Tweet
Foreign observers typically believe that the US elite might not be very intellectually sophisticated, but is pragmatic and rational in the narrow meaning of words. It is assumed, in this reading, that Americans, or the US as a nation, would meticulously calculate what they can and cannot do in pursing their interests and thus provide a measurable framework for the world in dealing with Americans as a people and the US as a nation. One can be sure that the people in Washington believe that this description of the national behavioral model is valid.
The common stereotype implies that Americans are extremely rational in their financial operations. Still, a few years ago, Congress twice discussed the prospect of not raising the debt level, inevitably leaving to the US default and catastrophic implications for the US economy. This irrational behavior is not just limited to economic policy but also can be found in US foreign policy.
There was a public Congressional hearing about the situation in Ukraine recently. Several Congress people and experts stated that Moscow continued to support separatists in eastern Ukraine. They proposed sending arms to Kiev and disregarded Moscow's warning that in such a case it could well openly engage in the conflict. One should be clear here, the very fact that the US wanted to engage in conflict indirectly is quite rational. As a matter of fact, all great powers have used war or the threat of war throughout human history. Still, any rational leader would calculate not just their assets but also the likely scenario of the conflict and where it could lead and whether or not the country is ready for the consequences.
Nothing of this sort was on the minds of those who elaborated on their plans for Ukraine. The assumption was that after Ukraine receiving US weapons, the Russian army would crumble quickly, or that terrified by increasing casualties, Russian President Vladimir Putin would ask for peace.
At the same time, the available facts that contradict this scenario were not mentioned at all. The full-fledged use of Moscow's conventional forces or even a fraction of them would well be devastating for Ukrainian forces; and certainly Moscow would not be stopped by the losses.
At that point, Washington would have to either accept a humiliating defeat or directly engage in conflict.
But this scenario was not discussed, at least not publicly; and if it were discussed behind closed doors, it most likely was assumed that the conflict could either be quick, or that at least the burden of the conflict would be carried mostly by the European allies.
The facts that some of the allies, especially Germany, might simply part with NATO not de jure but de facto and that a big conventional war in Europe would have the most serious implications for the US and European societies were absolutely ignored.
What is the root of this myopic, irrational and, in a way, self-destructive behavior? Psychoanalysis might be helpful here.
Neurologist Sigmund Freud noted that humans have two elements in their psychology. One represents desire/impulse and the other societal restraint. The seriousness of the conflict between them could lead to neurosis and possibly even suicidal drive.
If this model could be applied to the present-day US, it could explain a lot of Washington's behavior. On the one hand, the US is quickly losing its resources, and this is well represented by the sequestration of the military budget.
On the other hand, the elite does not want to engage in a real change in the US economics/social make-up and it also wants to preserve its status quo with the US global imperial presence as one of its manifestations.
It is this tension between what the US wants and what it can do that creates a geopolitical neurosis and irrational plans and behavior.
The author is an associate professor of Indiana University, South Bend, Indiana. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn