Introduction and the Madman Theory

by Andrew

First, as should be obvious, I'm the new poster hilzoy mentioned. I'm a Major in the United States Army Reserve. I served ten years on active duty before moving to the reserves, and I've been on active duty since January 2003. I've been blogging since October 2001 over at andrewolmsted.com, and it's an honor to have been asked to contribute over here at Obsidian Wings, one of my favorite blogs. In fact, in a recent interview I listed Obsidian Wings as one of five blogs I'd recommend. I'll do my best to maintain the high standards of Obsidian Wings.

And given the interest in North Korea in hilzoy's open thread, that seems an excellent place to start. I'm not a subscriber to The New Republic, so I can't read the details of John Judis' piece that inspired Matt Yglesias to wonder if anyone really subscribes to the 'madman theory' of international politics. Matt's synopsis:

This is, roughly speaking, the idea that the United States is beset by a number of leaders who are "crazy" and might just attack the country for what amounts to no reason at all. If you believe the world is like this, there's a whole new approach to national security policy that suddenly makes sense. Judis writes that "the Bush administration, backed by Democrats as well as Republicans, has conducted foreign policy in this bizarre manner--and the results have been predictably disastrous."

While I can't argue with Judis' description of the results, I think that the madman theory cannot be ruled out as one input to our foreign policy. Not because I think we are beset by madmen, but because perfectly sane people frequently do things that appear mad to others. I particularly enjoyed Diane's comment regarding the sanity of Operation Iraqi Freedom in the open thread, and that seems like a good place to illustrate the point. I'll certainly agree that OIF was a mistake (full disclosure: I didn't think so at the time), but it doesn't seem like an insane mistake to me, likely because I was for it before I was against it and therefore understand some of the logic that could have gone into that decision. I think we should have stayed out of Iraq, but I don't think that advocating the invasion per se makes one insane. It just suggests that the people making the decision failed to properly anticipate the consequences of their decision. If that makes you insane, then I suspect the vast majority of us have been crazy at one point or another.

But if people can think that President Bush is crazy for that decision, how much more crazy might foreign leaders appear to us? Again, I'm not saying that they are crazy, only that they may well do things that appear crazy from our perspective. What does Kim Jong-Il really want, for example? I assume that is primary goal is to keep himself in power, but if that were all he wants he could do it easily enough by keeping his mouth shut and not making himself appear such a threatening figure. Maybe he has other goals, like simply getting the world to pay attention to him so he can think he's a world figure. Maybe he really believes that the United States is working to remove him from power by any means necessary (a not-unreasonable thesis after Iraq), and his actions are akin to an animal's threat display when it feels threatened, trying to make himself appear too difficult target to make his removal worthwhile. Or maybe he really is completely insane, in which case we've got a real problem.

Therein lies the challenge to conducting our foreign policy. Even assuming he's a rational actor, we can't assume he'll react the same way we would in his shoes, because his perceptions and perspectives are vastly different from our own. What seems wholly illogical to us may seem the only reasonable response to the other guy. Saddam Hussein provides another excellent object lesson. Here in the United States, it was pretty obvious we were going to war and we were going to remove him from power by late 2002. Yet it's clear now that Hussein honestly believed that the United States was not going actually evict him from office, in part because he knew that he had no more WMDs and he assumed that we knew that as well. I suspect most of us assumed that Hussein still had WMDs because he acted like he did, and I know I believed that Hussein would show us he was in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 687 if he was, in fact, in compliance. We now know that Hussein assumed that we had much better intelligence than we did, and that he could use the uncertainty provided by not formally complying with the resolution to create doubt in the minds of the Iranian government. Viewed in that light, Hussein's actions appear reasonable. Looking at what was happening at the time, it seemed like he was quite crazy. With the greater challenge of knowing what is happening inside North Korea, interpreting Kim Jong-Il's actions to determine if they're rational or irrational is not possible with any degree of certainty.

