Here is a question that is relevant to our times: Where does
America
stand today? And here is an answer that is as good as any: America is
stuck somewhere between nostalgia and realism.
Two articles, each defining one of those positions, make up
a picture describing a nation that has come to the crossroads of its journey
from a rocky start to a glorious present to one that contemplates a future that
can be of decline or a steady-state average kind of existence.
The article exuding realism came under the title: “How America can counter Putin's moves in Syria ,”
co-authored by Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates, and published on October
8, 2015 in the Washington Post. The one that expresses nostalgia came under the
title: “How to Confront Vladimir Putin,” written by Matthew Continetti, and
published on October 10, 2015 in National Review Online.
Rice who was Secretary of State in a previous incarnation,
and Gates who was Secretary of Defense in a previous incarnation, have no
illusions as to what can be done in the face of moves that were taken by Russia 's Vladimir Putin in response to a serious
situation that is developing in the Middle East .
They understand the Russian thinking with some clarity, but they make the classic
mistake of sizing-up Russia 's
economy based on what the quack economists pour into the public square.
They say that in two crucial areas, Putin defines the things
he wants to do in a way that is different from the way the Americans define
those things. One is the concept of stability; the other is the idea of
success. To Putin, stability does not mean a foreign state that is not failing,
according to our two writers. If this happens and “if Moscow 's people can govern only a part but
make it impossible for anyone to govern the rest – so be it,” they explain. As
to success, they contend that Putin does not take into account “the dismal
situation of the [civilian population].” He will do what is good for Russia
regardless of the consequences, which is why he can “play a weak hand
extraordinarily well,” they advise.
So they ask: “What can we do?” And they list four things
that America
can do. Two of those (the first and the forth on the list) concern the way that
America
must change its perception of reality and its attitude toward the daily events
as they develop. Here is the first point: “We must reject the argument that
Putin is simply reacting to world disorder.” And here is the fourth: “We need
to see Putin for who he is. Stop saying that we want to better understand
Russian motives.”
As to the second and third points, the two authors say that America must
create facts on the ground such as no-fly zones and safe harbors for the
refugees. It can also provide support for the Kurdish forces, the Sunni tribes
and what's left of the Iraqi special forces. But they also say that America
must “de-conflict” its military activities with those of the Russians. How
these two objectives can be attained simultaneously remains a mystery. Oh well,
maybe the generals on both sides can figure something out if and when they sit
together and talk.
We now come to the Matthew Continetti article. Before we
take a closer look at it, we should recall a passage that came in the Rice and
Gates article while bearing in mind that they are two veterans of America's
national security apparatus. We need to do this because Continetti gets into
this area of discussion, and he is no expert on matters of national security.
Here is the relevant passage in the Rice and Gates article:
“Hectoring Putin about the bad choices he has made sounds weak. The last time
the Russians regretted a foreign adventure was Afghanistan . But that didn't happen
until Reagan armed the mujahideen … an exhausted Soviet
Union decided that the Afghan adventure wasn't worth it.” Nowhere
in the article do they suggest that the Reagan approach can be repeated and be
successful.
But that's not what Matthew Continetti is advising.
Mentioning Reagan 23 times in his article, he begins to explain his ideas like
this: “To create a freer and richer world, Russia must be knocked on its
heels. That's what Reagan did. What is required is a Reagan Doctrine for the
21st century – a military, diplomatic, and cultural approach that elevates America 's stature and diminishes Russia 's.”
And the young writer offers not a single suggestion as to
how this can be done in the new era, which leaves the reader with the
impression he means to say there is a magic wand that can be waved and make
things happen the way they do in the land of juvenile fantasy.
Why did Rice and Gates not say so two days earlier when they
wrote their piece? Because they are the adults that had extensive experience in
such matters. They know that what worked in one place at one time will not
necessarily work in another place at another time. They too might have felt
nostalgic about the good old days when they were young, but the passage of time
has taught them that nostalgia and reality rarely agree. Young Matthew will
someday grow up too and see things differently – perhaps.