Long Game Players

There’s plenty to worry about without even looking at international relations, but sometimes you need to do what you don’t want to.

I wrote last week about Syria, all I want to write and beyond. But I’ve had a specific question about our president and his long-term strategy. I’ve talked this over with the Spherical Model household, and we seem to have a consensus opinion in answer to my puzzlement.

It is a given that our president is a power monger. He loves control, and seeks more control wherever he can get it. Nevertheless, he acts in ways that weaken the United States on the international scene—apology tour, leading from behind, setting red lines which he manages by hoping they won’t be crossed and then dithering when they are. He has verbalized his belief that America is no more exceptional than any other country, and he believes we have been arrogant, so he is purposely taking us down a few pegs.

Here at home he seems pleased that the economy falters and sputters, and gleefully proud that more and more people become dependent on government. He has devalued the dollar, and our credit rating, to the point that we are at serious risk of losing our economic status in the world. He seems pleased at this new depressing normal.

So my question is, why would someone who seeks ever increasing degrees of power act in ways that reduce his status? What is his long game?

Does he see a path from what he is doing to increased power, such that he could leap from the lowly position of US President to something bigger, something more global?

I think he does see that path. I think he holds the belief that claiming connection with the Europeans and third-world nations, letting them know he’s not like the rest of us ugly Americans, will raise his image in their eyes. And their eyes are more important to him than the eyes of his fellow Americans, who are beneath him—evident in the sneering and condescension showing up his ubiquitous speeches.

He’s the un-American president. It’s a little like that phrase “compassionate conservative”; it implies that the special “compassionate” ones are different from the run-of-the-mill conservatives, who are, then, by definition, compassionless.  He thinks of himself as something other than American, and he believes that having such a self-perception makes him more appealing to the world.

But, as in most things (maybe everything) he is wrong wrong wrong! No thinking person in any country actually likes our president for his anti-Americanism. If they are our enemies, and thus anti-American themselves, they might like what he is doing—the less for them to fight against. But no one supports him as a better leader for tearing down the world’s greatest country—the economic, social, and freedom dream of the oppressed everywhere. No one trusts him as reliable. No one would say, “He’s so wise; why don’t we make him ruler of the world?”

So, if he is a power monger (and I think that is evident), and if he sees the US presidency as merely a career step to even greater power, then the logical conclusion is--he must be deluded.

On the bright side, concerns about him becoming the Left-Behind-Series style anti-Christ world tyrant are unnecessary. Likely his future role will be a more feckless Jimmy Carter, occasionally sniping from the sidelines, but without a listening public.

Do we need to worry instead about Putin? I’m not sure. After the “rescue” Putin did to dissuade the president from a Syrian strike, the metaphor was going around that Obama was playing cards while Putin was owning him at three-dimensional chess.

Star Trek 3D Chess
image found here

I was an adult by the end of the Cold War, so I’m beyond trusting anyone from the KGB. I’m sure Putin wants increased power, and I’m sure he’s playing an actual long game to get it. But I have my doubts that he can do it.

There’s a new book by Ilan Berman, called Implosion, subtitled, The End of Russia and What It Means for America. The author spoke with Michael Medved on radio Thursday (last third of first hour; these details come from that conversation). Much of his theory relates to demographics. Russian culture and people, Slavic Christians we could say, are disappearing. Russians lose half a million of their population a year, to death and out-migration. Life expectancy for men is about 60 years, a good two decades shorter than American men. Women live longer, to about 73, but still on par with Saudi Arabia, well short of Western longevity. Birth rates are well below replacement. The population will be 25% smaller, and still shrinking, by mid-century.

Meanwhile immigrant Muslims abort less, drink less, and support the traditional family more, so their numbers are growing. Some projections show Muslims will reach 50% of the population by 2050, subsuming the native population.

Young Russians are leaving in droves. A shocking 40% of 18-35-year-olds are considering leaving the country. The most popular Russian blog is titled (translated) “Time to Scram.” In the US and Canada there are large, thriving Russian populations, including scientists, engineers, symphony musicians. When a country is bleeding so many if it’s intellectual talent, that’s a county in trouble. And as long as the country continues as an uncertain threat to intellectual property, the bleeding will continue.

So, while Putin is posturing as powerful on the international stage, his country is floundering at home. It is my guess Putin will not be able to satisfy his power mongering hunger either.

Here's the better, Spherical Model long game: limited government that fills the role of protecting natural rights, free enterprise, adherence to the Ten Commandments, and strong families may not lead to world domination but will lead to unequaled flourishing.

