 |
Barry Schwartz recently said in the Bulletin (June 2004) that if he were president, he would want you as his secretary of defense. What would you do if you were appointed to that position?
I could answer that from any one of several perspectives. One: As secretary of defense, as a civilian appointed to oversee the military, I would believe that, in general, the top uniform military leadership know what they're talking about. Having experienced the realities of war, they are a very good guide on how to fight a war and also if one should go to war or not. As secretary, I would give the benefit of the doubt to and take advice from the uniformed officers, particularly the advice of the ground combat services - the army and the marines. They know what it means to have boots on the ground and to spill their blood in the mud, unlike the Air Force, which can fly over a battle at 15,000 feet and have no idea of face-to-face combat.
A good example of army thinking is Colin Powell and the Powell Doctrine. I believe in the Powell Doctrine. It's a good guide to when we should go to war and to how we should fight. Had it been followed with respect to the current Iraq war, we would never have gone to war and we would have been much better off today. Of course in 2002 to 2003, Powell was not chair of the joint chiefs of staff, he was secretary of state with no influence on the Defense Department. He advised and cautioned but was utterly ignored - used and abused.
Rumsfeld, though he had experience as a naval pilot, had never been in combat. Cheyney, Wolfowitz, all the advisers advocating war, had never served in the military at all. As secretary, I would act on the premise that when you go to war, talk to the people who know what they're talking about.
Another view: I believe the secretary of defense is responsible for the defense of America, and this means that he should defend American national interests and values. Not a secretary of offense, which means that it is not his job to build a military to take offensive action all around the globe, in places that are remote from America's interests and values and which are sure to offend the interests and values of others, including our allies.
Another view: The most pressing issue in 2005 facing the secretary of defense is the restoration of the superb American Army that we had in 2002, and had had ever since the reforms of the army in the aftermath of the debacle of Vietnam. The army that existed from the early 1980s to the early 2000s was a volunteer army. Therefore it was a professional army, and therefore, it was a highly skilled army with high morale. Person for person, it was the best army in American history and probably one of the best in world history. This army was designed to fight other armies and was superb in doing so. It was not designed to engage in a very different kind of war - a counterinsurgency war chasing guerrillas in a long occupation among people who loathe us. As secretary of defense, I would turn inward.
The army should be used for short, high-intensity conflicts with other armies. The Bush administration took a superb army and threw it into the morass of a counterinsurgency war in Iraq. It's like taking a fine surgical instrument or a CAT scan and turning it into a sledgehammer. The result is that the fundamental base of the volunteer army - the volunteers - is drying up. The U.S. Army may not be defeated, but it will disappear one person at a time. In a few years, there may be no army at all. The only way the administration can fight a long insurgency, not unlike the war in Vietnam, is to restore the draft. But as Vietnam showed, there is no way to restore the draft and fight a war so remote from American interests and values. In choosing the mission of putting a volunteer, professional army in a prolonged counterinsurgency war in Iraq, this administration chose mission impossible.
Iraq
Most Americans think of Iraq as being a unified nation-state. The administration talks about it as if it will even become a unified liberal-democratic nation-state. Actually, there has never been an Iraq that is a unified nation-state. Iraq has always been an artificial construction of three peoples who hate each other, ruled by a tyrannical government representing one (Sunnis) and repressing the other two (Shias and Kurds). Therefore, it was inevitable that if you destroy the tyrannical regime, Iraq would fly apart. You can have an Iraq that's a tyranny, not a democracy. Alternatively, you can have a democracy for each of the three peoples but no Iraq.
Now we have neither. The only stable solution is to crack Iraq into three parts (i.e., three states). In one or more, you might get a democracy and a degree of stability. There will be a bloody period of civil war as Iraq cracks open and settles down - not unlike Yugoslavia in 1990s. There are lots of similarities regarding ethnic divisions in these two countries.
If I were to inherit this mess, I'd quickly organize, arm, and train Shia and Kurdish militias (in large measure, they already exist), converting them into effective armies, and allow them to deal with the Sunnis, and I would steadily withdraw American troops. Iraq shouldn't be a problem for America, it should be a problem for the three groups who live there.
