From fork-admin@xent.com  Thu Sep 26 11:04:44 2002
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C03016F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:04:43 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:04:43 +0100 (IST)
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8PMZ8C16870 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Wed, 25 Sep 2002 23:35:08 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id BC05E29410C; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost.localdomain (pm3-11.sba1.netlojix.net
    [207.71.218.155]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9DAC294108 for
    <fork@xent.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dave@localhost) by maltesecat (8.8.7/8.8.7a) id PAA24122;
    Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:40:12 -0700
Message-Id: <200209252240.PAA24122@maltesecat>
To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Subject: Kissinger
From: Dave Long <dl@silcom.com>
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
X-Beenthere: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:fork@spamassassin.taint.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
    <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:40:12 -0700


[can't think of how I'd be running
afoul of the spam filters with this
post, so here's the second try...]

Kissinger's book _Does America Need
a Foreign Policy?_ provides a few
handy abstractions:

> The ultimate dilemma of the statesman is to strike a balance between
> values ["idealism"] and interests ["realism"] and, occasionally,
> between peace and justice.

Also, he views historical American
approaches to foreign policy as a
bundle of three fibers:

Hamiltonian - We should only get
  involved in foreign adventures
  to preserve balances of power.

Wilsonian - We should only get
  involved in foreign adventures
  to further democracy, etc.

Jacksonian - We should never get
  involved in foreign adventures.
  Unless we're attacked.  Then we
  go Rambo.

He has tactfully left out the hard
realists*; as for the rest I gather
wilsonians play the idealists, and
hamiltonians act where values and
interests intersect, and jacksonians 
act only when values and interests
overlap.

Kissinger himself seems to be a
Hamiltonian; much of the book is
about how he thinks we ought to
be shaping the balance of power
in various foreign regions.

Maybe I've been too affected by
Kant, but I can't see that such
a strategy works unless one can
count on a Bismarck runnning it:
how lopsided does the US look if
everyone tries to run a balance
of power politics?

- -Dave

*
> The road to empire leads to domestic decay because, in time, the claims
> of omnipotence erode domestic restraints.  No empire has avoided the
> road to Caesarism unless, like the British Empire, it devolved its
> power before this process could develop.  In long-lasting empires,
> every problem turns into a domestic issue [which should be handled
> very differently from international ones] because the outside world
> no longer provides a counterweight.  And as challenges grow more
> diffuse and increasingly remote from the historic domestic base,
> internal struggles become ever more bitter and in time violent.
> A deliberate quest for hegemony is the surest way to destroy the
> values that made the United States great.

Kings and tyrants generically have
followed the same power politics:
garner popular support by keeping
potential oligarchs down.  In other
traditions, a king is a legitimate
tyrant, and a tyrant an illegitimate
king.  In the US, I'd hope that we,
like Samuel, wouldn't naturally make
such fine distinctions.


