Nadine, you are right that big-stick credibility is absolutely essential. My guess is that Americans had come to be seen as cowardly bullies who would run when the going got tough; pulling out of Lebanon, Somalia and panicking over white powder.
Lack of credibility is perhaps worse than having no big stick at all as the apparent weakness tempts people to goad the cowardly bully and attack him where they might leave a non-entity alone.
But my point is the need for very sparing and measured and reasonable use of the big stick. Megalomaniacs grow to love the fear they see when they whack away with their big stick. It looks like great results. They mistake the fear for respect. They see orderliness and think they have achieved something. But the orderliness lasts only as long as the big stick is threatening. Then, if the stick is shown as fake, the lack of self-determination and civil attitude shows and mayhem results. The USSR was Big Stick writ large and it was peaceful [once sufficient killing and gulags had cowed the population]. But it was going nowhere fast. When Gorby was unwilling to continue the murderous repression, the Big Stick lost all power and the whole thing crumbled and mayhem resulted.
Overall, King George II's use of the big stick has been measured and orderly and purposeful and for the most part reasonable, though wayward individual soldiers will be harming the good reputation. He didn't just nuke Afghanistan, Tora Bora, Tikrit, Mecca etc. Given the provocation, that was a response that would not have surprised me.
In many respects, viewed from the little guy's point of view, the USA is a bully, waving the big stick and expecting obedience. That engenders contempt and many people around the world feel that contempt.
Growing up, I had friends whose fathers used the big stick theory of parenthood. They were highly unsuccessful. Others use the no-stick hand-wringing theory of parenthood. The spoiled brats are a burden on all they contact. I subscribe to the near-zero use of force but the highly credible availability of it.
The first smack on a recalcitrant brat works wonders. It becomes tempting to repeat the performance. What I found though, is that all that really happens is that it gets the brat's attention and willingness to find a reasonable and co-operative basis for relationships and behaviour. It's the laborious interpersonal integration process which really counts.
The crucial issue is establishing a reasonable, co-operative and self-determined basis for relationships and property, not just handing down by dictate with the threat of a big stick how things will be. That's the unlamented Big Man style of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Idi Amin [good riddance], Uday [good riddance] and Saddam [soon to be got].
Ghandi ended his life with pandemonium and bulk murder in the partition of Pakistan and at the hands of a murderer. So the no-stick idea wasn't all that great. The British seemed to run things better. Now, the police in India carry big sticks with which they whack anyone who tries something [I have seen how they do it and the fear of them]. But overall it's more Ghandi than Saddam and it's pleasant if grindingly poor.
Now that King George II has demonstrated the stick in Afghanistan and Iraq, the more civilized processes can be applied to North Korea, Liberia [look how easy it was to effect regime change there and start things on the road to civilization], Zimbabwe and Burma. Mugabe must be thinking he doesn't want to end his life in a bunker, which he probably hasn't got, or suffering cruel and unusual punishment at the hands of lawyers in Den Hague alongside Milosevic.
Augustus the Roman Emperor was apparently a bit of a stick wielder, using it exiguously, but was also a great builder of civilization. I'm hopeful we are entering such a phase. Maybe people have misunderestimated King George II.
Mqurice |