China
Before Sept. 11, the Bush administration and most academics considered the most important security threat to the United States to be the rising economic and military power of China. Sept. 11 and the period following it temporarily eclipsed the U.S. focus on China, but the reality of Chinese economic growth, nationalist ideology, and increasing military power make it inevitable that China again will be a major security concern.
In the early 20th century, the British empire was trying to manage the globalization of the time and also deal with the growing power of Germany. The British bungled it, and we had not one but two world wars. Today, the American empire is trying to manage globalization and also the rising power of China. We cannot have two world wars in the 21st century. We can't even have one because a world war would involve nuclear weapons, and that would mean the end of the world.
The challenge to the United States is to manage the rise of Chinese power, so it integrates with the interests not just of America and its allies but also serves the interests of China itself. After all, the British did this successfully with the United States. The world we design has to be one that serves both American and Chinese interests. That means a dual policy of military containment and economic cooperation. It's difficult to maintain this balanced policy, particularly because of the differences in American and Chinese ideologies. American ideology is universal democracy, and the Chinese ideology is nationalism.
The hinge of fate, the pivot, is Taiwan. Unconstrained democracy in Taiwan may issue in a Taiwanese declaration of independence, which would run athwart Chinese nationalist ideology. The current American policy of discouraging both Taiwanese independence and Chinese military aggression is the right policy. Indeed, this has been the policy of every U.S. administration since the Nixon era, and it is the right one for the future too.
Democracy carried to its logical conclusion in Taiwan would be a cause for war. In this case, the United States must constrain democracy. Taiwan can have de facto independence but no embassies or U.N. representation.
Globalization
The U.S. policy of promoting globalization is a mistake. This policy, which dates from the early 1990s or even before, has now reached a point of diminishing returns, and it is now even counterproductive. U.S. promotion of globalization - open economies and free markets - has produced reactions around the world, the most threatening of which is Islamist terrorism. In reaction to global U.S. policy, there is now a global Islamist insurgency, most pronounced in Iraq but developing all over the world. Globalization, American style, has resulted in globalization, Islamist style. The Islamic countries can't compete with open economies and in a true market; all they can produce is oil in a highly restricted market. In contrast, China can compete very effectively in a global free market.
Humanitarian Intervention
The 1990s was the "golden age" of humanitarian intervention. Even then, I was critical of humanitarian intervention, and I still am. Humanitarian intervention directly contradicts the Powell Doctrine. Such intervention may reflect some American values, but the risk is very high that you won't get effective implementation of those values proportionate to the costs.
There is one big exception, and that is quick decisive action to stop mass killing. This may not create a sound and viable democratic society, but it will stop the genocide. This happened in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999.
In any event, whatever the views of humanitarian intervention's advocates and critics, much of the debate is now moot because of the Iraq war. With every spare soldier tied up in Iraq now and in the future, America simply has no one left who could undertake such an intervention. Also, the debacle in Iraq means the American people will be reluctant to support the use of troops in another underdeveloped country in the future. Just like after the debacle in Vietnam, it will be hard enough to build political support for intervention when American interests are involved, but it will be impossible when the purpose is only humanitarian.
Cuba
Here, I am humble in the face of my professional colleagues who specialize in Latin America. However, I would follow a policy similar to that regarding China. The goal is to bring about Cuban economic engagement with an America-composed world order, so that we could both benefit. The United States could help build social groups and economic interests in that country more in keeping with American interests and values. This is also similar to how the United States dealt with the Soviet Bloc in the 1990s. We should keep in mind what can be the social base for a post-Castro regime.
Ending the embargo and bringing Cuba into closer economic connections with the United States would gradually bring Cuba closer to American interests and values. I would begin now, so the new Cuban social base would already be in place when Castro dies. Cuba could then fill the giant space in the Caribbean basin that it had started to fill by 1955. There's a natural symbiosis between America and Cuba that did exist and could exist again.