International Relations

One part of Mr. Spherical Model’s job is arranging training programs for oil service customers around the world. Large buyers arrange in-depth training for some of their employees, so that in addition to equipment, they are also purchasing experience. As a result, people come from around the world for a variety of different lengths of training. I wrote about a group from Iraq back in spring 2011. We have met people from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, and probably others I’m not recalling.

This past week a new group of trainees arrived, employees of Saudi Aramco, for what I think is 15 months of training at various field operations around the US. When a group like this arrives, we often have a get-acquainted dinner, to which I am sometimes invited. Two of the Saudis have wives with them; others may have wives at home, but decided the upheaval was more disruptive than the separation, at least for now, so they signed up for just bachelor accommodations. Anyway, for various reasons (no babysitter for the newborn was one) the wives didn’t come, so I’m the only woman at the table.

There are three Muhammeds, two Achmeds—which they tell me are different versions of the same name, so they often go by an additional name to avoid confusion. And I think we had a Sayeed and a Hasham (but I’m not sure what I heard exactly or how to spell them). They seemed excited about the learning adventure, and they were personable and energetic and, as far as I could ascertain, a group of quite decent young people. I hope they don’t mind my posting their photo (this is also the first one I’ve posted of myself and Mr. Spherical Model.)

They seem to adapt well to our culture, at least so far as to welcoming me in a dinner conversation (one did not shake hands, with coming and leaving opportunities, but it wasn’t very noticeable). We had an enjoyable dinner, learning about where they all came from. Most were from the eastern coast of Saudi, where there are either oil fields, near Dhahran, or fishing villages not far from there. A couple were from the west coast, near Jeddah. One grew up in the east but was from family in Mecca (spelled Makkah on the map online), so we enjoyed talking about that city, and the Hajj celebration, which fascinated all of them. One hadn’t been to Hajj yet, and everyone was surprised. It seemed a little like being from here and never traveling to New Orleans for Mardi Gras (which I have not done—and because of the lack of civilization during that event, I will likely continue to avoid NO during that time of year and maybe settle for being a tourist during milder circumstances).

We talked very little about religion or politics. But they wanted to make sure we knew that, unlike how the media may portray things, the Sunnis and Shias get along well in Saudi. Our group was mixed, and to them this was simply not an issue. No mention of (to us) extremist Wahhabism came up, even though reading has led me to understand that is the religion of at least some of the royal family. They did say there are occasional crazies everywhere, but they had so support for such things. These are educated young men, working hard to learn what they can to improve their career prospects. And they are very family oriented—a cultural similarity we have enjoyed with others from their country.

They are very serious about taking care of the elderly—because if you don’t, you go to hell. That is basic doctrine they agree on. I agree with them that having family members take on the responsibility makes a lot more sense than taxing people, passing the money through government bureaucracy, and then doling it out as the government sees fit. Only where there are no progeny to care for the elderly would this be an issue—but that would be a smaller issue.

Politically, their main concern was stability. Their King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is elderly—in his 90s. He has managed to keep things fairly stable, with the oil industry doing much of the infrastructure building, and these young men were complimentary of such efforts. When Saudi Aramco builds something, they said, it is of good quality. But the king’s age makes succession imminent. It wasn’t really a matter of who should get the position; they could see that, whoever it was, others would wish for the line of power to go their way, and there could be factions.

As the young Saudis see it, there are three possibilities: continued monarchy (whoever succeeds), transformation to democracy, or a combination of monarchy with some elements of democracy. Those who expressed their opinions liked the idea of having a voice in government. Moving suddenly from monarchy to democracy, however, looked uncertain and chaotic. They seemed to prefer the middle option, something like Great Britain, where there is a monarchy, but the decisions about running the country rest in parliament. And parliament has at least partially the voice of the people. It would not satisfy me, but I can see their reasoning, and I think their direction is toward something positive.

When we have these relatively intimate conversations with people from other cultures, we find people not terribly unlike us. I am reminded of this Bush philosophy: “I believe that God granted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.” Some peoples, living in some cultures where they’ve never experienced freedom, might not be able to envision freedom. They might be willing to settle for stable tyranny rather than chaotic tyranny. But where people can see the option, there is a desire to work and enjoy the fruits of one’s labors, without threat from theft or attack—in other words, the innate sense of the rights to life, liberty, and property. A system that protects those inalienable rights has the possibility of thriving civilization. I hope that more of the world may experience the benefits of freedom. And may God grant that we as a people can keep ours.