No Clear and Present Danger
A Skeptical View of the U.S. Entry into World War II
Harper & Row, 1972
Bruce M. Russett
Chapter 5
Force and
Choice in the Environment of International Politics
A
presumption against force
In the now-standard
evaluations of American politics before Pearl Harbor, it is agreed that
the interventionists were the realists who accepted war for realpolitik,
to preserve the balance of power. As such they are contrasted both with
the Wilsonian idealists who went on crusade a generation before, and with
the isolationists whose true understanding of international politics is
thought to have been hopelessly deficient. Doubtless Roosevelt and his
supporters tried to think objectively of the national interest in a more
detached way than had Woodrow Wilson, but it is not clear that they were
correct in their strategic evaluations. Their thinking held elements of a
sentimental attitude toward China, an anxiety to protect American foreign
trade and investment, extreme concern for the purity of American interest
in Latin America which fed fears of German influence there, oversimplified
Mahanist strategic notions and excessive worry about disposition of the
British fleet, and an attachment to England that allowed them to see the
United States in Britain’s traditional role of balancer. Even a detailed
intellectual history would be unlikely to tell us how to weigh the
importance of these elements, and it would be unwise to emphasize any of
them. It certainly is not possible to sort out the various motivations
here. Nevertheless—and especially in light of how dubious the strategic
justification appears—further inquiry is an important and necessary task.
What is sure is that
the United States ultimately went to war, as a consequence of some
theories that now seem inadequate. My discussion of the ill-effects of
World War II is directed to the overall experience of having fought that
war, not simply to the consequences of allegedly “losing” the peace to
Russia as some have charged. The reader may not accept all the elements
of this revisionist view. But if he agrees with much of it he may concur
that, to a greater degree than has been true in American policy during
recent decades, there must be an initial presumption against the use of
force in international politics.
In the cold war
period, the threat of violence often seemed the only available means for
influencing America’s antagonists because other potential means had been
deliberately abandoned. This was most noticeable in American relations
with Communist China, North Korea, and North Vietnam. When in the winter
of 1968 the North Korean government seized the intelligence ship
Pueblo
and its crew, there was in fact nothing the United States could do to
obtain their release. The threat or use of military force was impossible
because of the circumstances: any resort to force would doom the crew at
the hands of its captors. But since the United States had previously cut
off all normal intercourse with the North Korean regime—diplomatic
relations, trade, travel, cultural exchange all were suspended or had
never existed—Washington had no bargaining levers. The circumstances were
hardly appropriate for offering new carrots, and since the normal commerce
of nations was nonexistent there were no carrots available to be
withdrawn, or of which withdrawal could be threatened. Left with only the
big stick, the stick’s wielder was in fact impotent. And the North
Koreans, knowing in advance how limited the range of options open to the
United States would be, could plan their operation with confidence in its
safety. How much more reluctant might they have been if they had had some
stake in good relations with the United States, a stake to be lost by
initiating hostile action?
Less dramatically
but more importantly this same kind of limitation, an abandonment of most
of the means of persuasion other than violence or its threat, has hampered
the American government in its efforts to influence the rulers of Peking.
Generally, political leaders, especially when dealing with states seen as
predominantly hostile, tend to emphasize punishments and prohibitions.
Opponents must be deterred, they must be presented with a high
probability of pain if they commit acts of which we seriously disapprove.
In holding such a view leaders are like the lawmaker who hopes to deter
socially undesirable behavior solely through the threat of arrest and
imprisonment.
That focus, however,
ignores the simple fact that most people obey laws less from an overt fear
of punishment than from habit, convenience, and a sense that to do so is
accepted and in some way correct. When authority is no longer perceived
as just, only coercion will enforce its wishes—but times are indeed
hard when that happens. Law-abiding behavior is normally rewarding
behavior; an effective lawmaker structures the situation so that people
will do as he wishes as much because in some material or psychic way it
rewards them as because undesired behavior will result in punishment.