Colombia
North Americans like to think that foreign policy is based on problems that can be fixed, indeed, can be fixed by themselves. In truth, however, there are countries that are defined by dismal conditions, not by problems with solutions. Colombia is the most violent country in Latin America and has been for 60 years (since Gaitan's assassination in 1948), 60 years of endemic, and sometimes epidemic, civil war.
Colombia suffers from some of the most mountainous and difficult terrain in the world, and this makes it hard to establish order. For North Americans to think we have a solution for such a set of conditions is preposterous. However, I believe that the Marxist guerrillas in Colombia are not like the Marxist guerrillas in Vietnam or those in El Salvador, whom American liberals and the Swarthmore community supported. The Colombian rebels are as much narco-terrorists as they are guerrillas. They are thieves and thugs and therefore the enemy of all decent people. And the paramilitaries are just as bad. Colombia would be dismal enough with one set of thugs. This tragic country has two sets.
The current government in Colombia, although using methods that are brutal and cruel, is probably worth supporting. I can understand why Uribe came to power, even if he is rough and tough. The United States should entertain the possibility that there's a better way for the government to deal with narco-terrorists. For example, I oppose fumigation. However, it could well be that Colombia is truly a problem without a solution. The current government is not less successful than previous administrations. The liberal way was tried and failed in the 1990s, so it's not surprising to me that the conservative way is now being tried.
No matter how bad things are now, putting either the Marxist guerrillas or the paramilitaries into power would be worse.
Who is the worst U.S. president?
James Buchanan because, through acts of omission, he laid the groundwork for the greatest catastrophe in American history, the Civil War. The worst U.S. president of the 20th century was Lyndon Johnson [LBJ]. His acts of commission in foreign policy brought about Vietnam, the worst foreign policy disaster in American history. But even LBJ, in his domestic policy, engaged in acts of commission that were constructive, namely, civil rights legislation. I hated LBJ, but he was half right.
There's a good chance that the worst president of the 21st century will be the current president. He's worse than any president of the 20th century, including LBJ. His foreign policy, not just in Iraq but in the whole Islamic world, is a disaster. In addition, however, his domestic policy is becoming one too. His economic policies - cutting taxes for the rich, his record budget and trade deficits - are leading America to an economic meltdown. He has heightened the inequality between the few rich and the growing poor. If he keeps this up, he may become worse than James Buchanan!
The best president?
FDR was certainly the best president of the 20th century, the right man at the right time. His experience with polio gave him an appreciation for the struggles of others who were suffering. Each American century has produced a crisis in which a great man has responded - Washington, Lincoln, and FDR.
Why have you altered your assessment of Ronald Reagan?
In 1980, I was in California, and I held a typical liberal/Swarthmore view of Reagan. I thought he was a political amateur, an intellectual lightweight, and a narrow-minded ideologue who was only running because he had been puffed up by others in the California elite. By 1984, I came to believe he had been intelligent enough to surround himself with good advisers. His foreign and economic policy were on a good path. By 1989, after observing how he dealt with Gorbachev with remarkable skill and wisdom and helped to end the Cold War, I had a very high opinion of him. In my mind, he had moved from a "charming incompetent" to a "wise and skillful statesman."
What piece of advice are you most proud of?
When I taught at the Naval War College, I took part in drawing up a new strategy for the U.S. Navy. It was designed to deter but, if necessary, defeat the Soviet Union in a non-nuclear global war. The challenge was to develop a naval and, more broadly, a military strategy without nuclear weapons. We did that. It was completed and in the process of being implemented in 1984-1985. Then a man named Gorbachev came to power, which made not just our strategy but the Soviet Union obsolete.
When did you decide to join the military?
I grew up in a small town in Oregon, where young men were expected to "perform their military obligation." There was a draft, and the Korean War had just happened. If I left things to the draft, I would be sent as an enlisted man into the army. So, at 12, I decided not to do that and instead to be an officer in the navy. Therefore, at 18, I joined the NROTC [Naval Reserve Officers' Training Corps] program at Stanford.
When I graduated in 1960, I was assigned to the 7th fleet flagship stationed in the western Pacific. I was home-ported just south of Tokyo as a deck and gunnery officer supervising a deck division of 50 high school dropouts. It was then that I discovered that establishing rules and incentives that were predictable and fair was the best way to bring out their best and to contain their worst. When I got to graduate school right afterward, I discovered that the best way to teach Harvard undergraduates was the same way. And when I got to Swarthmore, I discovered that it was true here too. Maybe some people here wouldn't like to hear that motivating high school dropouts and Swarthmore undergraduates is so similar. But within set parameters, I allow a lot of individual autonomy and initiative. My students would agree there is definetly a "Kurth way of doing things."
Would you recommend to your students that they join the military?
The military requires a certain temperment and intelligence. Senior military officers are as intelligent as senior faculty members, if not more so. Some Swarthmore students are suited for this. During a long period here, from the end of Vietnam to the current Iraq war - 30 years - I could sincerely recommend to a few students that they consider the military - the volunteer, professional, military one with high skills and high morale.
Regretably, because of how the military has been used and abused in the last two years, I can't honestly encourage students to join now. I would discourage them until the government uses the military in the right and proper way, not in a way that misuses and degrades the people within it.
The military is an honorable profession that is being misused by dishonorable politicians. If the political leaders had once served in the military themselves, their decisions would have been different. The soldiers have been ill served and not supported. When you turn prisoners over to reservists, then overwhelm them, something will go wrong.
When I was released from the navy and was flying back to California, I asked myself over the Pacific (there was a lot of time to think): "What did I learn in the military?" The answer was Murphy's Law: If something can go wrong, it will.
I then drove across country to become a graduate student at Harvard. My first class, Defense Policy, which I now teach at Swarthmore, was taught by a young but already famous professor who was making a name for himself, Henry Kissinger. I sat next to a friend who had been with me at Stanford. Kissinger said on the first day, "This class is based on the assumption that the military is a smooth and efficient machine that will carry out the orders of the civilian leadership." There I was, just out of the Navy. I turned to my friend and said, "This son of a bitch doesn't know what he's talking about."
Now, he was right enough to become a part of that very civilian leadership. But I was right too - if something can go wrong, it will. Seasoned officers know this and will take steps to address it.
How did you come to work with Larry Jarvik '78 and produce his 1981 film Who Shall Live and Who Shall Die?
I've had many intelligent and proficient students, also some brilliant students. Jarvik was one of the most creative I've ever had. He left Swarthmore after two years to follow his interest in film at the University of California at Berkeley, then in film school at UCLA.
I've always been interested in the tragedy of Central Europe, ever since spending six months in Europe when I was in high school. I have felt deeply connected to this tragedy for more than 50 years. Our shared interests in the topic came together, and I supported his film in several ways.
What impact does faith have on your work?
I Ôcame to faith' in San Diego in 1980 and consider myself an evangelical Christian. I teach an adult Sunday school class, Christianity and World Views, in my church, and I love teaching it. I have been a deacon in my church and now am one of the ruling elders. I have felt comfortable in both places. However, many of the members of my church are fans of the president, so that is sometimes uncomfortable for me.
How do you navigate such different environments so well? It seems like it would take real effort to achieve that kind of balance.
It is my faith, my grounding in my church, that is the foundation that makes me feel comfortable there and in other parts of my life. It gives me strength, direction, and perspective that makes Swarthmore life enjoyable and meaningful, despite the worldview of Swarthmore being completely different from that of an evangelical Christian or a conservative Presbyterian church. A common Christian saying is "In the world but not of it." I'm in the world of Swarthmore but not of it.
I have always enjoyed Swarthmore students and teaching. Almost all of my colleagues at other institutions find teaching to be a boring experience and often a depressing one. They rarely mention teaching, and when they do, they sigh about how uninteresting and uninterested the students are. Some even say they find it a trial to get up in the morning and teach. I'm always sympathetic but amazed. Then, I realize how tremendously lucky I've been. I wouldn't believe this so fervently if my friends at other institutions didn't say these things. I've spent my entire adult life teaching students who are bright, enthusiastic, and creative, and it's been wonderful. Because of that, I think Swarthmore is a national treasure. It's certainly a treasure in my life.
