Hawks and Doves 🦅 🕊️
Three Things #143: November 3, 2024
I don’t write about politics very often. While I’m fascinated by the politics of networks and communities like Ethereum, I’m increasingly fed up with real world politics. I don’t feel entirely comfortable writing about politics because it’s so contentious, and because I feel that it distracts me from my day job. But I do make exceptions from time to time, and this is one of those times.
Another problem is that public discourse about politics tends to be full of noise. I find it very useful to cut through the noise, zoom out, and consider the big picture. As I’ve thought about the different policy stances offered by the two presidential candidates and their parties, one thing that especially stands out is two opposite schools of thought about foreign relations and America’s role in the world. Broadly speaking, today, the Republicans are more interested in ending our involvement in foreign wars and in focusing closer to home, while the Democrats are for continuing to project American interests abroad, from Ukraine to the Middle East to Taiwan.
To be clear, these competing stances aren’t new by any means, but the question has taken on added urgency given that we’re quite possibly closer today to nuclear war than we’ve ever been before. I, for one, very much want my children and grandchildren to survive, thrive, and grow up in a world that isn’t a post nuclear post-apocalyptic hellscape. To maximize the likelihood of avoiding nuclear war, we need to understand the two competing views, their relative strengths and weaknesses, and how to reconcile them.
Thing #1: Dove 🕊️
Broadly speaking, doves are for less involvement abroad, ending the conflicts we’re already a part of, and focusing on issues closer to home. This stance is best represented today by Jeffrey Sachs, an economist and public policy analyst, and professor at Columbia University. Sachs believes that in the past 30 years we’ve gotten foreign policy all wrong. The United States has been far too aggressive and adventurous abroad, acting as a global hegemon and acting too adversarial and confrontational with foreign powers including China and Russia.
There may have been a brief period after the end of WWII up to perhaps the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union when the US really was top dog and faced no competition to speak of, but times have changed. Russia, while shrinking in terms of population and struggling economically, is increasingly assertive on the global stage under Putin. And China is well on its way to reclaiming the top spot that it abdicated hundreds of years ago. Any US foreign policy stance that imagines that the US is still the sole global hegemon and that it can act as it likes without regard for competitors and their interests is one that’s bound to end in failure, and in potentially catastrophic ways, such as nuclear war.
The three most obvious examples of where we’re wrong today are Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.
According to the doves, the Ukraine war is not in fact a war between Ukraine and Russia but rather a proxy war between the US and Russia. What’s more, the conflict was completely avoidable and its main cause is the US unnecessarily provoking Russia over the past few decades. We should’ve, and could’ve, had fruitful, peaceful relations with Russia since the end of the Cold War. Russia under Yeltsin even indicated in the nineties that it might join NATO, but ultimately Clinton rebuked Russia and decided to expand NATO into Eastern Europe against Russian protests.
In seeking to contain a perceived threat from Russia, the US has for decades been active in its backyard. Russian leaders including Yelstin and Putin were very clear about the risks of NATO expansion, but the US took no heed of these warnings. (For American readers, to put things in perspective, consider how we’d react if Russia and China were setting up military bases, reconnaissance, and missile installations in Mexico and Canada.) The US also played a key role in toppling Ukraine’s pro-Russia government in 2014, and in the Maidan revolution that followed. Russia is not fundamentally a threat to our interests, and it’s tragic and stupid that we have such a bad relationship with the country.
The situation in the Middle East is also a mess. According to the dove’s interpretation, we’ve let an extremely wealthy, influential Israel lobby force successive administrations to stand behind Israel regardless of its reckless behavior. The current Israeli government consists of right wing warmongers who aren’t at all interested in a resolution to the Palestinian crisis. Israel’s government is intentionally poking the bear, stirring up conflict in the region in the hopes of triggering a broader war with Iran, and drawing the US in further. Iran is even less of a threat than Russia and a war with Iran is not in our interest, not even a little bit. But by failing to exert pressure on Israel to solve the Palestinian crisis, and by allowing Israel to act recklessly and aggressively, such as carrying out high profile bombings and assassinations on Iranian soil, we’re highly complicit in the tragic mess of conflict that the Middle East is mired in.
That brings us to Taiwan. Like it or not, Taiwan was historically part of China, and still has extremely close historical, cultural, linguistic, and economic ties to the Mainland. It’s strategically important because it’s a free democracy, because of its strategic location, and because of its semiconductor industry, but all of these facts together don’t make it worth a war with China for a dove. Even if we maintain our current stance of strategic ambiguity, China will continue to grow in relative strength, and Xi Jinping has made it abundantly clear that reuniting China, including Taiwan, is one of his core aims, and is inevitable. He’s stated this many times in no uncertain terms, and China has been increasingly aggressive towards Taiwan militarily in recent years. We should take Xi at his word when he says that repatriating Taiwan is China’s core interest. It’s only a matter of time before China decides to retake Taiwan, by force if necessary, and, again, it’s not worth a war with China. It’s unrealistic and unreasonable to expect that the US remains a hegemon everywhere on the planet, even in China’s backyard, so to speak.