Of course, the offer
of rewards will not always be effective either. Sometimes it may be
interpreted, perhaps correctly, as a sign of weakness and an encouragement
to blackmail. Sometimes too, a previous emphasis on threat and violence
may have so charged the atmosphere that the offer of reward is met only
with contempt or suspicion. Such a condition undoubtedly existed at the
time of President Johnson’s apparent offer, in 1965, of massive
development aid to the entire Mekong Valley area in Southeast Asia. The
offer was particularly meant to include North Vietnam, but was quickly
brushed aside by the Communists. By that time the offer was dismissed as
just an imperialist bribe or an empty public relations gesture. It is
much harder to force an opponent to change a policy already
embarked upon than to deter such action before it has begun. A
decade earlier, and before the war, an offer of American assistance might
not have been received quite so negatively as it was later. The Hanoi
government was in any case by 1965 deeply committed to assisting the Viet
Cong, and a major reversal of policy would have caused great difficulties
in its internal politics.
Imagine a scenario
rather like this: After the French evacuated Indochina and signed the
Geneva agreements calling at least temporarily for separate governments in
North and South Vietnam, the United States could have recognized the North
Vietnamese government in Hanoi. It really is not such a preposterous
idea, considering that after all, the United States had not been fighting
in Indochina and so there was no question therefore of recognizing a
regime against which Americans had fought. At the same time, Washington
might have encouraged trade with the new regime. Thus North Vietnam would
not have been put on the strategic embargo list that forbade or sharply
limited American trade with China, North Korea, the Soviet Union, and
Eastern Europe. So long as the North Vietnamese did not break the embargo
by shipping Western goods on to other Communist states, the United States
might not only have permitted but actually have encouraged trade with
Hanoi. Furthermore, some economic aid for reconstructing the economy
might have been extended. In public statements the American government
might have managed to say some complimentary things about “nationalist” Ho
Chi Minh, deemphasing the fact that he also happened to be a Communist.
The United States might have stressed, as it did, the fact of important
differences between North and South Vietnam and the need for the
government of the South to be independent of the North, but the tone could
have been quite different. Instead of emphasizing anti-Communism and the
ideological differences, it might instead have stressed the cultural,
religious, and ethnic differences between the two halves, and how they had
never really formed a unified nation.
The purpose of this
strategy would have been to convey to the governments of both parts of
Vietnam a desire to see South Vietnam remain independent, without
directing strong condemnatory statements against the North. Instead of
cutting virtually all the normal ties among nations, a rather substantial
carrot would have been dangled before Hanoi to encourage peaceful
relations with the South. The threat to withdraw the carrot in case of a
Northern inspired or assisted effort to overthrow the Saigon government
could have been made clearly enough implicitly, as could the ultimate
intention to oppose any such effort militarily. But the primary effort
would have been to soft-pedal threats and to build, over time, substantial
positive incentives for the behavior desired by the American government.
Note that such a policy is not one of appeasement. It does not consist
in giving things away in the vague hope that the opponent will be
satisfied; rather it expects concrete acts and concessions in return for
those extended. Furthermore, the threat of force remains in the
background should he prove unwilling to seek agreement.
Now as always with
hindsight no one can say whether this policy would have worked, or even
whether it was better than some other, such as accepting unification of
the country from the beginning. But certainly the punishment-oriented
policy that was tried brought no great success, and it is intriguing to
speculate about the possibilities of a reward-oriented effort. Learning
theory in psycho-logy stresses rewards as well as punishments, and indeed
under many conditions rewards for desired behavior are more effective than
is punishment for undesired acts. Punishment, or threatened punishment,
may make a decision-maker so fearful that it becomes hard for him to
perceive alternatives or to weigh calmly the consequences of his action.
As a result he may act rashly or “irrationally,” perhaps doing just what
the would-be deterrer wants him not to do.
An
alternative far eastern policy in the thirties?
On the whole,
American policy toward Japan in the 1930s consisted largely of punishments
and threats. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson greeted Japan’s
occupation of Manchuria with a determina-tion to reverse it, even at
substantial cost to the United States. He issued a declaration that the
United States would recognize no territorial changes resulting from the
war. Privately, he urged both President Hoover and the British government
to impose economic sanctions to force the Japanese to withdraw, coupled
with a willingness to accept war as a consequence if sanctions failed.
Hoover and the British refused to support Stimson on a matter which did
not, they considered, affect vital interests. So he was limited to a
doctrine of nonrecognition as “moral suasion,” which was of course
effective in angering the Japanese without causing them in any way to
reverse their actions. But a policy very much like that advocated by
Stimson in 1932 was in fact adopted in 1940 and 1941—economic sanctions to
halt (and then, more ambiguously and dangerously, to reverse) Japanese
occupation of China, even at the risk of a general Pacific war. Stimson
applied the lessons of Manchuria as others did those of Munich.