How did you come to faith?
As a child, my father was a professor at Oregon State. He and my mother were part of the first really secular and modern American generation that came of age in the 1920s. I didn't grow up in a religious tradition.
On one of my leaves, when I was teaching at UC at San Diego, a student asked me if I read the Bible. So I kind of sloughed him off and said something like "oh sure, every once in a while." He immediately said "what's your favorite book?" I was going through some physical challenges at the time so I said "oh, I don't know, maybe the Book of Job." "That's great," he said. "We're having a Bible study meeting on Wednesday and that's the book we're going to talk about." I said Ôoh, I already have a commitment this Wednesday, I can't go." "How about next week?" And he had me. I was stuck. So I went. And I was impressed. There were then a series of events, a cascade of experiences, that I now consider to be the work of the Holy Spirit or divine intervention, that led me closer to the church and to faith. And I was "on line" as of March 1980. I'm still in touch with that student and his family and am something of an uncle to their seven children.
God can make miracles, but the believer is not supposed to test God by setting up a problem so only a miracle can provide the solution.
How aware are you of the regard in which your students hold you, and does it surprise you at all?
It's gratifying. I was surprised that at Harvard I quickly developed an enthusiastic following as an assistant professor. That sounds terrible, but I thought it was because I wasn't that much older than the students and I could teach foreign policy with a freshness. It was also the time of the Vietnam War, which gave foreign policy an obvious importance. Many of the other professors were utterly boring.
I also thought it had to do with my navy experience, which taught me how to discern what younger people needed. I noticed that faculty colleagues who saw teaching as a chore had a different view of students from my own. They had a hard time getting inside and knowing what a student was really yearning for, even if the student didn't know it himself.
Third, I've always seen myself in the professional world but not of it. For instance, I don't believe in "political science." It holds no mystique for me. I was a history major as an undergrad and have always included lots of historical readings in my classes. I think political science as a discipline is a fraud (politics is not a science; it is an art), and I've never felt obligated to teach what professional political scientists think is the mainstream of their profession at the moment. Anytime I can, I discourage students from pursuing Ph.D.s in political science (of course, there are not that many jobs out there, anyway).
I think it's important to think about one's students - what is important to them? Where are they? Where are they going? Then you can take almost any academic topic - history, economics, chemistry, and certainly war - and like a 6-sided die, spin it so it lines up with what the student is interested in. From there you can lead them to the other sides and angles, the other ways of approaching a subject. But you have got to begin with the students' hopes and fears, joys and tears. Perhaps it's easier with war and politics than with other subjects. That, I believe, is what a professor is called to do.
Some professors think that the most important thing is what "the profession" says. If you project that onto a student, if you put the profession at the center, something will go wrong. Conversely, if you put the student at the center, things will go right. It's like a Copernican revolution. Kant said, "in dealing with humans, see them as ends to themselves, not as means to another end."
I began teaching during the Vietnam War, as it was happening. My whole intellectual stance was shaped by that grueling war, especially since I was in my 20s. Ever since, on the eve of any U.S. war or military intervention, I've always been against it.
Also, when you teach, teach something that you really care about. You must then link this to what students really care about, and you must also represent not just the intellectual but also the personal and emotional struggles involved. The study of World War I, for instance, wrestles with profound psychological and moral dilemmas as well as strategic and intellectual ones. Even though now remote in time and space, World War I remains an expression of something eternal living in both you the teacher and the student even today.
Those [referring to two long metal cylinders standing next to a file cabinet] are artillery shells that I received from my father. He took two from when he was in Army ROTC at the University of Wisconsin in the 1930s. They predate World War II and are designed from World War I artillery. They get people's attention, especially when I teach World War I and bring them into class and drop them on the desk.
What is your idea of earthly happiness?
To do what one does well. This was the view of Aristotle. It provides one with a sense of excellence and accomplishment.
What do you consider the lowest depths of misery?
When one feels isolated and cut off from others. Aristotle also said human beings are social beings. In American society with its ideology of liberal individualism, an individual thinks he finds liberation in being liberated from all constraints. But no constraints mean no commitments, and no commitments mean no connections. In the end, there is no connection to anyone - not upward to God, not outward to neighbors. One literally becomes just a point, and will find life pointless. E.M. Forester said "only connect." I believe God makes humans to connect, both to God and to God's creatures, other human beings.
When do you feel most indulgent?
Well, ok, it's cheese. My idea of food is cheese. Pizza with double cheese and pepperoni and anchovies from [Renato's] Pizza. Cheese and salt. I'm a cheeseaholic. In May, I was told I had elevated blood pressure. So I went cold turkey. In fact, in June, I went 10 days in Switzerland with no cheese. It was heroic. Prussian and naval willpower, that's what that was. Amazing.
And [Caribbean] sunshine. Especially during our Swarthmore winter.
Who are your heroes of fiction?
Faust. He has great talents and ambitions, but he faces great frustrations. He is tempted to create a world in his own image, but he can only do so at a great cost to his soul. This is the embodiment of an eternal tension between humans and gods.
Do you have any real-life heroes?
Charles de Gaulle, my kind of guy. I had a portrait of him in my office at Harvard. There I was, a borderline Marxist, with this very conservative figure on my wall. I also greatly admire FDR. FDR and de Gaulle hated each other, which is a problem for me. But de Gaulle, he is my hero. I love de Gaulle. He was a real mensch. Also Samuel Huntington. He was my thesis adviser at Harvard and we remain in contact with each other.
What is the quality you most admire?
Authenticity. The Greek and Christian conception of "know thyself, and be true to one's self."
What is your least favorite quality?
Fecklessness and impetuousness.
Most treasured possession?
I don't put real stock in material possessions. There's very little I have that if it burned up in a fire I would greatly miss it. The exception is photos of my parents. They mean a lot to me.
What is your best quality?
Reliability, responsibility, solving intractable problems.
Your worst?
Self-righteous anger. Oh yes, 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, I'd be a Pharisee, and I'd be murderous.
Your greatest regret?
Not always making up after quarrels, losing touch with people, not keeping up connections. I feel the loss.
Do you have a motto?
"Let's try to square the circle." We should look for ways to find new solutions by looking at an old problem from a new perspective.
What music do you play when you need a lift?
Christian hymns. That's right! Especially from the 18th and 19th centuries, for example those by Charles Wesley and Fanny Crosby. Baroque music, especially Handel. And Mozart. I like Eurpoean folk ballads. And I used to like American country music, although when I hear it now, it sounds like it's coming from a lost world or tomb. Not like the hymns, which are alive because they are sung in churches, which are alive.
But I just love baroque music. And ceremonial music. In International Politics, I'll play national anthems and marching music. The most taut and evocative is German marching music. The Germans and French got it right, the Brits too. The Americans, Sousa, not so much, too light.
If you could change one thing at Swarthmore, what would it be?
A critical mass of qualified Christian students so others could come here and not feel alone.
What would you like to attempt or wish you could do?
I took the Myers-Briggs test in high school, and it said I should be a judge. In the Navy, in my career, and in my church, I've been put into positions where a judge-like quality was important. Now as an elder, I've been called to use and develop this quality where it's even more important. So this quality has always been there, just never fully developed and deployed.
But if I had to choose something I've had no training in and have no hope of becoming a great operatic tenor. I'd love to [gets up, mimics stepping onto stage, bends over at waist, rises up and belts out ] Now of course I do something like this in class. [We discuss his voice in general: "well, you need a voice to be heard on deck," I say.]
"Oh I was famous for being the person with the most penetrating voice on the whole cruiser. People could hear my voice from one end of the ship to the other, even in storms. No mics or bullhorns needed."
One last question - what did you have against cars with California plates?
I grew up in Oregon. Oregonians are a self-righteous bunch. We are a besieged people who believe that we know how things should be done and that we have made the good society. But to our south are people who are brash and aggressive and always coming through town. I was an Oregon chauvinist, and so, as a teenager, I organized a group to throw rocks at cars with Cali plates. Of course, I can't defend this now.
If you have a question or comment for Professor Kurth, please let us know.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
