US foreign policy is driven mostly by short-term politics, not coherent strategy

I agree that grand ambitions in foreign policy are not necessarily desirable. But (and I think we agree on this) deliberate do-no-harm policy would be vastly preferable to what we do today, selling policy out to the people who get money or prestige from war.

To your other point, other commenters are already demonstrating how many people fundamentally don't understand Hanania.

It could be if you just muddle along enjoying the world eventually the Mongols show up and take your stuff and put your skull on the skull pyramid. Or at least that's the fear.

Japan did not go to war with the U.S. because of army/navy rivalry. This was not a consideration for the perceived necessity of going to war with America. It all had to do with supply constraints and the military gambled and initially succeeded in that gamble.

To your overall point I very much agree. There are lots of examples of short term thinking clouding the long term goals of a nation. Indeed, doesn’t this almost always happen?

In a book about the Silk Road that I read the author claims that China’s way of defeating the Xiongnu was to sell luxury goods to them for a cheap price and to get the Xiongnu along their border hooked on Chinese goods. Eventually the Xiongnu split into northern and southern factions. That was a long term strategy to defeat an opponent. Off the top of my head I can’t think of another long term cohesive strategy to defeating an enemy.

It's tragic that mass democracy is basically nihilistic in nature. If your values are decided by whatever the 51% want, then you are a reed in the wind. The Greeks had this figured out a long time ago, and Plato's Republic is a pure expression of that ideal of a divinely ordered hierarchy. Similarly, reactionaries like Moldbug argue that we'd be better off with a monarchy, because they have the sovereignty to execute a long term vision, and while I believe he's wrong about many things, that sentiment sort of rings true. In present times, where we've abolished metaphysical hierarchies and replaced them with materialist hierarchies like capitalism, if you want to execute on a long term vision, then you need to seize technocratic control to manufacture mass opinion to support it, and ruthlessly lobby politicians to execute it. That seems incredibly inefficient, and oddly more totalitarian.

I don't understand your point. What do you think the US should be doing about China? How do you even know Hanania disagrees with you on China, or on the need to respond to Islamist terrorism? Why are you in such a rush to label Hanania "dangerously misguided" when it's not even clear you disagree?

Is your position that we have to choose between complete non-interventionism and the hyperactive, incoherent, and sometimes incredibly harmful and unjust policy the US has actually pursued?

> Because there is no universe in which China's actions the past 10 years cannot be viewed as serious threat to the sovereignty of its neighbors and US interests abroad and at home. Not that China's rise should (or can be) stopped, rather that a counterbalance is a must - and only a US led alliance can achieve this.

And who helped create the China that it is today? NAFTA and entry to WTO set the stage while endless pandering to CCP to cater to cheap Chinese sweat labor and market by US companies to maximize the shareholders return in return of endless IP theft on the back of US working class was ubiquitous. Hell even when the former president was trying a trade tarriff with China, many politicians across the board opposed not because it was wrong but because the corporations that wrote them cheques were not happy. Oh but we are told China will soon turn into democracy by policy day dreamers, except it hasn’t happened in 30yrs and in all likelihood won’t happen.

You could argue the same thing with war on terror - rise of Bin Laden, rise of ISIS out of vacuums from Iraq war and Libya. It was US foreign policy that helped create these monsters. You give wrong guys weapons and training expecting them to not to turn their back on? How many times do we have to learn this? Here is one question: name one US foreign policy that has served us well in last 20yrs. Answer is none.

If China was such a big threat why would USA made itself so dependent on it? Normally we don't trade with countries we consider our enemies. Fear of China's growing influence is a new construct.

The vapidness of the state department has long been pretty remarkable. They struggle to hire people who can actually speak foreign languages because they are ‘too smart for that shit.’

At least since Nixon, it’s been a major theme that political talk in the U.S. is driven by the need to bolster our self-esteem.

People valued democracy as a process over their personal opinions.

I'd say it's one of a few things.