By thinking largely
in terms of threats the United States government was left on both
occasions with policies that could not achieve their aims. But some
officials did consider quite different strategies. In November 1941, for
instance, a proposed economic policy was drawn up in the Treasury
Department designed to discourage Japanese military expansion insofar as
that expansion was economically motivated. It proposed to give the
Japanese an opportunity to expand their markets in prosperity, without
military occupation that would destroy the independence of Asian peoples
or utterly exclude the western powers.
Accordingly the
proposal included the following bargain: Japan should withdraw her
military forces from all of China and probably Manchuria, and also from
Indochina and Siam. It would recognize Chiang Kai-shek’s government and
surrender its extraterri-torial rights in China. Economically, it would
offer the Chinese a loan of a billion yen at two per cent interest, sell
the United States as much as three-fourths of its current output of war
materials, and accord the United States and China most-favored-nation
treatment in trade. Japan would cut its ties with the Axis and negotiate
a mutual nonaggression pact with America, China, and Britain. These
represented all the major goals of American far eastern policy at the
time, in some cases to a degree not anticipated by the most optimistic
Americans.
In turn, according
to this proposal, the United States was to make important concessions to
the Japanese. Like Japan, America would give up its extraterritorial
rights in China and persuade the British to follow suit, and it would
repeal the immigration laws discriminating against Asians. It would
reciprocate the Japanese extension of most-favored-nation treatment,
extend Tokyo a two billion dollar credit at two per cent interest, and try
to assure Japan access to raw materials. Militarily it would withdraw the
bulk of its naval forces from the Pacific.1
Secretary of the
Treasury Henry Morgenthau was intrigued by the proposal, and sent it on to
Secretary Hull at the State Department, who read it with some sympathy.
Hull incorporated many of its components in his own draft for the
President. Roosevelt also considered it for a while, but the Chinese
government heard of it and reacted fearfully to what it called
“appeasement.” Roosevelt then put the plan aside as unrealistic.
Probably it was, by then, almost as absurd as Johnson’s much later
development plan for the Mekong. Japanese-American relations had
deteriorated so far into hostility and suspicion that no such
settlement—in which trust would have to be a major component—was likely.
But it might not
have seemed absurd earlier, especially back in 1932. At that point a
comprehen-sive Japanese-American agreement that recognized legitimate
economic and strategic interests of each might have been received much
more favorably in both governments. Relations between them were not then
so bad as to make the exercise pointless. In fact, on reading it one is
struck with the similarity of many major points to what actually occurred
after World War II—which America fought, in the Pacific, to diminish
Japanese power. Japan certainly did give up its special privileges in
China, the Axis was smashed, and the United States has, with other
nations, obtained substantial (though by no means unrestricted) access to
Japanese markets. On the other hand, the United States has also lost its
economic position in China, it extended billions of dollars of economic
aid for the reconstruction of Japan, and the national origin quotas of
American immigration laws have been repealed. Japan is busy establishing
a favorable trading relationship, if not with China, then throughout
Southeast Asia.
It would be unfair
to push this reasoning too far as criticism of actual American policy in
the 1930s. The comprehensive settlement would have met with severe
political opposition on emotional grounds and from entrenched economic and
military interests in both countries. Probably in 1932 the need was not
so obvious as to attract enough concentrated attention from busy men. And
statesmen normally do not think this way, especially in terms of broad
far-reaching agreements. But it was an alternative to force and the
threat of force. Just because the United States government did not and
perhaps even could not have pursued it must not keep us from considering
the virtues of it and other alternatives under more favorable
circumstances. It was an alternative between unilateral intervention and
isolation, an overlooked item on a menu of conceivable choice. It
illustrates a kind of international involvement intended to promote major
national goals even with powers whose relationship to America initially
contains important elements of hostility. It represents a kind of
thinking that might now be revived as Americans and Chinese reconsider
their policy toward each other. In a period when many fear a new
isolationism, it may represent a sane option between “manic intervention
and depressive withdrawal.”2
The
menu of choice in foreign policy
What determines the
range of choices potentially available to national decision-makers? What
are the limits within which personality differences, bureaucratic roles,
different theoretical perspectives, or alternative styles of bargaining
and negotiation can affect choice? The distinction between the process of
selection among alternatives and the set of choices offered is crucial to
an understanding of current United States foreign policy dilemmas. If you
walk into a restaurant, what you order of course depends on how hungry you
are, your tastes, and how much money you have. It also depends on what
the menu offers. Dinner at a pizza palace offering dozens of varieties of
pizza is not likely to be very satisfactory if you don’t happen to like
pizza.
