It appears to me that much of our foreign policy and our domestic political debate is driven by the same dynamic, trying not to appear weak. It’s the most common explanation for sticking in Iraq, under the “embolden the terrorists” trope, and it drives virtually all of the Republican foreign policy debate, and a large part of the Democratic one.

Attacking to avoid looking weak is not always a useless tactic. It’s common among animals, and it can work. But it’s a short-term tactic, and cannot be used effectively too many times with the same enemy. After your opponent has sized you up, it is better to consider tactics based on their probable effectiveness and potential downside. Our retreat from Iraq, and that is the proper term, would certainly encourage our enemies, but I think they’re pretty well encouraged now, and they’ve probably reached the limits of their potential boldness.

A related tactic, which we may call the Nixon-Kissinger gambit, is trying not to appear sane, or at least rational. When employing the N-K gambit, the player does something wild and clearly not in his or her self-interest. This is supposed to make the enemy think he’s (let’s get real here on the gender-neutral language) a crazy @*&%$ and might try anything. This is closely related to the “nothing is off the table,” ploy, where crazy things are never ruled out, as if national leaders were bound to keep their promises.

The Bush administration has added a couple of twists to the “not looking weak” approach. The “talk tough and act stupid” one drives me crazy. Tough talk with no follow-through does not make your opponent think you are strong, or even suspect that you might be strong. Public threats, like the long list of things that Bush will not tolerate, can be useful, but only if they are followed by action. A genuine threat made public gives your opponent political cover, and can bring potential intermediaries into action. But threats lose their power pretty quickly if not reinforced with reality. I will say, however, that empty threats combined with the potential of self-destructive action do lend some strength to the N-K gambit. Opponents and bystanders may reasonably fear that you will do something
crazy not to appear weak. And so we come full circle. People fear you not because you are strong and determined, but because you are crazy and afraid of appearing weak. They may avoid you, but are unlikely to do what you want.

One victim of this administration is the reputation of John Wayne, and I, for one, am saddened. I don’t mean the real John Wayne, but rather the character he played, as well as those played by guys like Fonda, Stewart, and Cooper. The right wing hacks and media lap dogs loved to liken Bush to those characters, but it was backwards. Those guys didn’t talk tough. They hardly talked at all. They didn’t threaten; they occasionally warned. And they didn’t attack the wrong guy because he was a better target. They may have been racist, sexist, imperialist jerks, but they weren’t blusterers.

The last tactic on my list is one usually practiced in Junior High School. Yes, I’m talking about the “I’m not talking to you” attack. Very effective. Makes it hard to threaten privately, which is something you sometimes want to do. Makes it hard to get negotiations to begin, which is also something you sometimes want to do, even if you are winning.

Which brings me back to Hillary Clinton (I am forbidden to refer to her as Hillary, unless I also call the others Barack, John, etc.). My concern is not so much that she is “Bush Lite,” as that her attempts not to appear weak as a person and a candidate have lead her to policy positions that imitate those of Bush, and I am afraid the same forces will affect her foreign policy. The accusation of weakness in foreign policy is the Democratic Party’s Achilles heel, but we must be tough and smart, not tough and stupid.

I had been adjusting my thinking to supporting what appears to be her inevitable candidacy. I understand the necessities of politics. I don’t think she’s an unprincipled machine. And I think she’s improving as a speaker and a leader. But her most recent attacks on Obama, who is my favorite, were bad on several levels.

First, she’s winning. Why attack? Why not make him attack first, so you can reasonably call him on his commitment to positive campaigning. Are you trying to look tough? Not a good sign.

Second, your points are stupid and they make people stupid. Getting out of the bind of talking appearing as a concession is a first priority. If Obama talks with everybody, how is that a propaganda win for our enemies? It fixes a bad problem. Now she’s stuck with a destructive policy. Obama may have been stating the obvious when he said that he would strike wherever our enemies are, but people needed to know that he’s not a googoo. And as far as Musharraf goes, a public threat helps him rather than hurts him. Of course he can’t use his fear of his extremists to protect them. But Clinton perpetuates some bad thinking here: we support our friends even when it is not in our interest, we don’t talk publicly about something we should talk about publicly. And finally, her dangerous comment about not taking nukes off the table. Here we go again. Don’t mess with us. We may be crazy. And it’s important to our security that we seem crazy.

I simply do not trust that Hillary Clinton will do the right thing if that thing allows her and our country to be accused of being weak. I am not accusing her, or anyone else including Bush and Cheney, of making life-and-death decisions based on political considerations, but rationalization is a powerful force for evil, and I do not trust her.

I will support her and campaign for her if she is the candidate. But I believe she is the most dangerous Democratic candidate.

Goodnight,