American power, and in many ways the least significant. I haven’t been following his blog, but perhaps his renewed focus on it is because most of our other forces have abandoned the field, defeated by self-doubt, ennui, and political correctness.
Basically, the left-wing doesn’t really believe in anything anymore, other than free tuition and free internet, and perhaps the right to party. They’re prefectly happy to let half a billion women live as chattel and let gays get hung from cranes, because as the unrepentant chief philosopher of the Nazi party argued (and he is where their arguments come from, via the 1968 student movement), they have no right nor ability to judge another culture.
He might be grasping for the last force we still have in the field.Report
This viewpoint is precisely the one that animates both Mead and Berman, particularly in their recent slogs.Report
because as the unrepentant chief philosopher of the Nazi party argued (and he is where their arguments come from, via the 1968 student movement), they have no right nor ability to judge another culture.
Is it just me, or is it odd that the “chief philosopher of the Nazi party” would espouse a philosophy so at odds with the Nazi party (you know, the party that basically said we are the culture).Report
Also, who was the “chief philosopher of the Nazi party?”Report
In Meade’s view, military force is only a tiny component of American power
No wonder he almost lost at Gettysburg.Report
A swing and a miss!Report
Well, it’s a viewpoint that resonates. How did the left go from trying to transform the world and raise people up from ignorance, free them from theocracy, superstition, and abject poverty, to viewing disposable plastic garbage bags as mankind’s primary existential threat? What happened to their spirit, courage, determination, and concern for their fellow man?
It’s like they all got hooked on drugs back in the 60’s or something, rejected the struggle their parents and grandparents passed to them, had their brains sucked out, and focused on self-absorbed trivialities like kids in a special ed class. The rest of use are wondering why they ran off to get high and party (or establish the right to free 32-ounce drinks, or the right to ban free 32-ounce drinks, or whatever the heck popped into their heads) when there’s still so much unfinished work to be done.
As Meade described us, we’re like an octopus, seemingly uncoordinated yet wrapping our tentacles everywhere. Four of our tentacles have gone numb, and half our remaining tentacles are tanbled up in the numb ones, leaving us weak and ineffectual. The complaint, of course, is that the remaining two tentacles are too menacing and need to be gnawed off.Report
Perhaps they realized that carrying ‘the white man’s burden’ was a road to hell paved with good intentions?
Seriously, the groups I’m familiar with, and support, who work to do these things have learned to work from within, after spending some time in the culture and listening to the people who live there. Education and empowerment work best from the ground up. International support certainly helps, but primarily when its providing resources for the people affected to build their own solutions. Imposing change – especially change in our own image – from the top down is almost always a recipe for resentment and failure.
(Note: I say ‘almost’ because obviously there are exceptions. Genocide, for instance, should be met with extreme and immediate measures).Report
My take is that the world probably could do without an uncoordinated, incompetent octopus with its tentacles only loosely under any kind of rational control. It seems to me that your post illustrates that Americans have the ambition to be bringers of light and civilization and all the rest of it, but the record tells me that we’re pretty bad at it. The British sucked at imperialism, but even they had lots of Cambridge and Oxford graduates who took the time to actually learn the languages, cultures, and customs of the peoples they wanted to rule. Compared to them, on a competence level, we’re kids playing with action figures. Of all the major industrialized Westerm countries, as a people we were probably the most provincial and least interested in figuring out other countries and seeing things from their point of view. My basic point is that our grandiose ambitions far outrun our competence and understanding, and just “doing something” with other countries because we mean well, even when we don’t know what we’re doing, isn’t going to do them or us any good. If we can do something tangible and concrete and helpful that we know how to do, great. But a crusade against Theocracy and Superstition and Poverty? It may make us feel good, but without knowing what that would mean as specifically applied to a real country in the real world it’s just an excuse for mischief-making by pundits and leaders with ego adjustment problems.Report
And your position is exactly what Meade addressed in “Special Providence.”
It doesn’t seem rational that uncoordinated thrashing could possibly compete with the highly educated European expertise at foreign policy. It also doesn’t seem like the uncoordinated chaos of the free-market could outcompete centrally planned communism, either. As Meade put it, if uncoordinated US foreign policy had been as successful as decisive and focused European foreign policy in the 20th century, the US would be back to 13 colonies hugging the Atlantic coast. The Europeans went from ruling empries that spanned the globe to being unable to field an army in Europe.
His point about the octopus is that it doesn’t look like it can work. Pick some random country. We have businessmen cutting deals with their businessmen. We have employers trying to recruit people into a low-wage labor force. We have activists trying to get the workers to protest it. We have a Congress trying to put pressure on them to act differently, while the same Congress, under pressure from farmers, is giving them wheat. Out in the hinterlands we have missionaries teaching them about the gospels and mud stoves, and we have feminists telling them about birth control and that Christianity is a mysogonistic conspiracy, which is sometimes disputed by the Peace Corps volunteers they meet. We have our military advisors helping their armed forces, who watch US movies telling them the US military is evil.
No matter what they do, they’re still engaged with the US from top to bottom. If they don’t like what some of us say, they side with others of us. They’re engaging our free-market of ideas, economics, and policies that are tuned to optimally fill niches, as opposed to some all-encompasing policy dreamed up by a diplomat that doesn’t fill any niche very well.Report
Nob – I think this serves as a useful introduction to an attack on what you call liberal imperialism, but I for one would love to see a more direct and thorough rebuttal of something specific that Meade or one of his fellow travelers writes. I think that would give a better idea of exactly what it is that you’re addressing. Basically, I’m asking for a good and thorough paragraph by paragraph fisking of a Meade post, article, etc.
I think you’ll find that such fiskings are also most enjoyable to write.Report
Seconded. This post would be better with more argument and less assertion. Obviously you think you are right, but people disagree in this stuff. If you expect the mere description of both positions will cause you to prevail, you are going to lose.
For example, simply asserting we are safer does not prove anything. The quote from the Zenko foreign affairs article provides no facts that contradict the claim of danger, merely derides it. I don’t disagree, by the way. I just think the position should be argued. An since I can’t get into the article myself, since it is subscription only, it would be decent to throw some meat in the post.Report
I’ll probably tackle Paul Berman at some point, but I’m also preparing something more of a point by point on one of Mead’s longform essays.
My problem with this one was more that I started getting into a screed about liberal hawks in general and I confess, got a bit side-tracked.Report