Smart Power Blog

McClatchy News Service ran a great story in the Minneapolis paper yesterday on Congressman Keith Ellison's participation in a number of public diplomacy initiatives by the Bush State Department. Ellison, as we know, is the first ever Muslim Member of Congress, and has been a huge target of the right wing for his decision to take his oath of office using the Qur'an. Still, State Department officials have used Ellison to "promote American values and confront ideological support for terrorism around the world" in a number of different media.

Step in the right direction for sure...

Thanks to TPM Cafe for the tip...

Heard this on "Marketplace" while driving today:

"Beijing's announcement that it's increasing military spending got some attention in Washington. Commentator Robert Reich explains that's just what the Chinese wanted."

The importance of understanding and establishing "proper" civil-military relations can't be understated both at home and in the troubled regions. The relationship between civilian and military leaderships dictates and is dicted by the freedom of the people. This relationship, in a democracy especially, is special and paramount and yet too many do not understand or get it.

The new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq gave his first news conference the other day and said that military force alone is "not sufficient" to end the violence in Iraq. He said that political negotiations "will determine in the long run the success of this effort."
Furthermore, "any student of history recognizes there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq..."

This is significant that the commander himself says there is no military solution to this problem. It's time to use other sources of American power - cultural, political etc., instead of an over reliance on military force. Even for the commander of US forces, a smart solution involves more than military power. What would be the correct mix of smart power in this situation?

Rather than an extended narration I'd like this entry to serve as a touchstone for discussion on the different implements of power. I want to focus specifically on what they do "well" and what how they are vulnerable. I have chosen 5 basic "types" of power:

Thwarting Power
Enforcement Power
Incentive Power
Social Power
Psychological Power

As you will see, they correspond to policy tools that we are familiar with. The military is clearly a part of thwarting power, economics related to incentives etc. But they are more general than "military," "economic" because in a changing world, the relevant categories may change. For example, denial of service internet attacks are thwarting power, but they do not generally come from a military apparatus.

I am not an expert in these areas, so I am tossing things out in the hope that others will follow on with their comments. I do think we will need to formalize this at some point, so we want to keep things general/abstract so they can be applied to new situations.

Hopefully this will make sense...

I saw this in today's (3/13/07) NY Times (see text pasted in the extended body below -- NYT doesn't allow permanent links to its Timeselect content, presumably because of their deep committment to furthering knowledge and understanding). It's a column by Nicholas Kristof where he comments on suggestions from readers on how to handle Darfur.

It was interesting. The main thing I noticed was that Kristof does not appear to have a coordinated plan. He basically dismisses some kinds of power - specifically military solutions, and then recommends a list of other things without tying them together. For instance, he seems to talk a lot about "applying pressure." What does that mean? What kind of pressure on whom via what instruments?

I do not mean to criticize Nicholas Kristof on the issue of Darfur, he is a hero for championing this cause. My point is only that the need for smart power frameworks is very evident here. Anyway, article is below. I can remove if this will get us into trouble with the NYT. Notice also that we are invited to comment at www.nytimes.com/ontheground. Maybe a couple of us could write in?

I saw this interview between of John Bolton by Jon Stewart from Tuesday's (or maybe Monday's) Daily Show.

It was interesting as they really debated how much power the Pres. should have over the executive bureaucracy. It was basically a conversation about "who should be listening to whom" -- very relevant to our discussion today. Bolton basically argued that Bush listened to the American people in order to get elected, and then after that it was time for others to listen to him. This is a very formal, legalistic notion of politics. It is perfectly rational, but it is also another instance of the admin complaining that they can't be effective because other people (in this case bureaucrats) aren't doing "what they are supposed to do."

This fundamentally misunderstands how power works in the new world. It also uses a double-standard when applied to the President vs. Congress. The President, according to Bolton's ideas, has the political prerogative to do everything legally permitted under his power regardless of how normal/abnormal or popular/unpopular it is. But Congress is "playing politics" if they pursue abnormal actions that are technically legal. It's worth noting that the same double-standard applies to foreign governments. If Muscharaff does not control factions in his country working against him, he is failing to live up to a bargain. If Bush can't control leaks in his own bureaucracy (e.g. CIA), it is the bureaucrats fault or perhaps the fault of "Washington Insiders."

Not-so-smart power hall of famer Tom Delay’s appearance on Sunday’s Meet the Press garnered a lot of attention from the liberal blogosphere this week (I must say that Mr. Russert’s stock dropped a few points for offering that invite. Fine…invite Perle. But Delay? C’mon Tim…if you want us up at 8:00 AM in LA, be serious).

Lost in the hubbub, however, was a very revealing back-and-forth between former Congressman Tom Andrews (D-ME) and former Congressman Tom Delay (R-TX).

FMR. REP. ANDREWS: …And listen, you know, we in Washington love to talk about what's in the best interest of the, the people of Iraq. We've been doing this for years and years. Why don't we ask the people of Iraq what they think? If you ask the people...

FMR. REP. DeLAY: Well, let's ask what's in the best interest of the American people.

FMR. REP. ANDREWS: Well, ask the people--let's ask--let's ask the people of Iraq, OK?

FMR. REP. DeLAY: No, let's ask the American people.

FMR. REP. ANDREWS: What is--let's ask them first, OK? Because listen, they're the ones that have the most at stake. They're the ones that have the most at stake.

FMR. REP. DeLAY: I'm more interested in the American people.

Many probably dismissed Delay’s arguments as four-year-old RNC talking points that people stopped taking seriously about, well, four years ago. But we smart power disciples have a lot to learn from what The Hammer had to say.