A Pre-Freudian Foreign Policy

Slate has an discouraging piece this morning describing how conservative media greeted the drop of the World’s Biggest (Non-Nuclear) Bomb in Afghanistan with almost orgastic celebration.

In particular, this typically sober analysis from eminence sleaze and human gas giant Rush Limbaugh caught my eye:

But I ask you to think back to the campaign, what did Donald Trump say about ISIS? He said we’re gonna take ’em out. We’ve had a bunch of pansies and wussies that haven’t had a serious moment about it. I’m gonna get together with my military people, we’re gonna come up with a plan, we’re gonna wipe ’em out.

Get it? A well-formulated policy isn’t (say) a counter-insurgency strategy that stresses separating civilians and combatants. Heck, no! That’s for pansies and wussies.

No, the right strategy is to find the biggest, baddest bomb you can find, and drop it. The bomb is the policy.

The sheer stupidity stuns. If a strategy fails, it’s not because our COIN wasn’t sophisticated enough, but because we weren’t manly enough? Really?

This is what I call a ‘pre-Freudian’ foreign policy.  It’s not based on risk-analysis or long-term thinking. It’s based on the juvenile posturing of an immature male whose hormones are in charge of his brain, and he doesn’t even know it.

Can angry, frustrated manhood constitute a strategy? Over the next few years, we may find out.

(For an adult view of counter-insurgency looks like, and what it can do to the soldiers who try to make it work, read this recent Pulitzer Prize-winning piece.)

 

Want to raise defence spending among NATO Allies? Abolish the Alliance

Yesterday, the Telegraph ran this extraordinary story calmly contemplating an honest-to-Jehovah war between the United Kingdom and Spain over Gibraltar.

The idea of NATO allies fighting each other was formerly reserved to Greece and Turkey. Now the bounds of our imaginations are expanding. And as we know, in this political climate, your imagination is your reality.

The story reminded me of last week’s news that US SecState Rex Tillerson — at a meeting of US ministers that, at first, he didn’t want to attend — gave NATO allies two months to come up with a plan to spend 2 percent of GDP on defence.

His throwing-down-of-the-gauntlet occurred not longer after our esteemed President supposedly handed Angela Merkel a ‘bill’ of some 300 billion euros, presumably the cost of the US defence of Europe.

If these actions — still early in this Administration — aren’t intended to push the Alliance to the breaking point, then I’m not sure what would. Tillerson has to know that the allies won’t give him what he wants in 2 months. Surly belligerence is not a foreign policy.

Do the President and his surrogates really mean what they say? Probably not — for Trump, ‘foreign affairs’ often seems indistinguishable from bluffing and bluster. But you can’t underestimate his worst impulses. Cornered by his own threats, he might make good on them.

It occurred to me: You want our NATO allies to spend 2 per cent on defence? Fine. Just disband the alliance, and have them fight each other. Like Spain and the UK over Gibraltar, a minor issue easily resolved through multilateral dialogue within institutions like NATO and the European Union.

But — oops! — the UK’s not in the EU for long, is it?

NATO has never done a good job arguing for itself, particularly when member states rhetorically attack. But the 2 per cent figure has always been a red herring.

We should assess defence spending not in terms of some arbitrary percent-of-GDP, but in how we ensure our security. As an Alliance, NATO’s great value comes from its allies spending less on defence, rather than more, because they can do more by working together. That’s really NATO’s whole point.

After all, there’s no use in spending more on purely military hardware if you don’t feel threatened by hard militaries, and — with the prominent exception of the Baltic states — most NATO allies do not.

For Germany or France, the main issue is internal security — returning foreign fighters, radical extremism, cyberattacks, and the like.

The question for Europe is: would you spend billions on cruise missiles when what you’re really worried about is migration and radicalised youth, just to soften the moods of an unstable US President and his credulous domestic supporters?

For Germany, the answer is clearly no.

So what happens in May, when President Trump comes to NATO and starts distributing bills to allies who quickly drop them in the rubbish bin?

We may see defence spending rise after all, but not for the reasons we intend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Believability in Fiction, or Why Luke Got His Ass Kicked in Empire Strikes Back

What’s the best Star Wars movie? The Empire Strikes Back, of course.

But something about ESB has always bugged me. It’s a question: For how long does Luke train with Yoda?

We can’t know for sure, because the movie doesn’t give us much in the way of dates. We do know, however, that he’s training while Leia, Han, C3PO and Chewie escape from the imperials, flee to Cloud City, and get polished up for lunch. How much time is that?

It can’t be much, unless Leia and Han actually spent a couple of months chilling out inside that giant worm’s belly. Let’s be generous and say an entire day goes by before they meet Lando, another day before Lando betrays them. That puts them around the time that Luke has his future visions about Darth Vader roasting up Han.

So Luke trains for 2 days — 3, at most — before he runs off to fight the most powerful Jedi Knight in galactic history. He’s lucky he only had an arm chopped off. Yoda doesn’t even teach him how to swing a lightsaber. It’s as if Jedi Knight Training is a course on Lynda.com. You learn out to turn on the lightsaber, swing it around, feel the force, put the certificate on your LinkedIn profile and there you go!

And yet — when you watched the film, how many people got up and left the theatre in disgust? Very few, I suspect. Most people probably didn’t bother to think of the problem. It made me wonder: how believable does a work of fiction have to be, in writing or in film, to work? How ‘true’?

It may depend, in part, on your medium. Massive plot holes riddle almost all big action films. But if you’ve got a giant non sequitur in the middle of your novel, chances are that everyone from your agent to your editors to your fans (if the book gets that far) will hold it against you.

A cynical take: Your work has to be just accurate enough to maintain the illusion of immediate believability, or what some people call the suspension of disbelief.

A more cynical take: write what you like, and it will work as long as you don’t get caught.

An even more cynical take: You can get caught, just after you’ve made money.

The decent thing is to be as accurate and as believable as you can be. Respect your audience. Being sloppy with plotting or timelines shows that you don’t think much about the intelligence of your readers, or your viewers. After all, you can fool them once, but the next time around, they might not be so forgiving.

I mean, George Lucas could get away with passing off the notion that you could spank a giant ball of steel in the sky with a proton torpedo barely big enough to kill a two-meter womp rat, and the whole thing would go kaplooey. (Yes, that was all rationalized in the last film, and yes, we were grateful.)

In the next film he convinced us that a 2-day yoga retreat in a swamp could turn a kid in a plumber outfit (oh, that’s a flight suit?) into a mythical warrior.

But Lucas tightened things up in Return of the Jedi. No need for trenches here. Instead, in the New and Improved Death Star, the imperialists have graciously created ship-sized tunnels that lead straight to the centre of the thing, where another womp-rat-sized target conveniently awaits.

Because no one would think of putting on HATCHES on those tunnels that you could CLOSE, so that an invading fleet couldn’t just fly into the guts of your incredible weapon to BLOW THE DAMN THING UP AGAIN, RIGHT?

Never mind.

A statement of nefarious intent

Welcome to Buy This Planet! This website’s purpose is to sell a novel that I’ve been working on for the past 15 years or so. But I will also post my thoughts about the state of the world here, as well as links to writing efforts that I have posted elsewhere.  I hope you enjoy what I have to say, and that you check back every few days.

In the meantime, please enjoy the first three chapters of Buy This Planet and Get the Next World Free!, available under the ‘Novel’ button above.