We’re rapidly moving into a future where the US is not the only hegemon, and in order to avoid a Thucydides Trap it’s essential that we accommodate a rising China, regionally if not globally. We must seek to end the Ukraine war as quickly as possible and rebuild trust with Russia, including pulling NATO back from its borders if necessary. Finally, while we should continue to support a peaceful, democratic Israel that shares our values, we must make our support for Israel conditional on progress towards a resolution of the Palestinian crisis in order to avoid getting drawn into unnecessary conflict in the Middle East.
What’s more, while we spend billions of dollars projecting power abroad, infrastructure back home is crumbling. We have an affordable housing crisis, a homelessness crisis, and a poverty crisis, just to pick from the top of the laundry list. Our education and healthcare systems aren’t in great shape. Those billions of dollars would be better spent fixing things at home.
Thing #2: Hawk 🦅
Hawks are for more interventionism abroad, and for projecting US power more aggressively. Hawks are subscribers to the realpolitik school of thought, which purports that power is the most important factor in international relations and geopolitics. This stance is best represented today by John Mearsheimer, a famous political scientist and international relations scholar, and professor at the University of Chicago, known for his focus on realpolitik and the dynamics of power on the global stage.
Hawks like Mearsheimer feel that doves like Sachs are extremely naive, and too trusting. Nation states exist in a state of anarchy: in fact, geopolitics and international law are often used as the canonical example of anarchy. There’s no world government and there’s no higher authority that can punish a state for misbehaving. Of course, bilateral and multilateral treaties and other agreements exist, and countries can apply sanctions to one another, but the overall situation is one of anarchy.
Anarchy reminds me of children playing in a sandbox when no adults are present. Who inevitably dominates in such a situation? Of course, the answer is the bully: typically the biggest, strongest, and/or bravest of the kids can push the other ones around as he pleases because none can dominate him and because there’s no higher authority for the other kids to appeal to. This, more or less, is how realpolitik works, and it’s how countries interact with one another.
Hawks are realistic, rather than idealistic, and they recognize this reality. Hawks understand that the US is the biggest, strongest, toughest kid on the block, and that it’s possible for such a hegemon to force all of the other players into submission, and into subscribing to a particular set of institutions. This can lead to peace, after a fashion: Pax Americana. Of course, the US isn’t the only powerful actor in the world and there are other would-be bullies. If the US takes a step back, Russia, China, and others would be more than happy to step up and assert themselves in their corner of the sandbox.
Enough with the metaphors. Let’s bring things back to reality and examine the same three aforementioned conflicts through the eyes of the hawk.
Let’s start with Ukraine. The Ukraine war is what you’ve heard described in the mainstream media: a righteous conflict, pushing back against an expansionist Russia. Putin has said that the collapse of the former USSR was “a major geopolitical disaster of the century.” He believes in rebuilding the former Russia empire, and he made it clear through campaigns in Georgia and Crimea that he doesn’t respect the sovereignty of Russia’s neighbors, especially those that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. If he succeeds in Ukraine there’s no saying where he might go next.
The Ukraine war is thus very similar to the Vietnam and Korean wars, which were about containing the spread of communism. If the international community, and especially Europeans, fail to push back against Russian aggression abroad, especially in Ukraine, they’ll send a message to Russia that this expansionist behavior is acceptable. Russia may not be communist anymore, but under Putin the Russian system is neither democratic nor free and it doesn’t share our values. According to this view, resisting Russia is the only way to protect democracy and freedom in the West.
With respect to the Middle East, Israel is a sovereign state that has the right to defend itself. It’s under constant threat and, indeed, constant attack from Gaza, Lebanon, and, increasingly, Iran. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense, and sometimes that defense must take the form of aggressive campaigns in Gaza and abroad, as we’ve seen recently.
Ultimately, Israelis want peace, and this is the aim of all Israeli campaigns. The Palestinians have had generations to organize and elect leaders that can engage constructively with Israel to secure peace, but they’ve collectively chosen instead to back the likes of Hamas, a terrorist organization whose official stance is that Israel has no right to exist. This isn’t exactly fertile ground for constructive dialog. Iran is increasingly a menace and is increasingly active in the region, backing terrorists from Yemen to Palestine to Lebanon. Sadly, the only language that carries weight in the region is violence, and Israel has no choice but to defend itself violently given the violent threats it faces.
Last but not least, there’s Taiwan, which is extremely strategically important for several reasons, as mentioned above. Firstly, as a shining beacon of successful, free Chinese democracy, it’s a thorn in China’s side because it offers a clear alternative to CCP rule: it shows what a vibrant, free Chinese democracy can look like. For this reason alone it’s essential that it be defended. Secondly, its semiconductor industry literally powers the world, and it’s essential that China not have unfettered access to the most sophisticated semiconductors and chip technology. It’s also essential that China not be able to embargo this technology from the rest of the world. For these reasons Taiwan’s semiconductor industry should be defended at all costs. Finally, Taiwan’s location as a key part of the first island chain, from the Philippines to Japan, is militarily and geopolitically strategic. It allows containment of Chinese naval and air power to the Sea of China, and it’s critical for freedom of navigation.
