America's Role in the World: Forum

January 24, 2004

Below are the expert panelists' comments from a follow-up forum continuing the live discussion held on Januray 24, 2004.

Davis B. Bobrow

Who should benefit from Iraqi resources and reconstruction?

There are two general views. One is that benefits should be directed toward the general population of Iraq. The second is that the first claim on benefits should go to the U.S. and other nations which have participated militarily in the invasion and occupation. Each of course has lots of more specific possibilities.

The "benefit Iraqis" position still involves many choices about the relative claims of parts of the Iraqi population particularly ill-treated by the Saddam regime, and of currently living Iraqis relative to future generations. The "compensate liberators" position still involves many choices about special advantages for U.S. firms relative to those of other coalition members and of the others who participated in the invasion (e.g., the U.K. and Australia) versus those who have or will send troops later (e.g., Korea and Japan).

Several aspects are quite clear. If we mean our declarations about commitment to a new Middle East of prosperity and democracy the benefits need to go to Iraqis in general. If we believe our rhetoric about the efficiency associated with market competition, the more competition between non-Iraqi firms for the work the better will be the results on the ground. If we examine the history of oil rich countries, simply putting Iraqi nationals in control will not in itself guarantee wise management of resources or projects in the interest of the general population of Iraq. Putting foreigners in charge does not do that either.

US in Iraq—Staying On?

Of course, getting out of Iraq without leaving a functioning government and economy in line with our declared aims would be an embarrassment. Does that mean we should 'soldier on' whatever the cost and the blood? The answer surely is no.

The Weinberger-Powell Doctrine of the Reagan administration emphasized an 'exit strategy.' Without one, the U.S. would be susceptible to pouring resources into dubious investments—and keep pouring so long that there would be too much withdrawal demand in US politics to keep 'soldiering on.' Staying longer and spending more only makes sense with clear prospects of more success that way then by a prompt if incremental withdrawal. Would the US be worse off it pulls out before the dreams of Wolfowitz and Rice are realized? I think not.

After all, we have shown the ability to destroy a government we don't like. What foreign leaders would want to end up as Saddam Hussein has? And after all, we might admit that we cannot readily make a stable peace—a useful lesson for intervention romantics. There of ocourse would be an American loser—the Bush Administration, which is why it is searching for some way to claim enough success to make it seem worth staying on while Iraqis kill each other.

Recognizing Our Strengths and Our Weaknesses

I can't resist turning to a January question about whether Americans recognize our national strengths and weaknesses—using the intelligence community (IC) as an example.

The answer is pretty discouraging at least if one wants movement beyond recognizing weaknesses to fixing them. In part, that is because of a short attention span which evaporates after the "failure" headline. Promises of change are seldom monitored to see if they are honored in practice. We also are too open to "silver bullet" changes which for quite a while offer no practical help (or may even make matters worse).

Consider the assembling and opening of the bureaucratic zoo known as the Department of Homeland Security. The animals spend too much energy jockeying for the best cages and feeding programs. Or the calls to beef up "human intelligence" (spies in key spots) to counter terrorist networks. Developing and placing those agents takes many years not many days, and comes with a high prospect of casualties and deception.

Finally, like others, we like to hear what we want to hear—and we like to hear from people who seem like us. Reliance on "business suit" emigres for intelligence is a good example—and particularly when the favored few are the ones who best know how to manipulate Americans for their own purposes. The moral is an old one—if it was that easy, it would have been done already. Time to sober up.

What do we export besides jobs?

A lot is the short answer, and that is one major reason why we are vulnerable to retaliation by others to many unilateral protectionist actions we have and can take. Our having to back down in the face of credible prospects of retaliation to the Bush Administration special measures to cut steel imports are an appropriate example.

American exports tend to be of three major types: primary commodities such as grain, meat, fruit, and lumber; high technology goods such as aircraft and advanced computers; and services ranging from movies to insurance to banking. Importantly, the reliance of local and regional economies on one or another of these exports makes the politics of trade and protection a hot button issue for different groups of American producers and vendors and their political representatives. Of course, we also export capital in ways which boost the profits of US firms (if not always their taxes) and both lose and gain jobs for Americans.