1. Survivorship bias.

Things that look like long-term planning is really the result of things that remain politically expedient through the years. The Constitution is (at least) the second attempt to write laws for the nation.

2. Continuous leadership: Or how no President will ever have the influence of FDR ever again and how WWII shaped the country for years to come.

When you are in charge for a while, you can plan longer. FDR won 4 terms, spent 13 years in office before dying. Navigated the country through the Depression and the second World War. Dying at the beginning of his fourth term left Truman in charge. Being his Vice President, Truman was in line with FDR's goals and continued them.

And you may think Eisenhower winning the presidency next would represent a break in the leadership, but Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in WWII. He worked closely with FDR. He ran as a Republican mostly to make sure Taft didn't get the Republican nomination. He continued New Deal programs and started the Interstate Highway system. For a Republican, he was fairly progressive, continuing many social programs and starting another. Both parties wanted Eisenhower to run under their banner. He was just a generally well regarded figure.

Following Eisenhower, we have Kennedy (WWII veteran), then Johnson (also WWII veteran). So for about 36 years, you had administrations that were invested in social programs. That were willing to continue the policies of previous administrations.

Hell, you could probably throw Nixon (WWII veteran) on that train as well. Served as Eisenhower's VP, started the EPA. He probably represents that last vestiges of FDR's influence on the office. And George HW Bush is the last President to have served in active duty during WWII.

I mean, WWII is a major pivot point for the entire world. The events that went on during that time period literally still define the world today. We hardly think about Vietnam or Korea anymore, but you can still trot out Hitler and Nazis as ultimate examples of pure evil. And even then, the Vietnamese and Korean conflicts are results of the events of WWII.

So you have all those years being led by people shaped by the same world-defining event. Who saw the value in all the same things. It's not completely out of left field that their interests would line up.

I was thinking about the downsides of losing a communist superpower (Soviet Union) last week, and how it unchecked the worst excesses of capitalism in the US.

To answer your question of “why now”: Every generation had its unifying experiences.

In the 1930s and 1940s: The Great Depression enabled FDR to become “a traitor” to his own kind, by working vigorously against the wealthiest and helping the public. I can’t help but think this enabled the US to enter WW2 as strong and motivated. Still, look closely and you’ll see the wealthiest were very unhappy with FDR but the economic and other problems were too obvious to ignore.

The 1950s to the 1980s were driven by the fear of communism and nuclear war, in the afterglow of winning WW2. Look closely and there were at some that questioned the zeal of anti-communism, but the Soviet Union was a threat that was too big to ignore.

The 1990s to the 2000s were driven by the afterglows of a belief in a more accessible and truly shared international community. Look closely and you’ll see that the American working class was being stripped apart and people were complaining.

Right now, what are the unifying raw emotions and concerns? Tap into those and you’ll find the next long-term plan.

This is what I've gathered, though I may be wrong:

The implementation of foreign policy wasn't readily be farmed out to bureaucrats (by extension, neither could responsibility for its failures). Politicians were forced to be more cognizant of it.

There was generally a consensus that the country should exist, that it should be looking out primarily for its own interests, and that it should avoid foreign entanglements. This made foreign policy decisions much simpler. No such popular consensus exists today.

When a new bureaucracy or organization is first formed it isn't an established route to power so it will tend to be filled with people interested in pursuing the goals it was created for by default. As it continues to exist, however, it attracts people who see it as just a job and people who are interested in power tend to find their way into positions of power within it. I don't think this is a hopeless struggle but you do actually have to struggle if you don't want to see entropy extract its due. The private sector has an advantage here as long as sclerotic organizations are allowed to fail.

There is an essential unifying framework: those who benefit from war, either financially or career-wise, are motivated to enter government and persuade it to make war when advantageous to them.

Luckily we can find it on our favorite online library that goes by the name of a 2015 terminator movie.

The thing about the Senate is it is bastardized tyranny by the minority. Those best able to organize always win-out, and that means large state-bound corporations and major donors become best represented by bodies like the Senate. It’s power is sustained by the appearance of fairness.