Nicholas Burns trots out the very tired “credibility” argument in a recent op-ed:
Quote:
However much Mr Obama may believe the old rules do not apply, it is an ancient truth that a great power has to back up its threats if it wishes to be respected by its friends and feared by its adversaries.
If Mr Obama did not intend to honour his red-line threat, he should never have made it. The result was inevitable — American credibility is undeniably diminished in the Middle East while that of Vladimir Putin’s Russia has been enhanced.
The remarkable thing about the “credibility” argument is that its advocates never present any evidence for their case, and no amount of evidence proving the argument wrong has any effect on their confidence in the importance of “credibility.” Burns says that it is an “ancient truth,” and apparently no more investigation of the question is needed. He makes the mistake of treating all threats and promises as if they have equal value and significance, but we know very well that they are not. Choosing not to back up a stupid or ill-conceived threat may have no effect on how a great power’s threats and promises are perceived. It may even give its formal commitments greater weight because the great power isn’t diverting resources to conflicts where its interests are negligible. More often than not, the course of action that hawks believe is necessary to preserve “credibility” in the eyes of allies and adversaries appears dangerous and mystifying to both.
(...)
16 Apr 2016, 8:43 pm