Not many Americans
are very happy about the menu that has recently faced the United States in
Indochina. Neither escalation nor withdrawal, in any of their possible
permutations, nor continuing to slog on somewhere in between, looked very
attractive. There was no “good” solution to the predicament, only a
selection of more or less bad options. Now of course there were
differences among Americans on just what the possible range of choice
offered really was. Yet strong opposition to the war did not spread far
beyond intellectual circles before 1968. Even then the range of realistic
choice, as perceived by the general public, was not wide. While Gallup
poll respondents had become as likely to refer to themselves as doves as
hawks, few favored a unilateral withdrawal.3
Though many would have preferred a somewhat different policy by their
government, most had in mind matters of style and emphasis rather than a
drastic shift. Much the same happened to both Americans and Japanese in
late 1941. They saw their nations as distressingly bound, by a
combination of previous acts and factors beyond their control, to a short
and not very varied menu. But a much earlier recognition of the
constraints on choice and on the prospects for success might have
prevented them from becoming boxed in.
I stressed earlier
the basic similarity in structure (largely ignoring the labels on the
participants) of global politics as it emerged from World War II and what
was most likely to have emerged had the United States not fought. The
failure of men in high places, now as well as then, to weigh such a view
is in large part a failure of political theory and research.
Conventional thinking on international politics has, I contend, too much
neglected the environment of politics. That is, we have often failed to
study the role of social, economic, and technological factors in providing
the menu for political choice. Relatively speaking, too much effort has
gone into examining the ways in which choices are made, the political
process itself, rather than into asking, in a rigorous and systematic way,
what possible choices were in fact available and why those possibilities
and not some others were available.
I use the term “a
macroscopic view,” to describe this emphasis on looking at the wider
environment within which political decision-makers act. A microscope is
of course an instrument for looking in great detail at a tiny portion of
tissue or other material, ignoring the whole of a large organism or system
for the sake of a painstaking examination of the structure or processes of
one element. By contrast, we can use the term macroscope for just the
opposite kind of tool, one for examining, in a gross way, the entire
system or at least large portions of it. The fine detail available from
the microscope is lost, but compensation comes from an image of the
interrelationships of the parts. I deliberately use the word macroscope
in place of telescope as the opposite for microscope. A telescope is used
for making distant objects appear close, for bringing out the detail of
distant objects that one cannot approach physically. In this sense its
function is not so different from that of the microscope. Like the latter
it implies a relatively narrow view; one chooses to focus upon a
particular star rather than on the entire galaxy that is visible to the
naked eye in the night sky. So what I refer to is more nearly analogous
to a wide-angle lens for a camera than to a telephoto lens.
A self-consciously
social-scientific study of international politics is crucial to the
rigorous use of the macroscopic view, in contrast to the require-ments of
the earlier emphasis on microscopic analysis of particular events and
personalities. The analyst needs to make use of a wide variety of data on
the components of international systems, both present and historical
systems. Scientific analysis by itself imposes no restrictions on where,
that is, at what level of analysis, to develop powerful hypotheses, but it
seems especially appropriate for macroscopic analyses. For example, we
are just now beginning to see important systematic studies of the patterns
of interactions among nations. One scholar is compiling a complete
mapping of governments’ verbal and physical acts toward other governments
in the current international system, and has begun to publish some very
important analyses of recent patterns that show unsuspected ways in which
the sequence of events in crises is different from that in “normal” times.4
Other analyses have been concerned with comparative foreign policies, in
the sense of how differences in national characteristics affect national
policies. These may be relatively small differences, such as between
parliamentary and presidential systems, or changes in the structure of
particular countries over time, or they may investigate what difference
being economically developed, or democratic, or European makes for
behavior. Finally, at this same level of aggregation are the patterns of
linkages among nations. Included here are studies of trade ties, bonds of
communication, and membership in international organizations. Such
studies lead on to comparisons of international systems, defined by a
combination of the pattern of linkages plus certain characteristics of the
states being linked. Thus a comparison of bipolar with multipolar systems
depends on measures of the relative size of the major nations making up
the systems, and the linkages among states that signify the bonds of
alliance.
The
power of macroscopic prediction
The aggregate,
macroscopic view can be shown to have a good deal of predictive power.