How to Democratize Trade Agreements?

Trade agreements have long pregnancies and are subject to lots of open discussion and lobbying by any groups who wish to do so. They have to be ratified by the Congress to take effect. Change the incentives for Congress and the President (or would-be presidents) and what the U.S. will insist on in trade agreements will change. Low priority for labor and environmental interests in trade agreements reflects a lack of strength in U.S. domestic politics. There are in principle some alternative route to reducing the opposition of some other domestic interests and of foreign governments to trade agreements having strong labor and environmental protection elements. One is tough U.S. legislation penalizing U.S. firms whose foreign activities violate our standards at home for labor and environmental practices. Another involves campaigns in the U.S. to stop buying goods U.S. firms make abroad (or buy from abroad) whose production abuses labor or the environment. This amounts to an embarrassment and then market penalty strategy. A third which can appeal to developing country governments involves subsidies for them to improve their protections for labor and the environment. That would of course involve Congressionally authorized spending ? so we are back to the influence of different interests in U.S. politics. Changes in past and current priorities of the U.S. and of foreign governments almost certainly will require stronger activity by relevant non-governmental organization at home and abroad and active coalitions among them.

Dr. Schulyer Foerster

US in Iraq—Why?

What is now the objective of the American presence in Iraq, and is it worth the financial and human resources?

I like the word 'now' in the question ... because it recognizes that a debate about whether/how the US went into Iraq is a separate debate from what the US should be doing in Iraq, and how that's in America's interests.

Regardless whether one approved of going to war in Iraq, or the reasons for it, or the timing of it, the fact is that we're there -- and the 'we' includes not just the U.S. What's at stake? Ensuring that people look back on this and say that Iraq is better off than it was before, that it is a more open society (which may or may not meet someone's definition of 'democracy'), that it is stable, and that its future is hopeful.

The stated objectives by the US Government, of course, are that Iraq become a democratic country, serving as a model for progressive change elsewhere in the Arab world. That is a much more ambitious objective -- the debate is not that this is a desirable outcome, but whether that will happen in terms that we will recognize as a 'democracy,' or serve as a credible model for others.

Either way, however, for the U.S. to have gone to war in Iraq and then abandon it to whatever forces converge in a power vacuum in the Middle East would be a failure of US policy and leave us with a world full of more dangers than the ones we were intent on removing when we went to war.

Imposing democracy?

Do we have the right to impose our will, our democracy in other countries?

Another excellent question from the January event ...

Answer is an unequivocal 'no' ... but that's easy because of the word 'impose.' By definition, one cannot 'impose' democracy. We can insist on some of the external trappings, such as elections and parliaments, but democracy is ultimately about the people's expression of its own will, which we cannot impose.

What we can 'promote' and even (in Iraq, where we are the occupying power) 'create' are the beginnings of political and civic institutions that help Iraqis shape their own definition of their political future. Part of that may be elections ... but it may also be about shaping the rules for those elections so to ensure that there is no 'tyranny of the majority' (as our own Federalist Papers warned against). Ultimately, democracy is about respect for the rights of minorities as well as the expression of majority views. We can help promote a political culture to do that, provided we are ourselves viewed as credible and provided we take sufficient regard for the different cultures in which this is taking place.

Recognizing Our Strengths and Our Weaknesses

Davis Bobrow's sobering advice on intelligence is right on. Having spent a good part of my military career in that business, I can say that it is very much more an art than a science ... and most people have an exaggerated view of what we do and don't know.

In a radio interview I did in September 2002 with David Kay for the World Affairs Council's weekly radio program, Pittsburgh Global Press Conference on KQV AM 1410, David gave a very good run-down of what we did and didn't know about WMD in Iraq from when the UN inspections ceased in 1998. David's bottom line -- 'we don't know what we don't know.' And we still don't.

US and a global economy

What are the predicted long-term impacts of having a global economy for U.S. workers and the U.S. economy?

Big question from January ... this can only be a small answer.

