Whither Strategy, or On the Uncertain Value of Posturing

A recent Tweet by the always penetrating and incisive Ian Bremmer may be the ultimate justification for limiting oneself to 140 characters:

"Assad Must Go ISIS Must Be Destroyed N Korea Must Give Up Nukes Russia Must Leave Ukraine If We Can't (or Won't) Enforce, Stop Pretending."

Has the crux of an entire era ever been more pithily summed?  Hard to imagine.

Yet while Bremmer's formulation cuts to the heart of the present historical moment, it's not clear that his closing admonition is readily translatable into policy (as I'm sure he himself knows well -- if his tweet is the justification for Twitter, then this post is the illustration of its limitations); because the question, of course, is what exactly are we to offer instead of our protestations?

The late Chinese premier Deng Xiaoping is supposed to have said, "If you have an ugly face, there's no use in pretending to be handsome."  On the other hand, fans of Aaron Sorkin will readily call to mind another punchy aphorism (apparently attributable to the Episcopal Priest and early AA supporter Sam Shoemaker): "Act as if ye have faith, and faith will be given you.  Put another way, fake it 'til you make it."

So, which one is it?  Which approach must guide the conduct of international affairs in this profoundly uncertain time?  Should we admit to our ugliness and make explicit our unwillingness to meet these challenges to international order with the full force of all our civilization's resources?  Or should we hold doggedly to every principle until by the sheer force of intention and endurance, we can will them into reality?

Well of course the answer is both.  This is why we elect leaders, not slogans.  When to invoke unavoidable realities and when to insist that apparently dreaded circumstances can in fact be resisted is perhaps the primary question leaders are required to answer.  Balancing these approaches in order to produce stability is the singular skill of the statesman (or stateswoman).

Thus, back to Mr. Bremmer's original quote, surely his position is not so much that in any one of these cases we (the West, the U.S., the President) would be wrong to voice our grave and adamant objections.  What he's surely suggesting is that there comes a point at which a critical mass of knee-jerk proscriptions can coalesce into a demonstrable and near comprehensive impotence, from which too many international actors can draw too many frightening conclusions about their freedom to act as they see fit.  In this, he's undoubtedly correct.

The problem, as always, is what the alternative looks like.  Mr. Bremmer has said in various fora that the U.S. has no foreign policy strategy (and in at least one forum that almost no country in the world other than China has one right now).  But to say that a unified, coherent global strategy is the alternative to our current set of ad-hoc remonstrations, is still to replace one empty vessel with another.  What would it look like not to wag our finger at Russia, North Korea, ISIS, Assad, etc?  It would look like a cogent foreign policy strategy.  Fine.  And what, in this chaotic age, does a cogent foreign policy strategy look like?

Well...

To be clear, Mr. Bremmer may have, in one of his myriad books or articles, a very cogent foreign policy strategy indeed that he could recommend to the President, which I just haven't read yet.  But if he does, well, then, can we get him on a ballot somewhere?