This is so because perceptions, policy, and capabilities all are quite
stable for most nations, as I will now try to demonstrate. On
capabilities, for example, most nations have changed remarkably little in
their relative levels of economic development over the past 60 years. The
rank-order of major countries has varied but slightly since before World
War I. Japan has moved up a bit and France down a couple of notches, but
on the whole the rankings of income levels are about the same as they
were, with the United States at the top followed, in approximately the
same order as before, by Sweden, Switzerland, and Canada.5
In the modern industrial world it is extraordinarily difficult for a
nation to maintain, over a long period of time, a rate of growth that will
enable it to surpass many of its rivals. And it seems almost as hard for
a nation to mess up its economy so badly as to fall very far behind.
On matters of
perception and policy the necessary research did not exist for
policy-makers in 1941, and even now the prewar period is not covered
adequately. Nevertheless we can obtain some important information from
studies of the postwar world. My initial example will be from work on
voting behavior in the United Nations.6
First, it was found that a very wide variety of particular issues and
roll-calls—about the Congo, Korea, Chinese representa-tion, disarmament,
South Africa, West New Guinea, and many others—are in fact usually
concerned with one of the major broad issues of contemporary world
politics. Three great cleavages or “superissues”—the cold war,
colonialism, and the role of the United Nations organization
itself—account for about 60 percent of the variation in roll-call voting.
This in itself was a surprising regularity. Although United Nations
voting is not intrinsically of great importance, governments’ behavior
there does provide major evidence on their positions in world politics
more generally. And most observers would agree that the above are truly
the issues around which the entire globe (as contrasted with more
parochial regional disputes) currently does divide.
From there it was
easy and appropriate to try to predict the voting behavior of particular
nations on these superissues. On cold war issues it was possible to
predict 75 percent of the variation in voting position by knowing only a
few basic facts. Simply categorizing the various states according to
regional or caucusing groups would do that well, as would knowing a few
facts about the military and economic bonds among nations (their alliance
commitments and their receipt of trade and aid from the United States and
the Soviet Union.) This too is surprising in view of many predictions
that nothing resembling this level of regularity would emerge; that
delegates’ voting decisions depended too heavily on the vagaries of
instructions from home, or upon volatile interests of the delegations, or
interdelega-tion bargaining, or upon what nation’s representative happened
to be sitting next to a delegate on a particular day. Furthermore, over
80 percent of the variation in states’ voting can be predicted by knowing
their past voting behavior. Even positions taken ten years previously
provide that kind of predictive power.
Votes on smaller,
more parochial, and more transient issues are of course more difficult to
predict. But on these three continuing and salient cleavages one can do
very well at the aggregate, macroscopic level without knowing anything
about changing conditions or decision-processes within individual
governments. Changes of personnel in the delegations; changes in the
leadership of the home governments; alternation of parties; all had little
effect. Even changes of regime or governmental structure, as caused by
coups or palace revolutions, make little difference to the leaders’
perceptions of choice in the United Nations, or at least to their actual
choices of behavior. In all but a literal handful of cases it took a
virtual social revolution, with an impact on the level of that occurring
in Iran with the overthrow of the Mossadegh regime or Guatemala and Arbenz
in the 1950s, to produce a very marked shift.
Furthermore, we can
specify what we mean by a marked shift. Cuba’s change of polarity from
Batista to Castro was by far the greatest national flip-flop over the past
decade and a half. On a scale of cold war issues, Guatemala and Iran
shifted their UN voting by an amount that is roughly one-third of Cuba’s
change, and there are but six other states that moved by even a fifth as
much as Cuba did (not necessarily in the same direction).7
In most instances one could “map” the political differences and
concurrences of nations in a very stable way.
Whatever the
domestic consequences, even such important revolutions as those in
Iraq in 1958 (when the king was overthrown and killed) and Argentina in
1955 (the political end of Peron) did not have great impact on their
nations’ international alignments. Iraq withdrew from the Baghdad
Pact and bought arms from the Soviet Union, but did not otherwise alter
its policies so very greatly. Even the most publicized change of regime
in recent years, the rise of Gaullism and of Republic number five, did not
affect France’s international alignment more than marginally. Seen
through the microscopic eye of contemporary American reporting, France’s
new independent policy seemed to make a great difference in Western Europe
and French relations with the Communist states. But on the basic
alignments that have characterized international behavior over the past
two decades Paris did not deviate significantly. It remained as it had
been: anti-Communist on most of the critical cold war issues, sympathetic
with its fellow colonial and ex-colonial powers, and resistant to efforts
to strengthen the United Nations’ feeble powers to coerce its members.