First off, the question assumes the reality of a global economy, whether we like it or not -- which is the right approach. Globalization is not a policy choice -- it is a fact of life. There are lots of choices about how we respond to it ... but pretending it doesn't exist is not a realistic option.

Second, as long as we believe in the forces of the marketplace, the reality of a global marketplace will become more important than the local or national marketplace.

Which means that we will simply have to compete effectively ... not only against Ohio or Texas or California, but against China, Brazil, Mexico, etc.

On one level, nothing has changed. The most important strength in any market competition is the ability to innovate and adapt, and I don't know a single society better equipped to do that than our own.

Of course, that's a macro view -- we have been restructuring for many years to adapt to a global marketplace ... industries downsizing, manufacturing being redefined, service industries and customer service taking a dominant role ... and that means different skills are needed for our labor force. Remember the old adage told to college students a decade ago -- most of the jobs of the next decade haven't been invented yet? It's actually true, and is likely to be even more true.

So our challenge is to focus on education and training ... for kids, for young workers, mid-level workers, older folks (and there is an increasing number of us) ... rather than holding on to last decade's definition of work and career.

Which doesn't mean (and this addresses another January question of how we keep jobs here) there aren't things to do. But perhaps rather than holding on to protective subsidies, we should focus more on subsidies for retraining, or incentives for companies to grow here rather than relocate overseas.

Or perhaps insist on international rules regarding the environment, work condition, roles of unions, etc ... which is how the national economy (when that's essentially all we had) began to address issues of labor and profit.

But we have to be careful ... if we preach the merits of a free marketplace and then practice something different, others won't believe us when we tell THEM to open their marketplace too.

RE: US and a global economy

As I said in the January forum, the only real 'commodity' that we should never depend on others for is our ability to innovate through education and technology. If we really believe in a relatively free marketplace (there's no such thing as a fully free marketplace), then the answer to jobs going overseas is not government interference to shore up less than competitive industries. Rather, it is to manipulate the kinds of incentives that cause the private sector to make the business decisions it makes. And instead of spending billions subsidizing the status quo, perhaps more might be invested strategically to ensure that we can sustain a cutting-edge educated workforce AND address the inevitable dislocations that affect real human beings caught in the transition. If we manage change, we can succeed ... if we play denial games, we will lose.

Dan Simpson

RE:Who should benefit from Iraqi resources and reconstruction?

The short and long answer to this question, in my view, is 'the Iraqis'. The idea that the United States should repay itself first for having invaded and occupied the country is one purely concocted to placate the American population for having been signed on by the Bush administration to spending billions of taxpayer dollars on an ill-justified enterprise.

Wasn't part of the deal in invading Iraq to help redirect its resources away from Saddam Hussein and the 'little horrors' in his family and Tikriti clan and toward meeting the needs of the other Iraqis?

I can understand why the American taxpayer feels shafted financially by the whole affair, but it isn't fair for the United States to take its part off the top. In fact, it is doing that anyway, if one considers Halliburton, Bechtel and other 'base' businesses as 'America' -- perhaps a dubious proposition given who owns those companies.

RE:How to Democratize Trade Agreements?

The fundamental question is do you want to buy things you want as cheaply as possible -- i.e. made in China -- or do you want to spend more for things you need to keep Americans in jobs?

It gets more complicated as we see Ford Motor Company setting up an assembly plant in China, increasing the dividends it pays to its American shareholders, increasing the market for the parts of the cars that are made in the United States, etc.

Put the clamps on Chinese exports to the U.S. and the Chinese might well set up a French, Italian or Russian car assembly plan in China rather than the American one.

Then take the fact that America depends on the $1.5 billion -- yes, that's $1,500,000,000.00 -- in American Treasury bonds that Chinese, Japanese and other foreigners buy every day.

Without getting into a big Bush, anti-Bush number, that is to help cover the $500 billion budget deficit that we are looking at this year.

We want a good, reciprocal trade relationship with these dudes. We don't want to slam the door in their faces or stomp on their toes. Nor do we want them to go and do likewise.