The Center Cannot Hold: Warning From an Old Reagan Hand
My mentor in world politics is Dr. Norman A. Bailey, who served as Special Assistant to President Reagan for National Security during his first administration. When I first met Norman in 1981, he told me that America’s economic recovery and arms buildup would cause Russian Communism to implode by 1987. He was two years off. At the time I thought him a dangerous lunatic, and signed up immediately; I did a variety of jobs for Norman, and joined his consulting firm after he left government service. Along with Bill Casey, George Shultz, Alexander Haig, William Clark, Richard Pipes, Michael Ledeen and a few others, Norman was part of the tiny band that set out to win the Cold War and did.
I am frightened about about the state of the world; more than 1979, in the miserable denouement of the Carter administration, everything seems to be going wrong at once. I asked Norman for his current views, and he responded with the missive below. It is something to ponder.
Entropy is the natural tendency of all things to “dis-integrate” unless held together by a counter-force. In international relations that counter-force is usually a hegemonic power, starting with the Pax Romana and continuing with Byzantium, the Caliphate, Venice, Spain, Great Britain and the United States.
During each interregnum in this process the forces of entropy gain strength and a greater or lesser degree of anarchy grips the world community, both domestically and internationally.
We are currently in such an interregnum. It is sufficient to mention a United States, in 2000 all-powerful, now with its future mortgaged for many generations to come; a literally disintegrating Europe; Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Sudan, and the list goes on.
The weakening hegemonic power has put the world on notice that it is going to concentrate on Asia, and the rest of the world be damned.
Leadership is a void among powers great and small. The European crisis could be resolved by issuing bonds replacing the bonds of the insolvent (NOT illiquid) countries with replacement issues, reducing face value or reducing interest and lengthening maturity, like the Brady bonds that resolved the less-developed-countries’ debt crisis of the eighties. The end of the euro could be managed intelligently and gradually, declaring that for legal purposes all private contracts denominated in euros will be deemed to be denominated in dollars at the rate of exchange of the date of signing.
The Iranian government could be put on notice that unless nuclear weapon preparations are halted AND DISMANTLED the economic infrastructure of the country will be destroyed. Hopeless cases such as Afghanistan would be isolated, regimes such as Zimbabwe would be ostracized, but challenges to the national interest of the great powers, emerging and declining, would be dealt with by non-military means and only in the case of a threat to national security would military action be contemplated, thus avoiding future Iraqs.
But rational leadership is missing almost everywhere; confusion, doubt and delay hold sway while the forces of entropy gather strength and scope. The lack of an obvious new hegemonic power retards resolution of any of the manifold challenges.
For a small country like Israel, the lesson is clear while the current interregnum persists; resolutely and persistently pursue national interests and defend national security by exploiting the many openings and opportunities offered by the entropic developments. Outdated concepts and policies must be abandoned and new policies adoipted and pursued.
Above all, know what is going on and instead of hand-wringing, grasp the moment and make the most of it.
David Goldman quotes Norman Bailey: “Entropy is the natural tendency of all things to “dis-integrate” unless held together by a counter-force. In international relations that counter-force is usually a hegemonic power….”
No, not true. Entropy is kept at bay by physically perturbing the system. Thermodynamic losses occur (or can be calculated) only when a system is at momentary rest. Smaller and progressively smaller regions of the system gain in complexity (economic activity, in this case). Entropy – a simplification or reduction in information – itself dissipates in the perturbations. Frankly, that is the deep reason that I support individualism or small units (family, small business, community, city) and not Communist centralization of function. We step ahead in knowledge as we perturb the system through activity simply because there is more information available as a result of the perturbations. This is a strange world and we fully fail to appreciate even a part of its functioning.
I think you are right, Jerry, yet many will equate your call for perturbing the system as “neocon” activism – i.e. they will denounce it in the name of countless potential “victims” of the change anyone (even a decentralized one) who perturbs will induce. In the short if not long-term, acting creates allege “losers” of any newly-asymmetric relationship necessarily created by someone taking a lead. As long as the many remain enthralled to victimary logic, then those who would act (at any level) only perturb a “do nothing to victimize” counter reaction and we remain locked in place, entropic.
So entropy will only be kept at bay if we can overcome the culture’s obeisance to victimary thinking, and rehabilitate respect for initiative that transforms in little steps. And I think you are right that this will come less from building up a hegemon as thinking through the need for “decentralized” (omni-centralized) generation of new relationships – always, by their nature, asymmetric at the start. We might need to remember that the American “hegemon” was, unlike some empires, rather indebted to the initiative of its citizens in many instances.