In summary, the simple game theory of geopolitics dictates that there’s no way that countries like Iran, China, and Russia are ever going to play nice, or by American rules. They may feign nice for a while as a ploy, but if the US and its allies roll over and allow these chaotic actors to dominate, it’ll mean the end of democracy and freedom as we know it, which would be a real tragedy. Ours is not a perfect system, but it does represent the best chance the world has of continuing peaceful, prosperous growth. A dominant, assertive US is the best way to prevent this.
Thing #3: Equilibrium 🤸♂️
Whenever I think about geopolitics, realpolitik, and balance of powers, I can’t help but remember Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, there’s a perpetual war among the three superstates: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. The war is perpetual because even two of the superstates together aren’t able to fully defeat the third superstate. The alliances in the perpetual war are constantly shifting, so that at times Oceania is allied to Eurasia, and at times it’s allied to Eastasia, but every time the alliances change, all propaganda and history are rewritten by the euphemistically-named Ministries of Peace and Truth to make it look like it’s always been that way. It’s a truly dystopian novel, but it doesn’t feel far from our reality today. (Note that I talked extensively about three superpowers, above.)
I feel like we’re dangerously close to getting trapped in a Nineteen Eighty-Four style perpetual war. During the Cold War era, the two superpowers were the USSR and the US. Today, it’s the US and China, but Russia remains a superpower, for now at least. Because of the hawkish actions on the part of the United States, as described above, China and Russia (as well as many other global powers) are being drawn together, to our foolish detriment. But it may not always be that way. Perhaps, a generation from now, the US and Russia might be allied against China: Oceania and Eurasia vs. Eastasia, as in the book. None of these superpowers is powerful enough to destroy the others; and, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four, an alliance of two also isn’t powerful enough to eliminate the third. The planet is a big place, there’s room for multiple powers, and there are limits to scale.
In my mind, the key question isn’t whether doves or hawks are right. (Both are right about some things and wrong about others.) The key question is, how do we avoid two worst-case outcomes? The first is a game-theoretic stalemate perpetual war like the one in Nineteen Eighty-Four. The second is worse: nuclear war. As Reagan and Gorbachev put it, nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and as Annie Jacobsen so eloquently and terrifyingly lays out in her recent book, a nuclear war today is a worst case scenario for humanity that would play out in mere hours and would result in billions of deaths.
To be frank, I’m not totally sure that either scenario can be avoided, especially given the dismal state of our leadership at present. But given what’s at stake, we have to try. And, unsurprisingly, I’m sure that the most hopeful path forward lies not at either extreme described above, but through a middle way.
On the one hand, we must not be overly antagonistic, adversarial, or confrontational. We must recognize that China, in particular, has every right to play a first class role on the world stage, as it did historically. This is true even if we don’t agree with its politics or share all of its values. We further have to recognize that, due to its different interests, China will never fit comfortably into the existing, American-led world order, including many of the international institutions that it took the lead in developing and running. China has already begun to respond with institution-building of its own, and we should celebrate this.
We also have to accommodate China playing a larger role regionally. There are no easy answers regarding conflict like that over Taiwan, but I remain optimistic and confident that, if we focus on building a stronger bilateral relationship and a stronger bilateral understanding, and if we focus on long-term outcomes, we can work things out peaceably. We must similarly recognize that we’ve acted irresponsibly and recklessly in unnecessarily provoking Russia, and we must take similar steps to improve communication and mutual understanding with Russia as well.
On the other hand, we must also recognize that different states necessarily have different values and different interests, and, as much as it pains me to say so, world peace isn’t likely to happen anytime soon (at least until we face a greater threat, in the form of a collapsing climate, alien life or, more likely, sentient AI). China and Russia aren’t likely to suddenly begin defending US interests around the world if we step back from doing so ourselves. And a world without a strong US globally defending values like freedom and democracy isn’t a better world; it’s a world with a terrifying power vacuum, and bad actors will be drawn to that vacuum like moths to a flame.
We need to continue to maintain our military so that there’s a credible deterrent to antisocial behavior on the part of other powers. We shouldn’t hesitate to defend ourselves, and our allies, against real threats. We should always attempt to resolve conflict diplomatically, but we should also communicate clearly about our bright lines, and when they’re crossed, we should respond, militarily if necessary. We should speak softly and carry a big stick, and use that stick sparingly and cautiously but boldly when necessary.
The issues we face are increasingly complex and increasingly global, and it’s increasingly the case that we can’t address them on our own. As always, that which unites us is far greater than that which separates us, and the only way out is through, together.
I learn a lot every time I listen to John Mearsheimer speak, and am surprised you listed him as a prime example of a hawk. His take on Ukraine exactly matches what you described a dove's as, and he wrote a whole book about the Israel lobby.