James Jay Carafano
What does “strategic autonomy” really mean?
Are we entering an era of strategic autonomy? I think so. Is that a good thing? Yep, I’m pretty sure it is. Is this concept really well understood? Ah, well, you got me there. I’m not so sure.
Strategic Autonomy’s Bus to Nowhere
So many times, folks have invoked an old army colloquialism, about “jumping on the bus to Abilene.” The story goes that when others climbed on the bus, there was one guy who stepped out of line, asking, “Is that really where we want to go,” waving in the rearview mirror from the gravel parking lot, through a cloud of diesel and asphalt. Only long after the Greyhound had left the station did the passengers begin to question if groupthink was a good idea (because let’s be honest, who wants to go to Abilene?).
Since the end of the Cold War, we were so anxious for a new framing consensus after containment that crowds pilled on the geopolitical joyride, like a mob at Krispy Kreme grasping for free Ozempic prescriptions—declaring the end of history; bracing for the clash of civilizations; and dreading the Thucydides Trap—only to demand ticket refunds in retrospect.
Now in the halls of the UN, stranded on broken escalators and befuddled by inoperative teleprompters, they fret over the demise of the rules-based order and brace for great power competition—another set of unexamined ideas already as expired as leftovers in the back of the fridge.
The term “rules-based order” was coined after it became clear that no one was following the rules. After all, if there were actually such a setup, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia; China would not be threatening Taiwan, Iran would not have launched its surrogates at Israel, and the United States wouldn’t be ignoring the WTO. If there really were an order—in a myth created by the United Nations, the European Union, and a host of other multinational gangs—the order would have policed itself. Clearly, it has not.
No comments:
Post a Comment