Revising Adam Tooze on Revisionism

Writing for the Guardian, Adam Tooze notes that

Facing war in the Middle East and Ukraine, the US looks feeble.

Because Biden looks senile.

But is it just an act

No. He really is senile. Still his job now is to look so decrepit, Harris looks Presidential by comparison.  

Still, Kamala may need Muslim votes to push her over the top. Till then, America arms Israel but asks them not to kill anybody with them. Harris wants to be a two term POTUS. This means she can't have the same foreign policy as Biden- who isn't even a boomer. He is actually part of the 'silent generation' which, we now understand, was silent for a very good reason. It is obvious that the world has changed and a new foreign policy is needed. But will it be isolationist? Perhaps. Obama said America's foreign policy consisted of doing stupid shit. It may be that not doing stupid shit involves not having a foreign policy. Just be transactional.                  

The idea that Biden is just muddling through these global crises isn’t convincing.

Why not?  The world thinks he is senile. He can't make any big moves just in case it will help Trump. His job is to look so utterly decrepit that Harris shines by comparison. 

Look closely and his foreign policy has been as radical as Trump’s

His big swing was 'Quad' which had re-emerged under Trump but which Biden said would have a 'defining role in the region' . Everything else was incremental albeit often cackhanded or counterproductive. But is Quad a paper umbrella? The fact that Biden just said 'it's here to stay' means it will soon go away.

Writing on-the-spot histories always comes with risks. But the urgency of the situation demands it.

Not really. The elections aren't that far away. Either Israel hits Iran after the election or the signal is that the  US is abandoning Taiwan and Israel. This is a major reset. What will post-boomer diplomacy look like?  

We need some explanation for why the US is not doing more to calm the situation in the Middle East

Biden is senile. That's the explanation. He had been quick to react by air-lifting arms to Israel to the October attack because he remembered Nixon's Operation Nickel Grass from 50 years ago when he first became a Senator. But after that he dithered. Nice guy, but not Presidential material. This had been the verdict on both his earlier bids for the White House. Then, after he had retired, he was brought back precisely because he wasn't Presidential. Indeed, he wasn't even CFO material. Veep for DIE was the vibe which got him the White House. If Trump was the anti-Christ, Biden was the anti-Trump. He would make America lame again. 

and to push for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.

It must be said, Biden always hated Putin and believed that Russia was in terminal decline. True, like the rest of us, he didn't predict that Zelensky and the Ukrainians would prove so tough or Putin's mercenaries so utterly crap. The other thing nobody saw coming was Hamas's atrocious war-plan. In one case, a comedian turned out to be a hero of Churchillian stature. In the other, a gerontocratic, Leninist, kleptocracy showed tactical genius of a rare order. By 'front-loading' the most atrocious aspects of the attack, they ensured that, sooner or later, they would get what all Leninist parties want- viz. unconditional support from 'useful idiots' no matter what atrocity is committed. 

There is one school of thought that says the Biden administration is muddling through.

Which enables Harris to shine by comparison. She looks Presidential. Her party has no choice but to unite around a vapid diversity hire who couldn't even run her own office properly.  

It has no grand plan. It lacks the will or the means to discipline or direct either the Ukrainians or the Israelis.

It has no objection to resisting Putin's aggression to the last drop of Ukrainian blood. Also, if we lost the war against terror, why shouldn't the Israelis take a beating for a change? 

As a result, it is mainly focused on avoiding a third world war.

Even Biden can manage to avoid pressing the nuclear button. He is senile not sociopathic.  

If so, that is a sad testament to the decline of American hegemonic ambition.

Biden's 'summit for democracy' was foolish. He has pushed more and more countries into the arms of China. Meanwhile, Putin's failures in Ukraine have soldered together a cohesive Eurasian block including Iran. My own impression is that under Biden 'strategic ambiguity' over Taiwan disappeared. How can it be resurrected? Quad? Australia will probably realize that waiting for Anglo-American nuclear submarines, which don't have nukes, is simply silly. As for Japan, that dog won't hunt. This leaves India which will never be a naval power. It will use its demographic advantage against China in the high Himalayas but its economic interest is in allying with China- this was the original 'Panchsheel' plan. America has been a destabilizing force in Asia and the MENA. Maybe it is time it just fucks the fuck off. 

No wonder there are calls in the US for Washington to develop an “independent” foreign policy – independent, that is, of Ukraine and Israel.

& Taiwan. What happens if Putin does nuclear proliferation into Latin America? Cartels with nukes won't be deterred by a wall. Come to think of it. the Israeli's had a 'smart wall' didn't they? 

But what if that interpretation is too benign?

It is too benign to say that US foreign policy is a muddle. As Obama said, it is stupid shit.  

What if it underestimates the intentionality on Washington’s part?

Washington wants to make America utterly lame so it can concentrate on scolding the world for being naughty.  

What if key figures in the administration actually see this as a history-defining moment and an opportunity to reshape the balance of world power?

The balance of world power has moved greatly against the US over the Biden Presidency. His plan was to spend lots and lots of money. But the US can't become the arsenal for democracy once again. On current projections, it may not be able to meet its own defence requirements by the 2030s.  

What if what we are witnessing is the pivoting of the US to a deliberate and comprehensive revisionism by way of a strategy of tension?

It has taken Iran decades to implement a 'strategy of tension' in the Arabian peninsula. What violent struggle can America sponsor? If Putin really does start exporting nukes to Latin America, sooner or later you will have Cartels which have countervailing power over the DEA. 

Revisionist powers are those that want to overturn the existing state of things.

Stupid powers don't know what the existing state of things actually is. This may also be true of transactional powers, but they learn from the 'discovery' they do or else stop being able to transact anything at all.  

In an extended sense, this can also mean a desire to alter the flow of events; for instance, to redirect or halt the process of globalisation.

Which started happening when the Neanderthals failed to prevent us taking over their territory.  

Revisionism is often associated with resentment or nostalgia for an earlier, better age.

So is eating hotdogs at the football stadium. Why don't they still taste great? Also, why am I as fat as fuck?

What makes us shrink from this interpretation of Joe Biden’s foreign policy is

his shitting himself and running away from Kabul. The Biden doctrine is 'American soldiers are very precious. Wait till we evacuate them before defending yourself. After that, we will criticize you for human rights violations and threaten to disinvite you from our Democracy summit.'  

the sheer aggression of Russia since February 2022 and Hamas on 7 October.

Which ought to have been anticipated. What couldn't have been anticipated was the reaction of Zelensky and his Ukrainians. It remains to be seen whether Europe creates its own army and weans itself off military dependence on the US. But this means having its own defence industry. In a multi-polar world, there must be multiple military-industrial complexes.  

The US-led west is generally seen as reactive, not proactive.

It is seen as having lost the war on terror and as declining in significance relative to a cohesive Eurasian bloc. Henceforth, it must seek to drive a wedge between Russia, China and Iran. No doubt, such a wedge would emerge in any case but the West could stop being 'proactive' in soldering together such disparate powers.  

But focus not on the process

which involves virtue signalling and fucking over your friends 

but on the outcomes of US policy, and a different interpretation seems plausible.

America truly wants to return to splendid isolationism. Europe needs more and more Muslim migrants to keep ticking over. This may be tough for the Jews and the Homosexuals and trans people but you can't deny that Muslims have a great work ethic and proper family values.  

Under Donald Trump, after all, the demand to make America great again was quite literally revisionist.

Biden's too slogans were 'build back better' and 'America is back'. Biden sought to create the impression that America had been hegemonic and had been enforcing a rules based International order and spreading Democracy and Human Rights till that nasty Trump had become President. Now he was in charge, America would lead the world towards freedom, prosperity and being nice to darkies and homos and transgender people. 

He had no interest in the existing rules of the game. He tossed trade treaties out the window. He slapped tariffs on China.

like Biden and now the EU 

“America first” was the mantra.

Rather than 'America last'.  