Similarly, recent
work on regional groupings found that knowing international organization
memberships ten years previously, or trading patterns ten years
previously, allowed one to predict between 85 and 95 percent of the
variation in the later period. In the case of trade, one could predict
more than three-quarters of the 1963 variation from the 1938 pattern,
despite World War II, the Cold War, and decolonization.8
These influences, and we include here the very important regional and
other bonds of community among nations, change at a glacial pace in this
international system. The stabilities of our world are, on examination,
very impressive.
Moreover, even the
few major shifts turn out to be of less moment than they seemed at the
time. The big one, Cuba, stimulated the greatest foreign policy fiasco of
the Kennedy administration: the Bay of Pigs invasion. The invasion failed
and Cuba remained under Castro, and under a Castro newly-reinforced in his
hostility to the United States. Yet from the perspective of a decade it
is hard to contend that the results have been very dire for the United
States, despite Cuba’s proximity and former economic importance to this
country. Few countries, even if they made a sharp switch in the
alignments, would greatly alter the global balance of power. Only four
countries in the non-Communist world (Japan, West Germany, Britain, and
France-none of them undeveloped) have a GNP as large as 10 percent of
America’s.
Finding these
continuities contrasts sharply with the task of day-to-day journalism and
impression-ism. The journalist’s job is to tell us how today is different
from yesterday, and to do so in a sufficiently vivid manner to attract and
hold our attention. When writing about Anglo-American relations, for
instance, a good journalist like Drew Middleton changes his evaluation
frequently. He looks at political events, personalities, and personal
changes in decision-making positions. Anglo-American relations may
improve following a meeting of chiefs-of-state, and deteriorate as a
consequence of a new disagree-ment. However valuable this participant’s
eye-view can be, one must also try to back up and gain perspective both on
how the relations between two states fit into the global pattern of
relationships and how they perform over a much longer time-span. A
day-to-day journalistic view risks confusing the business cycle with the
long-term secular trend in the economy. And at that it is not likely to
be analogous to a concentration on the depression and inflation ends of
the business cycle, but only on the numerous rather mild fluctuations in
between.
There is of course a
critical limit to the kind of knowledge we can derive from inductive
analyses of stability, and it concerns the difference between prediction
and explanation. Inductively-derived patterns can be used for substantial
periods of time to predict political behavior. If we know empirically
that A is associated with B, we may derive important policy benefits from
predicting stability in B as a result of stability in A, without knowing
why. But however exciting and important the discovery of high aggregate
correlations may be, prediction without “understanding” is vulnerable;
when we do not understand why two factors are related our predictions will
fail if the relationship shifts. The high degree of association between
environmental factors and political ones could be deceptive in future
international politics. Only new theory could tell us which regularities
would hold and which would be shattered.
In this respect our
present understanding of international politics is perhaps comparable to
the understanding of American voting behavior achieved by early public
opinion analysts. They established that certain demographic
characteristics, such as religion, income, and occupation, were highly
correlated with partisan choice.9
These correlations were fairly stable over time, but enough individuals,
typically less than 20 percent, changed their votes and so could reverse
the outcome of the preceding election. Knowing the gross correlations was
not enough to identify the dynamic elements—who would change, and whether
the changes would be enough to make a major shift in the state of the
system. Yet the earlier findings have been of great value, and it is hard
to imagine these later questions being studied in their absence.
Choice in retrospect and future
A macroscopic
perspective on the stabilities of world politics has crucial policy
implications. Too often observers and policy-makers take alarm at every
foreign coup or change of government. The Chicken Little syndrome is
widespread. But if important policy reversals in these countries are
rare, expensive attempts to affect the composition of the next governing
coalition in Boonistan are at best unnecessary, and more likely a
dangerous waste of resources that will ultimately weaken the United States
both abroad and domestically. And these stabilities limit the prospects
for success in intervention just as they limit the risks of avoiding
intervention. Even a power so great as the United States cannot readily
produce in a foreign land a government that will be notably pro-American
unless the necessary social and political substructure is present.
