Hmm, maybe talking about the "war fantasy" may have better luck. You know what a war fantasy is, we see it in movies all the time. "We'll be greeted as liberators." "Shock and Awe." "It'll be a cakewalk."

Even hard-bitten military types understand what a "war fantasy" is.

And for the other, how about, "full persuasion". Or "full-court press". Military force is there, but as only one part of a multi-legged solution, and mostly held in reserve. You could talk about how we're not using every means we could be using, because our fixation with military power forecloses them.

"Remember Vietnam?" worked so well.

How about "salesmanship," "bribery," "co-opting," "buying out" or "cynical manipulation"?

You can't compete with "hard power"--any other sort of power, including "smart power," just seems like less power and stinks of smarmy idealism. The message that has to be sent is that we're tough, mean and ruthless and will stop at nothing to bend others to our will, but that it doesn't take military force to do it.

Doing without the word "power" opens up lots of possibilities. "Influence", for example, and there are lots more.

"Remember Vietnam?" worked so well.

The thing is, it kinda DID work, for about thirty years. Before 9/11 and before Iraq, politician were deathly afraid of accumulating war casualties and never signed on to open-ended engagments, keeping most military operations brief and limited in scope. I'm not gonna say that Grenada, Panama, the Gulf War, Somalia, and Kosovo were teh awesome, but they were cautiously managed because of the specter of Vietnam.

Ezra, what you fail to understand is that [insert future proposed war here] is completely different from Iraq. The fact that you would even bring up Iraq shows that you don't understand the vast and terrifying threat [insert country or organization] poses to each and every one of us.

Furthermore, bringing up Iraq at all in any kind of discussion is in extremely poor taste. [Patchouli joke optional].

Ok, this whole thing seems pretty silly to me. I'm well aware of the power of framing and word choice. However the debate of soft power vrs hard power is not taking place in the mainstream. This is a debate that is happening in foreign policy circles, not with the average American. When portions of this debate even make it in to the mainstream it's rarely put in terms of hard vrs soft power. The people who use these terms know what they mean and aren't being unduly influenced by the connotations of hard vrs soft.

Make it true. Real Power. Not phony power. Not power. There is power in speaking truth, and in defining the other sort as fake. A recital of the history of fake power wouldn't hurt.

I also thought of "influence," but Vance Maverick suggested it first.

No offense meant, Jason K., but where have you been for the past 20 years? "Save Social Security," the "Death Tax," the "War on Terror," "Contract with America" -- untold thousand of people who should have known better have gotten caught up in the catch phrase and forgotten the original facts.

Strategic power? Isn't hard power "strategic power" as well?

"No offense meant, Jason K., but where have you been for the past 20 years? "Save Social Security," the "Death Tax," the "War on Terror," "Contract with America" -- untold thousand of people who should have known better have gotten caught up in the catch phrase and forgotten the original facts."

As I stated I was not suggesting that framing, for example the Death Tax, is not powerful in public debates. My thesis is that Hard vrs Soft power is not a debate that is going on in the general public. Soft vrs hard power are terms I've only really heard used in academic settings. The terms seem to be a handy short hand for the minority of people who really focus on foreign policy.

I guess if ordinary sanity, competence, and the kinds of common sense collective work which happens all the time around the world doesn't have a catchy name which appeals to normally crazy hawks, I guess maybe it's not worth pursuing.

Since you mention Dick Armitage.

Windy's Matt Blake today:

"Shadow Intelligence Community" Spotlighted

Tim Shorrock at Salon has a great piece of investigative reporting on, what he calls, "the intelligence industrial complex." [...]

Dick Armitage’s business practices are specifically targeted. While Deputy Secretary of State in Bush’s first term, Armitage had cultivated an image of an administration maverick critical of the Iraq War. Now Armitage splits time amongst being adviser for the McCain campaign, adviser to the Pentagon, and a stakeholder in several companies profiting off the war Armitage opposed. ...
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/shadow-intelligence

Oops, my bad. Anonymous @ 10:52 was me.

My thesis is that Hard vrs Soft power is not a debate that is going on in the general public. Soft vrs hard power are terms I've only really heard used in academic settings. The terms seem to be a handy short hand for the minority of people who really focus on foreign policy.

