Two foreign policy models

A couple of weeks ago, a Des Moines reader left this comment after a post about the rise of the movement for democracy in Iran after the national election: "Well nobody [Obama] spoke out and they still got their butts kicked around and then some. Are you defending or giving credit to present day administration?"

Great question! It touches a sensitive nerve and goes to the heart of a complex the issue--how to produce the best results inside/outside, longterm/short term for Iran's citizens who wanted to expand democracy, express their ideals, and have honest elections.

The conventional wisdom--derived from experience and similar situations, and diplomatic history--says by not speaking out--the US and Britain-- will minimize the Iranian's government use of the US government as a scapegoat and strawman to intensify and increase the use of force against civilians. The Iranian government is one of many that yells "American fueled conspiracy" whether there is internal dissent. This pseudo-nationalism acts to distract attention from the violence and oppression the government is committing against its on citizens. This blame-shifting often leads fence sitters to support the government, since opposition is seen as a national security threat. Already, The Iranian ambassador to Mexico is attempting to make a persuasive case that the CIA was behind the videoed murder of the Iranian woman whose death was viewed in its horror worldwide, by listing "facts" and "circumstances" that "support" the conclusion of American provocation.

Hostage negotiators, police detectives, and foreign policy experts agree that the counter-intuitive course (the first impulse is want to go loud and barge-in full force) generally works best in the short and long run. Hostages are told, for example, not to resist. Negotiators wait until the other side sees the futility of their position, and avoid out-of-control escalation.

Having said that, I will share my view: American silence serves to isolate the regime, removing a rationale used to increase the repression and doesn't muddy the waters about the brutality being witnessed. That violence has further polarized the country within. Internally, the violence has politicized and turned many Irans to the Reform cause, and has done so worldwide.

Another part of my view: it is not necessary for the US to always be the "policeman" of other regimes. China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa (a trading partner), Germany, and Turkey (a neighbor), to name several countries, have all spoken out forcefully against the Iranian government's brutal oppression of its citizens. The collective voice of these nations is louder, more powerful, and more engaging than the voice of the US alone. By allowing other nations to take strong stands, we help structure democracy among/between nations. Unfortunately, American news and world views rarely include the actions and statements of other countries in the community of nations.

I know this sounds like "double-talk," or excuse making. It's not. An important part of diplomacy is the paradoxes embedded in the way nation's respond to each other. As Americans, we still value the "John Wayne model," ride in, do what's right, save the day, applaud a job well done, and swap stories at the lodge.

The new model, "the Kung-fu model," says go along quietly to avoid escalation, strike only when necessary, and woe be to those who mistake silence for weakness. The new model also leads to the strengthening of other nations, who are called to stand up to attacks and plumb their inner strength.

Your question directly addresses the differences in approach between the two models, new and old. I don't believe we are wimps for "walking softly." I think the world, which is now much more engaged in "flexing" than we see from US media, still knows we have the "big stick."

Afghanistan, by the way, is still operating under the old model: fly in, kick at all critical parts, take no prisoners. We have added a patina of development help and local security, since this is really a retail war, for the hearts and souls of theregion's citizens, as the new American commander has pointed out.

For Iran, given its thorny history of US direct intervention, policy-wise, I think the new model is the right course. Many inside of Iran agree, despite the fact that short term, the forces of democracy are in retreat. But like Mao on the Long March, or Castro in Cuba, Or Ho in Viet Nam, these retreats in the face of the installed government's violent oppression, usually boomerang and result in their fall.

Thanks for your view, and for reading.

Official US Army photos, from http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter . Publication use granted under the creative commons license.

First photo: An Afghan soldier looks on as U.S. Soldiers and Afghan border police

officers speak to village elders in the Khas Kunar district of Kunar province, Afghanistan, July 1, 2009. The U.S. Soldiers are assigned to the 10th Mountain Division's Company A, 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment.

Photo by U.S. Army Sgt. Matthew C. Moeller, 5th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment

Second photo: Spc. Gareth Warner drops a 120mm mortar round into the tube while Spc. Ricky Olivo keeps the gun on target during a fire mission on Combat Outpost Zurok in Paktika province, Afghanistan, July 13. The Soldiers are deployed with the 3rd battalion, 509th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division. (Photo by U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Andrew Smith, 55th Signal Company.)