Is Caution a Vice?
According to Kori Schake‘s New York Times guest essay, “Biden’s Cautious Foreign Policy Imperils Us,” the president’s caution is cause for concern.
Since when is caution misguided? For Schake, it is when commitments do not align with capacity to deliver, thereby creating instability. Fair enough. But is President Biden’s prudence in the face of great power war – and potential nuclear conflict – in this category?
It seems to me that caution, even in the face of nuclear threats from Putin and increased aggression from China, is the shrewd way forward, reassuring allies and foes alike of a careful balancing of ends and means.
On China, Schake’s skepticism springs from her assertion that the “Biden administration isn’t funding an American military that can adequately carry out our defense commitments.” She is right to remind us of the essential lesson of realism: the imperative to correlate commitments to resources, and to align military, economic, and political strategies.
However, we should not mistake prudence for weakness, and we should remain skeptical that increased military resources will alleviate tensions and lead to peace. Many in the U.S. policy and think tank communities are suggesting the inevitability of a military conflict over Taiwan. There is nothing inevitable about it – and the risk of self-fulfilling prophecy is real.
In the end, military strength matters, but wise restraint and the judicious use of power matter more.