American Recessional?

Is it racist to say "Hold the fort!"?

A few commentators point out that, eerily, Mitt Romney said nothing about the war in Afghanistan in his acceptance speech. This, of course, is because the Republicans feel their best bet is to stress the economy. But there may also be something to Condoleeza Rice’s comment, earlier in the convention, that Americans are weary of the burden of international leadership.

I bet they are. Everyone seems to get tired of it after a while. You pay for everything, and no matter what you do, you get blamed for everything. Caring much about the wider world does not come easily to the American consciousness, snug and secure and largely self-sufficient as America is behind its two oceans. “Isolationism” has been the American default position. Now that the clear and present danger of a rival Communist Bloc has faded, following Fascism’s earlier military defeat, it may be hard for the gringos to see the point of keeping up the far-flung battle line. Heck, there’s not even an empire in it for them.

Condi at the keyboard.

So what would really happen if America pulled back? Rice warned that one of two things would happen: either there would be chaos, or some other power, antithetical to American ideals, would take its place.

Was she right? I, for one, am grateful for Pax Americana, but neither do I expect the sky would fall without it. In Europe, surely NATO without America is big and strong enough to protect its own interests against a not particularly resurgent, and not particularly bellicose, Russia. Who else need they fear? Morocco?

In the Far East, China would probably be able to take Taiwan. Big problem? Maybe not. Was it such a big problem when they took Hong Kong and Macao? North Korea is nutty, but militarily South Korea is more than a match for North Korea on their own. On the wider stage, India is probably a rough match for China in a land war, and alliances involving both India and Japan—manpower plus high technology--could keep a balance of power in the area, should China become aggressive.

The Middle East is the one problem spot. In the Middle East, without US backing, Israel might be in an awkward position. More or less as they are now; with all due respect, no matter what anybody does, it looks as though the Israel experiment is demographically doomed. It does not help the US’s own interests to be keeping them on life support.

Iran is a bigger worry to the general Mideast peace. However, it does look again as though there is a natural balance of power here, even without the US: Shia Iran vs. the Sunni Gulf Cooperation Council.

A natural balance of power, of course, does not entirely preclude war. This is true whether or not the US is involved, though. If Iran and Saudi Arabia came to war, there could easily be a disruption in oil supply—not so much to the US, but to Europe, China, and Japan.

Could Europe, China, and Japan handle this, if necessary? Why not? Europe did until America showed up, and told them not to, in the Suez Crisis. Europe is more unified now, and more militarily unified. And it has China and Japan to help.

Of course, the Middle East as a whole is in turmoil. Whither Egypt? Whither Syria? Whither Libya? That said, since nobody really knows what is likely to happen, it is not clear that American intervention would lead to better results, from the American point of view, than American isolation. Was it useful to America to have intervened in Egypt to get rid of Mubarak in favour of the Muslim Brotherhood?

There are humanitarian concerns, sure, in the Middle East and elsewhere. These can be addressed ad hoc by coalitions; these coalitions need not be led by the US. The mechanisms are in place, and have been used, in Libya, in Kosovo, in Iraq.

Yes, if America withdrew, other powers would be able to fill the void. But I don’t think China is in any condition to go for world hegemony; its political system is not all that stable, and it is not, per capita, a wealthy country. And there is no one else on the horizon. What we would have, instead, is a network of regional powers, perhaps in alliances.

Kind of like we had, again, before the US cavalry showed up in the 20th century.

Rice for Vice Would be Nice

The fact that I personally have a massive crush on Condoleeza Rice has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Drudge Report is headlining a claimed leak that Condoleeza Rice has suddenly jumped to the top of the list for Romney's VP choice.

I've said here before that she'd be a perfect matchup with Romney. If he's smart, he'll go with her, instead of rumoured alternatives Portman and Pawlenty.

Rice balances Romney well because she adds foreign policy expertise, which Romney lacks. She also balances him South/North. Obviously, if it matters, she balances him male / female and white / black. She is seen as on the right of the party; he needs that too, for the base. I suspect she will help a lot of voters feel better about voting against the first black president; she insulates them, in their own minds and in the public eye, against accusations that they are voting against Obama because he is black. It would also be helpful in terms of the social consensus in this regard; it would prevent blacks from feeling they had been rejected in such a vote. That would make Romney's presidency easier if he won.

But the biggest reason is this: Romney has an enthusiasm problem. People find him boring. The worst thing he could do, therefore, is just what he has been rumoured to be planning to do: a "safe" choice for VP. A traditional sort, a man in a suit, a Pawlenty or Portman. He needs someone interesting, someone charismatic, someone who can draw the public interest. It is my sense that Rice has just that kind of charisma, and that kind of personal story.

Apparently, she can also deliver a fiery speech.

Give it to her: don't offer the American public four years of pure boredom.