As children of
modern psychology we all are well aware of the limitations on our personal
choice as individuals—limitations of genetic endowment, of environment,
and of experience. Without accepting a rigidly deterministic model of
human action, we nevertheless comprehend the severe restrictions within
which our private choice is able to move. Yet we perceive less clearly
what are the bounds on the public choice exercised by leaders of nations;
we too often fail to consider their real options, either as might be seen
by an objective observer or as seen by the decision-maker himself.
If it is true that
political choice is severely circumscribed, we must focus attention on a
particular kind of choice node, on those decisions which sharply restrict
the menu of future options. Often choices are not irreversible, and one
may at least approximate, at a later point, an option that was rejected
earlier. For this kind of situation the adage about any decision being
better than no decision, or a paralysis of will, is applicable. But this
happens less often than we may like to think. In too many circumstances as
we proceed from one node to another previous options become
irrecoverable. Japanese leaders in 1941 found that successive choices
cost them so many alternatives that in the end the decision to fight the
United States, in a war they did not really expect to win, seemed
unavoidable. The American decision to develop atomic weapons brought
technical knowledge that cannot be unlearned, immensely complicating
disarmament efforts. The Red Army, whose incursion into Central Europe
for the defeat of Hitler we applauded, became less welcome in a changed
international system. The decision to fight a “limited” war now may be at
the expense of later economic growth, with the consequence that a nation’s
material power base is forever smaller than it might have been had
armaments not taken the place of capital investment. The entry of America
into World War II was irreversible; a policy better designed to stay out
could, I have contended, have been reversed without irrecoverable damage
to this country.
This is an
especially serious problem in international politics because we know so
little about the articulated consequences of our decisions. Neither the
best theorist nor the most confident man of action can really know what
the ramifications of an act will be. And the danger is compounded by the
speed with which decisions often are forced upon leaders before even
whatever inadequate analytical tools we have can be brought to bear on the
choice. Scientific and technological advances that now bring the entire
world within reach of instantaneous communication, or any target on the
globe within 30 minutes of destruction, can leave little time for
reflection. When population natural increase rates are two percent a
year, total population doubles in thirty years. A world whose population
has once reached three billion will never again be the natural, uncrowded
environment that our ancestors knew. The further environmental
consequences of a jump from 3 billion to 6 billion on earth are far
different from those of a jump from 3 million to 6 million. There are
also unimagined consequences of the level of power available to change our
environment. One manifestation is the potential destructiveness of
nuclear warfare, but another ostensibly more constructive manifestation is
in the changes that modern industrial processes and urban living patterns
are inflicting on the environment. We face an “ecological crisis” from
pollutants that could quite literally make the globe uninhabitable.
Hence the old
virtues of any decision being better than none become transmuted. The
avoidance of a decision that would work irreversible changes looks
attractive if there is some chance that we can, with time, better evaluate
the consequences of decision.
Japan’s 1941 policy
is a good example of how hard it may be to recognize critical decision
nodes when they do appear. America’s incremental creep into the Vietnam
quagmire is another. Regrettably, there is no automatic warning signal to
flash before the decision-maker. For now, perhaps all one can do to
identify such nodes before they are passed is always to have someone ask
explicitly, “What will it cost if this decision turns out badly? How, if
at all, could we turn back?” This scepticism might help prevent seduction
by alternatives that seem to carry fairly high probabilities of favorable
outcomes, and high benefits if they work, but disastrous costs should they
fail. The acquisition of very expensive weapons systems (because their
costs will foreclose other military or civilian options) is an especially
relevant class, as is the procurement of systems with very greatly
enhanced capabilities. So, in this world, is a superpower’s decision
actually to use military force. And so, perhaps unfortunately, would be a
decision to implement a major disarmament measure. In the last case,
however, our foreign policy-making system is well supplied with cautionary
voices; for the others the devil’s advocate has too often been reticent or
unwelcome.
Politics, it
sometimes seems, has become the arena for avoiding cataclysm. Political
gladiators can destroy far more readily than they can create; their task
is one of avoiding error. But they are human, and in repeated encounters
ultimately they do blunder. It may be more fruitful to ask what shapes
the arena than what determines each stroke of their blunt swords.
This point of view
also puts into better perspective the questions that have been raised
specifically about Franklin Roosevelt’s wisdom. Many readers will
conclude that ideally perhaps America should have stayed out of the war,
but for reasons of domestic politics or limited visionary powers the
option really was not available. That, however, does not excuse us
from raising the question. As it happens, it is likely that most other
men who might have occupied his position would have behaved similarly.