I think Ezra posted something about this several months ago when Obama first started talking about diplomacy with Iran. We really need to be pushing the idea that a liberal foreign policy is responsible and conservatives are reckless and dangerous.

If you're getting rid of "soft" and "power" then why not just go with "common sense".

Seems like that's what most of the arguments boil down to.

I also thought of "influence," but Vance Maverick suggested it first.

'Sway' is a term that seems to belong to historical and fantasy novels these days, and that's a pity.

I will put it more strongly, since nobody has noticed me. Calling soft power "strategic power" is the equivalent of calling suicide bombers "homicide bombers." It's a tautology.

In what way are ICBMs or Aircraft Carriers not strategic power?

But the "power" part is instrumental. In foreign policy, the only real meaning of the word "power" is the ability to bend other actors to your will. Hard power is coercion, soft power is because the other actors wish to do what you want, either because they agree with your goals or they trust you to act in their mutual interest.

Perhaps instead of hard and soft we can call it "coercive power" and "subtle power". But I'm not sure. I view hard power as highly limited, the more we use the less we are able to use in the future. And it can be diplomatic - the threat of war can be as effective or moreso than war itself. But because we used hard power unnecessarily in Iraq, with regards to Iran, we are less able to go to war, and as such our threats of war are less, well, threatening.

I guess I still like "subtle power" for "soft power", but a new word for "hard power" that signifies the limited nature of it would be useful.

Can someone provide a single example where this has worked?

How about an example where Barack Obama actually convinced someone based on his words to reverse their current position?

Hell, he can't even convince Hillary to get out of the race or convince his own preachers to shut up.

Where is his vaunted power of persuasion by talking to people??

The Barack you seek has never existed, so you've created him in your own minds....

Maybe I'm too easily satisfied here, but what about "leadership"?

Cheers,
Cheryl

There is no substitute for winning.

If we had quickly 'won' the war in Iraq, and quickly 'won' the war against Al Queda we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Nothing works better then overwhlming force. Bush was sold Rumsfelds' and many on the lefts notion that you no longer needed large armies with lots of troops.

The left no longer recognizes it, but Bush followed their model for several years until Petreaus convicned him it didn't work and overwhelming force was necessary.

We had years of trying to use smaller forces working with the Iraqis to build their own internal forces.
The entire enterprise in Iraq was turned over to the State Dept after Saddam Governemnt fell. This was typical left wing ideology of having the State Dept settle everything after Saddam was gone. THAT STRATEGY FAILED MISERABLY. We talked, we negotiated, we spent years trying it the 'soft' way, with 'soft' troops being nice building schools, waterworks, all the stuff that Clintons embargo destroyed.

What we got back was alot of IEDs and tactical attacks meant to cause casualties along with pressure from Al Quedas allies here at home to convince us to surrender.

Being nice didn't work. The surge worked, combat force engaging and killing the enemy worked. Taking the power away from the nice talkers at the State Dept worked.

BeenthereDonethat, the question of hard power vs soft power happens long before we discuss what level of force to use. If diplomacy is used effectively, then there is no war in Iraq [b]to[/b] win or lose.

Can someone provide a single example where this has worked?

"Sane power" vs. "whacked-out chest-beating".

"Mature power" vs. "frat-boy towel-snapping".

"Smart power" vs. "barking-mad lunatic war-mongering".

"Strategic power" vs. "faux-macho bullying wimpiness".

"Comprehensive, intelligent foreign and national security policy" vs. "monkeyfuck insane belligerence as compensation for having an unusually small penis".

The old word for this was "Pull".

The old motto (from "the Peter Principle", among others) was "Never Push when you can Pull."

I'm with cduck.

Hmmmm, what about "girl power"?

"Strength."

Philly brought up the fact that since Vietnam we where;

"keeping most military operations brief and limited in scope."

The disastrous results this had in Somalia should be discussed. We where undermanned, had the wrong equipment and insufficient amounts of what we did have. Our military should only be used when we are fully behind the need for it’s use and willing to accept the ramifications that use brings.

We held back on soldiers and the type of equipment we sent because we didn’t want it to appear to be a larger engagement then it was, we didn’t want to concern the citizens and other stupid political reasons. That sort of political calculation has no role in military and why Clinton will be one of the worse commanders in chief we ever had. It is traitorous to send our military into any conflict with one hand tied behind its back.

