Nikolas K. Gvosdev: A Bismarckian Approach for U.S.
[Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the former editor of the National Interest, and a frequent foreign policy commentator in both the print and broadcast media. He is currently on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College.]
In discussing my proposal last week for a Sino-Indian Convention that would define 21st century spheres of influence in Central Asia, a colleague suggested that it was an idea that Otto von Bismarck would have been proud of. They didn't mean it as a compliment.
We think of Bismarck as a caricature of the old European warlord, peering through a monocled eye while croaking about decisions forged in "blood and iron." Most of all, we see him as someone whose policies were designed for personal and imperial aggrandizement, not the betterment of the people. We distrust his approach to the world because it seems unsavory -- built on deals conducted in back rooms with no regard to the popular will.
Bismarck might appeal to autocrats who treat policy like a game of chess, but he is never cited as someone relevant to U.S. decision-makers. The democratic policymaker, we are told, must craft policies that pass the approval of higher standards: fidelity to values and a commitment to improving the plight of the common citizen. We cannot play a "Great Game" in the center of Asia, because we don't approve of treating policy like a competitive sport.
But Bismarck pursued his policies with careful goals in mind. As he saw it, the job of guiding a major international power involves improving its standing, maximizing popular welfare, and finding ways to lock in the benefits of peace and prosperity to protect them against the risk of unexpected challenges. For the United States, the ongoing commitment in Afghanistan has the potential to do serious damage to all of these interests.
Let's consider some lesser known facts about old Otto. He was not a bloodthirsty conqueror intent on finding causes for soldiers to fight, die and cause destruction. He defined limits for where and how to use force. As he put it, questions about honor and values might make for wonderful rhetoric, but they were not "interests on behalf of which it is worth our risking . . . the healthy bones of one of our Pomeranian musketeers."
He preferred to use balance of power tactics to reduce pressures for war, convincing other countries to agree to compromise settlements instead. As a result, Bismarck accumulated a healthy fiscal reserve that enabled him to press domestic economic reforms -- including health care, unemployment insurance, and other "safety net" provisions for ordinary citizens. His keen understanding of the importance of "human security" guided his push for what were the beginnings of the German welfare state. ("The actual complaint of the worker is the insecurity of his existence.") Institutions like the Imperial Physical Technical Institute were created to formulate first-class standards for industry, providing a strong technological advantage that aided both the business and military establishment by providing innovation ahead of the competition...
Read entire article at World Politics Review
In discussing my proposal last week for a Sino-Indian Convention that would define 21st century spheres of influence in Central Asia, a colleague suggested that it was an idea that Otto von Bismarck would have been proud of. They didn't mean it as a compliment.
We think of Bismarck as a caricature of the old European warlord, peering through a monocled eye while croaking about decisions forged in "blood and iron." Most of all, we see him as someone whose policies were designed for personal and imperial aggrandizement, not the betterment of the people. We distrust his approach to the world because it seems unsavory -- built on deals conducted in back rooms with no regard to the popular will.
Bismarck might appeal to autocrats who treat policy like a game of chess, but he is never cited as someone relevant to U.S. decision-makers. The democratic policymaker, we are told, must craft policies that pass the approval of higher standards: fidelity to values and a commitment to improving the plight of the common citizen. We cannot play a "Great Game" in the center of Asia, because we don't approve of treating policy like a competitive sport.
But Bismarck pursued his policies with careful goals in mind. As he saw it, the job of guiding a major international power involves improving its standing, maximizing popular welfare, and finding ways to lock in the benefits of peace and prosperity to protect them against the risk of unexpected challenges. For the United States, the ongoing commitment in Afghanistan has the potential to do serious damage to all of these interests.
Let's consider some lesser known facts about old Otto. He was not a bloodthirsty conqueror intent on finding causes for soldiers to fight, die and cause destruction. He defined limits for where and how to use force. As he put it, questions about honor and values might make for wonderful rhetoric, but they were not "interests on behalf of which it is worth our risking . . . the healthy bones of one of our Pomeranian musketeers."
He preferred to use balance of power tactics to reduce pressures for war, convincing other countries to agree to compromise settlements instead. As a result, Bismarck accumulated a healthy fiscal reserve that enabled him to press domestic economic reforms -- including health care, unemployment insurance, and other "safety net" provisions for ordinary citizens. His keen understanding of the importance of "human security" guided his push for what were the beginnings of the German welfare state. ("The actual complaint of the worker is the insecurity of his existence.") Institutions like the Imperial Physical Technical Institute were created to formulate first-class standards for industry, providing a strong technological advantage that aided both the business and military establishment by providing innovation ahead of the competition...