By comparison with Trump, the Biden team boast of their commitment to a rules-based order.

Which involved invading Muslim countries and killing lots of innocent people.  

But when it came to the world economy and the rise of China, Biden has been every bit as aggressive as, perhaps more so than, his predecessor.

He telegraphed his punches and then, it turned out, there were no punches.  

Under Biden, Washington has been committed to reversing years of decline apparently brought on by excessive favour shown to China.

This could succeed. Industrial policy needn't be utterly shitty. But what are the chances?  

The US has tried to stop China’s development in tech. To do so, it has strong-armed allies such as the Dutch and the South Koreans.

Sadly, this may result in China doubling down on R&D and ultimately taking the lead. The wider problem is that richer countries may have a perverse incentive to produce expensive shite. Poor countries have no choice but to go with what is cheap but effective.  

When the World Trade Organization dared to protest against US steel tariffs, the White House reaction was contemptuous.

The WTO is a joke. But the US made it that way. 

Bidenomics is Maga for thinking people.

No. It is senile shite. Thinking people tend to substitute words for action.  

In what is now called the Indo-Pacific, the US is not merely defending the status quo.

If the US can't stop the Houthis hitting shipping in the Red Sea, fuck can they defend? Just yesterday, the American flagged tanker 'Olympic Spirit' was hit by 11 ballistic missiles and two drones. There are all sorts of Islamist insurgent groups stretching all the way to the Philippines which can do what the Houthis are doing. 

Currently, Biden & Co think they have scored big by turning Myanmar into a disaster zone and toppling Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh. But, it is likely both will become Chinese clients albeit with Islamist insurgent groups operating from their soil. The question is who will control those groups? 

The very definition of the strategic arena is new.

Doing stupid shit is not new.  

In the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue), Washington is putting in place a new latticework of alliances that ties India, Japan and Australia to the US.

But, if the US does not defend Israel, it will have zero credibility.  

If nothing else had happened in the past two years, the judgment would be clear. The geo-economic policy of the US towards China under Biden is a continuation of the revisionism first seen under Trump.

In other words, Biden followed where Trump had led.  

It was because it was focused on confronting China that the White House sought detente with Russia in 2021.

Since the time of Nixon, American policy has been to try to keep China and Russia apart.  

What spoiled that were two miscalculations made by Vladimir Putin. The first was to assume that his assault on Ukraine was a bagatelle. The second was to underestimate the willingness of the west to use Ukraine as a proxy against Russia.

I think this 'willingness' was a direct product of the incredible valour shown by the Ukrainians. Many had assumed that the comedian would run away and some Moscow friendly goon would have been installed in Kiev.  

Two years into the war, the position of the west has hardened into its own revisionism. In relation to both Ukraine and Russia, the status quo ante is no longer acceptable.

I think the West would accept some territorial gains for Russia. The other point is if Putin dies or is overthrown, somebody competent may take charge.  

In the Middle East, the situation is even more clear cut.

No it isn't. We had no idea of Hamas's military strength or that the Houthis could rain down rockets on ships in the Red Sea. The question now is whether the Muslim Brotherhood can revive its political fortunes in Egypt (if so, Israel can't afford to leave Gaza) and Saudi Arabia. The bigger question is when and if Hanafi Hamas will break with Shia Iran.  

Here, too, the Biden administration was not looking to escalate. Trump’s Abraham accords between the United Arab Emirates and Israel had opened up a promising vista. But Russia’s growing ties with Iran, and China’s involvement in the region darkened the picture.

Actually, we'd have been relieved if China brokered a deal between Hamas and Israel. Perhaps they could turn Gaza into a thriving manufacturing centre. 

Once Hamas launched its attack on 7 October, and once the Israeli government’s determination to end the modus vivendi with Hamas and Hezbollah became clear, Washington gave the green light.

Biden's knee jerk reaction was to start a big air-lift- like Nixon's 'Operation Nickel Grass'. But Hamas's resilience changed the picture. Moreover, people who had been appalled by Hamas's atrocities are now their unconditional supporters. What percentage of young Americans fall into this category? If it is growing, Harris is likely to pivot on this issue- or appear to do so- more particularly because her husband is Jewish. 