Progressives always want to compare their perceived failure of this Iraq war to Vietnam, lets do the far more accurate comparison to Somalia. That war had all the stupid ideas Progressives propose now.

10/7/93

“President Clinton Thursday ordered 5,300 new combat troops and an aircraft carrier to Somalia "to protect our troops and to complete our mission," and at the same time he announced that he would bring all American combat forces home by March 31.”

Lack of support – check
Timeline for withdrawal – check

“He said the objective of the new deployment was to give the Somalis a reasonable prospect of survival in conditions of near-anarchy and factional warfare. Regardless of the success of the new mission, he vowed to end the U.S. military presence in Somalia in six months.”

Change of mission/expansion – check

Question, why didn’t you complain about Clinton’s “surge” to stop civil war and protect innocent citizens in Somalia like you do about Bush’s in Iraq? Is 5K troops ok to risk their lives 30K not? You just like Somalis more then Iraqis?

“In his first public explanation of why American troops were in that lawless land and when they would be getting out, Clinton said he had rejected calls from Congress and elsewhere to "cut and run" from Somalia because he believed that both Somali lives and American credibility were at stake.”

A clueless congress more worried about sound bites and votes then executing a war and our soldiers’ lives – check

If Bush gave this Clinton speech verbatim would you now support him?

“"We face a choice," the president said. "Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive?"

Wow these words are amazing, look how true they where…

“"Our own credibility with friends and allies would be severely damaged," he said. "Our leadership in world affairs would be undermined at the very time when people are looking to America to help promote peace and freedom in the post-Cold War world. And all around the world, aggressors, thugs and terrorists will conclude that the best way to get us to change our policies is to kill our people. It would be open season on Americans."

Unfortunately I took the death of 12 Soldiers and 78 getting wounded for Clinton to put aside the politics and start fighting the right away, sadly he screwed even this up and we have suffered the consequences since.

"This past week's events make it clear that even as we prepare to withdraw from Somalia, we need more strength there," Clinton said. "We need more armor, more airpower, to ensure that our people are safe and that we can do our job."

Why was the firefight in south Mogadishu such a disaster for the U.S.A.? What went wrong? Why were U.S. soldiers on the ground without armed vehicles? Why were they not backed up and protected by sufficient firepower from the air? To a very great extent, the source of the problems that plagued the Rangers in executing their mission was the fact that, prior to the firefight, the Clinton Presidency repeatedly denied the requests of the Special Operations team for Bradley Fighting Vehicles (on-ground armored vehicles) and for AC-130 gunships (propeller-driven aircraft designed to fly around battlefields and deliver highly accurate and destructive gunfire on enemy ground forces). U.S. Secretary of Defense Aspin, admitting that the refusal to make available the requested armored vehicles and gunships was a serious mistake, took full responsibility for the error and its disastrous results, even though he knew the real responsibility lay with Commander-in- Chief Clinton.
http://www.geocities.com/way_leroy/ProConVolTwoIssueOnePage7.html

"""Can someone provide a single example where this has worked?
Nixon and China """

Ohhh, so that's how soft diplomacy works. We give you everything you want and in return China:

Ends its forced one child policy. NOT

Ends the threat to Taiwan? NOT

Taiwan thrown out of UN, China admitted? YES, Great JOB!! NOT.

Ends the terrorizing of Tibet? NOT

Stops stealing intellectual property? NOT

Becomes a democracy? NOT

Stop supporting the North Vietnamese communists? NOT

China stop propping up the rulers of North Korea who are literally killing an entire civilization day by day. NOT!

US recognized the Communists as the legitimate rulers even though they came to power by force and remained in power only by force and were not representaties of the people. YES! Goody for the communists!

Wow, so this soft diplomacy is exactly what the right has claimed. We make nice and our adversaries take us for suckers and lie and cheat and steal they way forward at our expense.

Now I get it.

Well I guess their not shooting down people in cold blood in Tainamen square ..so that's a good thing......

Nixon secured normalized trade relations with China, opening up a huge market. As a result of trade, they've been liberalizing. Slowly? Yes. But they are more liberal than they were.

Way to cherry pick facts, anonymous. And nice of you to have the courage of providing an identity for your intellectual bankruptcy.

"Smart power" doesn't work. It's gotta be a term that Republicans can adopt themselves.