So interesting! Truepeers, I never called for perturbing any system. I simply stated a matter of fact. When people get tired of Obama entropic policies, they will perturb the system if they are not shackled. Communism was overthrown when it become too entropic to bear. So too with Rome! Indeed, countries at war win or lose based upon which army or population first becomes too simple or devoid of energy to function. Those social commentators who envision the downfall of a group or a system, are right or wrong based upon considerations of energy loss. Indeed, I am glad that I will not be around when we finish burning our oil and gas unless we find alternatives. Energy availability – any form you choose to describe – determines the upper limits of complexity of a society. There is a fellow around at the Santa Fe Institute (Weinstein?) who expresses the idea that complexity results from excess energy availability. This makes a lot of sense and clearly describes the differences between “Liberals” who wish to expend more energy on services (expanded government)and “Conservatives” who wish to conserve energy (small government) since they view energy as a limited commodity. Sudan and Afghanistan are perfect examples of groups of people that have insufficient energy to produce services for their peoples. Why that is the case is an important question, but it all swings on entropy as the underlying principle.
I now realize (after having completed my initial comment) that this process of system perturbation is indeed well-known in the field of economics. It is called “creative destruction.”
Spengler – Thank you for posting a new piece by Dr. Bailey. I was surprised that many short pieces by him are available on the internet. Readers may find the following monograph on economic warfare against the USSR by the Reagan administration to be very interesting reading, http://www.iwp.edu/news_publications/book/the-strategic-plan-that-won-the-cold-war.
My only disagreement with Dr. Bailey’s current RX for the U.S. is the recommended action against Iran: “The Iranian government could be put on notice that unless nuclear weapon preparations are halted AND DISMANTLED the economic infrastructure of the country will be destroyed”. That’s too neat and likely impossible to enforce on the ground over the long term. For a permanent solution, how about removing the Nazi-wannabe regime in Tehran? It’s surprising that a guy involved in crushing the USSR wouldn’t recommend the same RX for Khamenei and Ahmadinijad.
Something to ponder, indeed.
I am reminded of French general Ferdinand Foch’s famed words during the 1914 Battle of Marne: “Hard pressed on my right; center is yielding; impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent, I shall attack!”
If center cannot hold, it may be the right time to attack.
Now about what “attacking” means… one may have different interpretations
“For a small country like Israel, the lesson is clear while the current interregnum persists; resolutely and persistently pursue national interests and defend national security by exploiting the many openings and opportunities offered by the entropic developments.” This seems to be a euphemism for Israel reaching out to Russia, China and India, heck, even Brazil since Petrobras is going to have some expertise in deep water drilling that would be useful in the Med. Just don’t tell Frank Gaffney.
Bailey’s advice: take hold of Fortune and ravish her.
> At the time I thought him a dangerous lunatic
There is an excellent article along the same ideas about Dick Cheney. The author, John Perry Barlow, a co-founder of EFF, says “I remember a time years ago when I was as convinced that Dick Cheney was obscenely wrong about something I am now.”. Good company to this writing.
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200302/msg00186.html
Vilmos
Hegemonic seccession can be a new hegemon or a second period of being hegemon by a country.
In 1776, England was world hegemon, having won that title from France in the French and Indian War of the 1760s. There was a rematch in the 1810s with the Napolenanic Wars where England won a second time. One can argue that Germany challenged England in WWI but fought to a draw. The US should have picked up the title, as we were the most powerful country economically but Wilson blew it and the 20′s and 30′s saw a period without a real hegemon, or at least one willing and able to act the part.
Hence Germany thinking it could try again – our weakness lead to WWII. With the close of that war, America finally realized it HAD to take the responsibilities of world hegemon and sought to make the role pay. Today, we’re heading into the twilight of the end of our hegemonic period. Like England, we can restore ourselves and face and defeat (or intimidate) a challenge that is sure to come, perhaps by the end of the decade – China thinks it can be a contender.
Will the US restore itself in strength, vitality, and leadership to meet the challenger and win a second era as hegemon? I think this election will foretell that outcome.
As for Israel, they can can follow the example of the US. Our War of 1812, while not a hegemonic challenge to England, at least showed them the we were a serious country and had to treated as a partner in the world system. During the coming hegemonic challenge, they can be strong, resolute, and well-armed. Like the US in the War of 1812, “don’t give up the ship!”