Certainly had Wendell Willkie won the presidential election of 1940 it is
hard to imagine the ultimate outcome being very different. The
anti-interventionists of the time had another vision of America’s
interests and dangers, but they failed, especially as the wars in China
and Europe dragged on, to sustain their case. They too generally lacked
both well-developed theory and empirical evidence on which to build their
case that the global environment was not as threatening to America as the
interventionists believed. Thus the political basis for a delicate policy
of all-out aid short of all-out war, if it had ever existed, had eroded by
late 1941. The lack of an adequate intellectual basis played no small
part in the failure to develop a viable political course.
Now Americans are
again, in large numbers, questioning the moral and intellectual basis of
interventionist policies pursued by the American government over the past
quarter of a century. Others fear that the emotional reaction against
those policies will be so strong as to lead to a new isolationism. To
such people it may seem virtual treason to risk assisting that reaction by
questioning American participation in World War II—a matter on which, as I
granted at the outset of this book, the approving case is appreciably
stronger than it is for many more recent American interventions. But a
reasoned questioning, leading all of us to rethink our premises and search
out new evidence, is required if we are to make wise political choices in
a new era.
As Robert Penn
Warren once put it, “Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption.”
Less theologically, injustice will always remain in the world. Americans
can, by judicious use of their abilities, somewhat diminish the amount of
that injustice. But attempts to oppose injustice everywhere by military
means will simply destroy our own polity, economy, and society, bringing
greater injustice nearer at hand. Americans are neither omnipotent nor
omniscient. As I have said earlier,
Military force
becomes Tolkien’s One Ring of Power. On occasion we must wield that power
to defend ourselves and our friends and to keep the Ring from passing to
our enemies. . . . Yet employment of the Ring must be rare and restricted
to cases of great necessity. Used rashly, unworthily, or even often, it
will corrupt its bearer. Perhaps the United States, by its history and
its ideals, carries some limited degree of immunity to the Ring’s curse.
But excessive reliance on force will quickly weaken, not strengthen us,
and ultimately we will be no better than those we oppose.10
When contemplating
intervention in another land or distant war the following questions should
first be answered as precisely as possible:
1. How bad an outcome, by whatever criteria, really is likely if
American intervention does not occur?
2. How likely—highly probable or only a long-shot—is it that such a
bad outcome will in fact happen?
3. What favorable outcome really is likely as a result of the
contemplated intervention?
4. How likely is it that such a good outcome will in fact be produced?
5.
At what cost—political, material, and moral—would the outcome
probably be achieved? Would success be worth the price?
Notes
1
This description is taken from Blum, pp. 384-87. I am grateful to Blum for
pointing out its possible applicability to the early 1930S.
2
The phrase is from James Patrick Sewell, “Functional Agencies,” in Richard
A. Falk and Cyril Black, The Structure of the International Environment
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971).
3
American Institute of Public Opinion press release, April 30, 1968.
4
Charles McClelland, “Access to Berlin: The Quantity and Variety of Events,
I948-63,” in J. David Singer (ed.) Quantitative International Politics:
Insights and Evidence (New York: Free Press, I968) is a preliminary
study of these data. See also McClelland and Gary A. Hogard, “Conflict
Patterns in the Interactions Among Nations,” in James N. Rosenau, ed.,
International Politics and Foreign Policy (New York: Free Press,
I969), 2nd ed.
5
Theodore Caplow, “Are the Poor Countries Getting Poorer?” Foreign
Policy, 1 no. 3 (Summer 1971): 90-107.
6
Hayward R. Alker, “Dimensions of Conflict in the General Assembly.”
American Political Science Review 58, no. 3 (September 1964): 642-57;
Alker and Bruce M. Russett, World Politics in the General Assembly
(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1965); and Russett,
International Regions and the International System (Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1967), Chapters 4 and 5. See also R. J. Rummel “Some Empirical
Findings on Nations and Their Behavior,” World Politics 21, no. 2
(1969): 226-41.
7
Russett, International Regions, pp. 90-91.
8
Ibid., Chapters 6-n. Also Russett, “Regional Trading Patterns,
1938-1963,” International Studies Quarterly 12, no. 4 (December
1968): 360-79.
9
Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, The People’s
Choice (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944) and Bernard
Berelson, Paul Lazarsfeld, and William McPhee, Voting (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1954).
10
Russett, What Price Vigilance?, pp. 183-84.
Back to
Chapter 4: From the North Atlantic to the Tonkin Gulf
Back to
Preface