"Strategic power" doesn't work either, it doesn't clearly distinguish itself from hard power.

How bout "international leadership by example"? or "treat-other-nations-how-you'd-like -your-nation-to-be-treated power"?

Or we could defend "soft power." I invite you to my blog post on this topic.

http://jocie-fong.blogspot.com/2008/05/pansy-power.html

Ezra, on the philosophical, narrative/semantic, and practical planes I have to strongly disagree; if the left is to be effective AND taken seriously we must embrace power, in deed and word. A quote from Fredrick Douglass (via Scott Horton):

“A man, without force, is without the essential dignity of humanity. Human nature is so constituted, that it cannot honor a helpless man, although it can pity him; and even this it cannot do long, if the signs of power do not arise.”

To avoid the use, appearance, or speech of power is wrong on many levels. One, you abdicate the right to the rhetorical and, to a certain extent, actual use of power, thus creating a vacuum which the universe WILL fill, in all likelihood with vermin such as BushCo. Two, whether one philosophically agrees or disagrees with the concept of power, the fact is that it lies at the center of the human condition along with other fundamental aspects of the human psyche such as love, hate, etc. Thus to elide an open, nuanced, realistic dialogue/utilization of power is to deny both a foundational component of human functioning AND the benefits such a dialogue/utilization would have for the advancement of human thought and action. And third, to react to a brutal misuse of power by the likes of BushCo with fearful aversion is to allow those vermin (wait, hold on, here it comes...) power from the grave over our words and actions; in a sense, it is a purely reactionary move that shows a weakness of both mind and spirit even as it implicitly validates and empowers their behavior and worldview.

I think the effort to instantiate the term in a form/context more appropriate for the millennium is a very good idea. I saw “strength” floated; that seems about right. While I agree with your assessment of the progressive project as one of goals, means, and strategies, I think you fall into the same trap that has hamstrung the left for forty years, which is to ignore rhetorical and psychological constructs which seem “icky” (scientific term, that) but which carry enormous amounts of narrative, mythological, or archetypal weight. “Power” is one such term. As the brothers did with n****r, let’s appropriate this term as our own. We have the power – literally (and we’ll have a fuckload more next January) – and to shirk the wearing of this mantle in any way does not bode well for the success of the progressive movement.

UA: ""Nixon secured normalized trade relations with China, opening up a huge market""

You can't have free trade with a captive nation. We wouldn't trade with South Africa because they treated their citizens as less then human...China does the exact same thing.

China keeps its currency artificially low causing a huge trade imbalance with the US.

Well for all the Obama supporters who said Michigan and Florida didn't count and weren't real, THE DNC DISAGREES.

The DNC voted to recognize both as legitimate primaries for the puposes of awarding delegates.

The DNC also decided that they should only be considered as half states and not real, full fledge states like Rhode Island or even Washington DC who get all their delegates.

I would hope you would all apologize to those that insisted these states count and their primaries were legitimate.

To add insult to injury and really smack Hillary supporters in the face, the DNC decided to give Obama delegates that noone had voted for him to have.

At least Hillarys' supporters went to the polls and voted for her. Obama got his Michigan delegates just by the DNC handing them to him ...kind of an affirmative action move to make sure the little women doesn't get too close to victory.

I'll vote for "Real Ultimate Power."

It's hard to work with the word "power" in there; it's more about the difference between bullying and leadership.

I like appeasement...it gets right to the point and doesn't muddy the waters.

We will give you stuff and in return you will act civilized. Its also called blackmail.

Blackmail involves a threat. It's called negotiating a contract. It's the fundamental goal of capitalism, a mutually agreed upon exchange.

What's your alternative? A system entirely predicated on assault?

Raznor wrote:

Hard power is coercion, soft power is because the other actors wish to do what you want, either because they agree with your goals or they trust you to act in their mutual interest.

Perhaps instead of hard and soft we can call it "coercive power" and "subtle power".

How about "coercive power" and "persuasive power"?

I'd also like to mention that soft power is cheaper and more durable than hard power. In a contest between hard power alone and soft power backed by enough hard power to avoid losing by a knockout, then hard power will eventually run out of money and/or political will, while soft power depletes neither of these.

I swear, these freakin neocons learned nothing from the Cold War.