The US is paying for more than 25% of Israel’s rampage as it physically annihilates Gaza, victimises the West Bank and sets about uprooting Hezbollah. It has pulled allies such as Germany and the UK into line.

Under Starmer, that may change. Labour can't afford to alienate Muslim voters.  

It is shielding Netanyahu against the reach of international justice.

Israel has nukes. The Hague doesn't want to be turned into a pile of radioactive dust. Islamic terrorism has been bad. Jewish terrorism would be worse because Jews are hella smart.  

Of course, unlike in Ukraine, the US has continued diplomacy. But to what effect? First and foremost to keep Iran boxed in and the powerful Gulf states on side.

That's failed. The Gulf countries are asking Biden to stop Netanyahu bombing Iran's oil facilities even though it is other oil exporters who have most to gain.  

Meanwhile, Israel is wiping out Iran’s network of influence

but young high quality recruits must be pouring in. These are kids of whom Mossad knows nothing. It will have to build up Humint from scratch. 

and annihilating the 1990s vision of a two-state solution.

Which the PLO and Hamas annihilated all by themselves.  

In all three arenas – China, Ukraine and the Middle East – the US will say that it is responding to aggression.

It is prepared to fund, but not to fight. But the money too may run out.  

But rather than working consistently for a return to the status quo it is, in fact, raising the stakes.

Is it really? Biden may have had some such delusion. Does Harris?  

While insisting that it supports the rules-based order, what we are witnessing is something closer to a revival of the ruinous neoconservative ambition of the 1990s and 2000s.

The neocons were pals with a guy whom they thought could replace Saddam. He promised to love them long time and give them lots and lots of money.  

With regard to China, the revisionist strategy was clear from the start.

What is clear is that it has failed. If Harris wins, she is bound to piss off the Indians who will withdraw from a Quad which is too costly. Ultimately the economics involved in the division of labour means that India must develop weapons systems in partnership with poorer, more reliable, countries. But, as China and India face a common problem in Myanmar, why might this not be China? Let us see what happens after the Dalai Lama dies. Interestingly, Biden had attacked Trump for being the first POTUS not to meet the Dalai Lama. But, he himself neglected to do so. This calls into question the support that the State Dept. are claiming to extend to the Tibetan government in exile. Here, it is India's position which matters. If Harris becomes President, she might well make an equation between Kashmir and Tibet. India will then go back to its traditional anti-Americanism. The question is whether China is interested in a modus vivendi. 

In Ukraine and the Middle East, Washington has responded to events. But that isn’t evidence against strategic intent.

It is evidence there was no fucking strategy. Intending to have one, doesn't mean you have one. 

Using your enemy’s aggression, the desperation of your friends and the ruthlessness of your allies to your own advantage is simply smart policy. Washington has not been entirely reckless. Biden has resisted the most radical calls for engagement in Ukraine. He pulled out of Afghanistan

he postponed the Trump negotiated pull out but, because he called President Ghani plain Mr. Ghani, that expert on failed states soon had to run away from his failed state. America's retreat from Kabul was shambolic.  But Karzai, whom they had toppled, is still in Kabul. 

and has refused to put American boots on the ground.

He firmly believes that American soldiers should be wrapped in protective foam and kept out of harm's way.  

At some point the White House may decide that ceasefires are necessary.

At some point it may ask its allies to surrender. The enemy won't take kindly to any such requests.  

But there is more going on here than simply muddling through. First the Trump and now the Biden presidencies are willing contributors to the controlled demolition of the 1990s post-cold war order.

Biden willingly contributed to a great erosion of American power and credibility. Trump may not care greatly about either. He wants to make profitable deals. Ultimately, everything is transactional. If he gets back into the White House, there are lots of things he can very quickly do to improve the lives of Americans. Sadly this requires a foreign policy which does not consist in mindlessly doing 'stupid shit' even if it be of the Obama/Biden stripe.