That does not excuse a foreign policy that acts on the madman theory without a great deal more intelligence than our agencies have proved capable of providing. While I cannot be certain of the sanity of any world leader, the process of becoming leader of an entire nation requires a certain degree of reason. A leader wholly detached from reality would be relatively easy to remove from power, since he might well not even notice the preparations (or even the fact he had been removed from power, for that matter). To stay on top of a military dictatorship requires a certain degree of understanding of human nature and a great deal of sensitivity to events occurring in one's immediate vicinity. It seems logical, then, to assume that a world leader is rational in the absence of significant evidence to the contrary. Which means that when someone like Kim does something we see as irrational, our first impulse ought to be to ask ourselves what we don't know about his situation that makes such an action appear logical, rather than assuming that he's nuts and we can either ignore him or should take preemptive action to remove him. Even with a leader like Kim Jong-Il, in possession of nuclear weapons and on the way to owning intercontinental ballistic missiles, leaders should maintain a conservative (in the basic sense of the word, not relating to a particular ideology) foreign policy that attempts to understand other nations so we can deal with them effectively via diplomacy rather than force of arms.

Comments

[dmbeaster]

The mistake is thinking for a second that North Korea is ruled by madmen.

They want to stay in power, and are willing to do most anything to maintain or increase that power. Their primary need is to get economic benefits since they have wrecked the ability of their own nation to provide the needed productivity. The risk that they will sell their nuclear secrets or weapons to terrorists is probably the biggest threat they represent.

The current situation is a direct result of the Bush decision to increase the threats against the regime as a device to influence their behavior -- the anti-Clinton doctrine. Except the threats have been hollow, and the North Koreans know it. They are waiting to see what they will get in exchange for ratcheting down their own belligerence.

The problem with threatening violence (the Bush doctrine) to coerce what you want means that you are out of tricks when your bluff is called -- unless you actually then start the violence. Given the course of events in Iraq, even if the Bush crowd wanted to go to the next level with North Korea, they cannot do so.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"However, this doesn't, at least to me, square with your disagreements with the Agreed Framework as well as your suggestions that we simply withdraw from South Korea (and presumably from Japan?) as well as withdrawing from the NPT. Either you want to defend SK and Japan or you don't, but I'd ask you not to invoke the threat to Tokyo merely as a debating point."

Part of my problem with South Korea is that they don't seem to want us there. I don't think I've ever said anything about Japan. And I don't see any reason to withdraw from the NPT, but it is clear that the NPT is irrelevant to the situation in North Korea. The UN doesn't want to bother making an attempt to enforce the NPT so it just doesn't matter.

[liberal japonicus]

One could suggest that this means a nuke in downtown Seoul is ok, but one in Tokyo isn't, though I'm sure you have a nuanced explanation.

Also, I can tell that there are a number of Japanese who don't seem to want us here (google Futenma or Kadena and protest)

Also, a situation where we would not want to defend SK, yet still have forward force projection in Japan, seems a bit forced.

[Jesurgislac]

CharleyCarp: The President was re-elected, which to some may well be enough to call the Iraq policy a success.

Since Bush lost the 2000 election, he couldn't be re-elected, and we have no idea who actually won 2004 election. But those who take for granted without question that Bush was "re-elected" probably overlap to a large degree with those who are certain either that Iraq is a success, or that it will be soon (because, after all, the Bush administration keeps saying that the turning point has been reached).

[CharleyCarp]

Jes, you know perfectly well what I meant. I've no doubt that I feel as strongly about the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections as you do, but I think we are in complete disagreement about what to do about it. 'Move on' strikes me as the only liveable alternative.

And yes, while I have plenty of blame for Bush's people for 2000, I think there's a special place in hell for the spoiled-brat lefty types who went around saying that Al Gore wasn't good enough, that there was insufficient difference between Bush and Gore, and that people should vote for Nader to send a signal. I don't think Bush 'stole' as many votes in Florida as Nader. (By stole, I mean deprived by various means). Continued harping about Bush's electoral 'victories' isn't the same as Nader 2000, but it's that philosophy's roommate. It does precisely nothing to help us win at the next turn of the wheel. (OK, I mean that in a 'net' sense).

[Jesurgislac]

CharleyCarp: 'Move on' strikes me as the only liveable alternative.

Only if you're prepared to live with a government chosen for you, not elected by vote. Given that the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged, and the candidate on whose behalf they were rigged got in, and the people who rigged the elections got away with it... what makes you think they'll stop there?

[dutchmarbel]

Hi Andrew, welcome and I'm glad to see a rational reasonable right leaning poster as an addition to the ObwiHivemind :)

Due to personal circumstances I have no time to participate in the debate. So this is just a welcome comment.