Suppose you learned that in a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon, a turbulent kind of sea was about to happen, and that people were booking for a place on the ship that will go through the turbulence. You convinced yourself you were as brave as any of these people, and booked for a trip to go with them.
When the day of departure came, the sea looked calm for a
while, the ship set sail, then the sea began to look agitated but there was no
turning back. You visited the captain in his cabin and found him going over
charts while drinking hard alcohol. You asked what provisions were there on the
ship to save the passengers in case something bad happened. He ignored your
question but pointed to an iceberg that was coming right at the ship. And he
advised: Look how we’ll get around this one before it can hit us.
The ship avoided the iceberg, the captain steered it
towards a gorge, and sailed between what looked like two mountainous chains.
Rocks were sliding down from both mountains but the captain avoided being hit
by any of them as he traced a snake-like evasive trajectory. A few miles of
that, and the ship came to the end of the gorge. It now faced a wide open sea
that was no less hostile, however.
In fact, islands were forming in three places ahead of
the ship, to the left of it and to the right. In the formation of those
islands, volcanic lava billowed way up in the air coming from the belly of the
Earth, and falling into the sea near the ship. However, being experienced at guessing
where the balls of fire will fall, the captain managed to protect the ship from
being hit but failed to shield you from being scared.
Finally, the ship was transported by a tsunami that
returned to port. You went home and sat down to write about your experience.
The first two questions you asked were these: Why do some people do this? Was
it worth it? Well, my friend, we can speculate as we try to answer these
questions, or we can look at an actual case, and analyze it to see if it will
yield useful answers.
In fact, we do have a case that may turn out to be
useful. It came under the title: “No alternative to ‘peace through strength’ is
preferrable to robust deterrence,” written by Clifford D. May, and published on
March 28, 2023 in The Washington Times. Looking at the article with the
critical eye of an analyst, we detect two separate narratives running parallel
to each other. One narrative goes like this: There is a job we can do or ignore
doing. The other goes like this: We may not be able to do the job, but no
matter.
Here is what Clifford May says is the job that needs to
be done:
“A policy of peace through strength
means doing what is necessary to instill fear in our enemies. Peace through
strength also means we have the power to defeat them decisively. US troops in
the region have come under attack from Tehran-backed groups 78 times since the
beginning of 2021. If you’re a proponent of peace through strength, the
conclusion you draw is that deterrence has failed and that reestablishing
deterrence must now be a top priority. Those who
don’t see the situation this way are calling for a retreat from Syria — the
response Iran’s theocrats intended to elicit. A US economy-of-force deployment in Syria enables
America’s Kurdish and Arab allies to suppress the Islamic State. Abandon those
allies, and the Islamic State revives”.
And so, Clifford May is suggesting that
in the same way that people are challenged to climb a mountain because it is
there, other people sail a sea because it is angry, and still others feel
challenged by a rival that threatens their authority. And all these people
respond as they see fit against circumstances that challenge them. But here is
why Clifford May believes that America’s job may never be done:
“Tehran-backed militias attacked a US
military outpost in Syria, killing one American contractor and wounding
another, as well as wounding five US service members. US troops in the region
have come under attack from Tehran-backed groups. The strategic error President Biden made in 2021 when he
surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban. President Barack Obama made the same mistake when he
withdrew from Iraq in 2011, giving rise to the Islamic State. Iran’s rulers are
allied with Vladimir Putin. He’s giving them cyber weapons and dangling the possibility
of fighter aircraft sales. Moscow and Tehran are also allied with China’s supreme
leader, Xi Jinping. He’s a man
with a plan to replace the post-World War II Pax Americana with a Pax Sinica —
a new world order with rules made in Beijing. Mr. Xi met with Mr. Putin in Moscow. They issued a
statement warning the US to stop undermining international and regional
security and global strategic stability in order to maintain its own unilateral
military superiority. The Chinese Communist Party’s influence has been growing
in Latin America and Africa as well. Mr. Xi’s brokering of detente between Iran
and Saudi Arabia demonstrates that he’s successfully competing against the US
in the Middle East too”.
What is puzzling about this passage is that Clifford May
is demonstrating that America is losing in the game of rivalry it is playing
against China. But instead of repudiating what he said was a job America needed
to do — and seeking a “live and let live” accommodation with China — he let
stand the rivalry that may well doom America.