Daily Page | Zebrality | 2010 Football Pool | General Chat | Latest Comments

You are on an individual archive page

Click here to return to the main page


Wikipedia does good things. Reward them.

The Daily Links Page
Got a link to submit?
  • Double Rainbow Guy in Windows Live Ad
  • Skeptoid.com on the Myers-Briggs Personality Test
  • New Glarus Brewing invites fans to weigh in on its 2011 beer schedule
  • UW the big loser in Big Ten realignment
       [ 14 comments ]
  • Glee, Flight of the Conchords featured on 9/26 Simpsons premiere
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Zenyatta Stakes reverting to old name meaning Zenyatta will not be able to win the Zenyatta stakes
  • Target to sell Facebook Credits gift cards
  • Officials: Suspect holding hostages at Discovery Channel
       [ 1 comment ]
  • New Big Ten divisions to be announced 7 pm ET tonight
       [ 77 comments ]
  • UEFA enacts vuvuzela ban
  • Blair: Bush world view had 'immense simplicity'
  • Best. Horserace Call. Ever.
       [ 1 comment ]
  • The Media Loses Readers and Viewers to its Own Radicalism
  • Great Debate: Can Rodgers overtake Favre?
       [ 20 comments ]
  • Homeowne's Fight Involves Flag Tied to Tea Party
  • Why Do Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers?
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Authorities Were on High Alert for Possible Hijack Attempt
  • Behind the hurricane hype
  • UW-Madison: 17th-best damn university in the whole damn world
  • Social media votes on Aaron Rodgers' beard
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Not so cuddly now: It's claws the psycho squirrel
  • Top 5 Floating Sheep Maps
  • Texas Rep. violated rules, steered scholarships to relatives
  • The smell of freshly-cut grass is actually a plant distress call
  • Why can't Barack Obama tell the world about American tolerance?
  • Anyone Who Wants to Cut Entitlements Clearly Has No Place on a Commission Devoted to Fiscal Responsibility
  • The great Obama-Axelrod-etc. mystery
  • Is the Trade Gap to Blame for Slowing GDP Growth?
  • The six wives of Henry VIII in the movies
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Who's Stupid?
  • Brewers' Gallardo robbed at gunpoint
  • Want to be class president? Not if you're black, in one Miss. school
  • Lance Armstrong Wants To Tell Nation Something But Nation Has To Promise Not To Get Mad
  • Most humble and most arrogant Presidents
       [ 3 comments ]
  • Singles: best soundtrack of the 90's
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Observation Deck: Packers-Colts
  • David Hasselhoff to Compete on ABC's Dancing With the Stars!
  • Solution to the Ground Zero Mosque Dilemma
  • Trapped miners in Chile assuming different roles
  • 'Sportwriters on TV' back on the air ... in Chicago
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Polish man, shot in head, notices five years later
  • Inside the secret world of Trader Joe's
  • Report: Wisconsin & Iowa will be in separate Big Ten divisions
       [ 10 comments ]
  • That buzz you hear? Must be mosquitoes, not interest in Gophers
       [ 2 comments ]
  • Death of a Hero: Brett Favre's Tragic Fall from Grace
  • Rand vs. Ron? Cordoba House Drives Wedge Through The Paul Family
  • Former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman: I'm gay
  • Greeks 'discover Odysseus' palace in Ithaca, proving Homer's hero was real
       [ 3 comments ]
  • Angry Birds eyes a movie/TV deal
  • Coffee shops to customers: get the hell out
       [ 3 comments ]

     

  • The Changing Nature of Alliances

       March 07, 2005

    In the comments to James' latest post, someone accused the Bush administration of, among other things, coming close to destroying NATO. It got me to thinking about alliances in the modern world.

    To my mind, there are two major types of alliances: in keeping with my love of reality television, let's call them "Survivor" alliances and "Amazing Race" alliances.

    Parties in a Survivor alliance pledge eternal allegiance to each other. They'll do whatever it takes to help each other, whether it's in their own best interests at that moment or not. These are defensive alliances. They are formed to protect each other from a shared threat (whether it's Nazis, Commies or the tribe on the other island). When people talk about Bush "ruining" alliances, these are the kind of alliances they're talking about.

    Conversely, Amazing Race alliances are transitory. These offensive alliances are based on a temporary mutual need. They are formed to get things done and when the task is complete, the parties are free to go their separate ways. These alliances are pragmatic in nature and do not require, nor inspire, loyalty. The "coalition of the willing" in Iraq or the international groups that coordinated tsunami relief are great modern examples of Amazing Race alliances.

    Both types of alliances have their place in the world. Some countries are bound together for the long haul. For example, whether they like us or not, Canada will have to rely on the United States for protection. But, right now we're seeing the major problem with Survivor alliances. These alliances naturally fall apart when the external threat is eliminated. On the TV show, a group can vow to make it to the Final Four together, but once the threat of being booted is gone, they tear each other apart. Self-interest trumps all. Likewise, once the evil empire of the Soviet Union was toppled, the NATO states were free to scramble and fight in their own self-interests. And that's what they did.

    The United States has attempted to build a new Survivor alliance against the threat of Islamofascist terrorism. But, since most of our allies have yet to be touched by this threat, they're unwilling to pledge allegiance to this new alliance. We're going to be forced to fight the War on Terror with a succession of Amazing Race alliances. The role of "New Europe" is a great example of an Amazing Race alliance. These countries joined us in Iraq not because they've pledged eternal allegiance to the United States of America, but because it was in their best interests to do so at that moment. Yes, the Poles are a gallant people who are willing to fight for freedom, but, at the same time, Poland knew that they had much to gain economically by helping the United States.

    At the end of Survivor, the two finalists are judged by their former allies. The person who wins is usually the one who is perceived as being most loyal to that old alliance. In the Amazing Race, the team that wins is the one that crosses the finish line first. Alliances are a means to an end, not an end onto themselves. While Survivor alliances are best suited to a reality TV show that's essentially a popularity contest, I contend that Amazing Race alliances are what's best suited to the real world. And, as much as we might sometimes wish otherwise, we do live in the harsh real world.


    Posted by at March 7, 2005 02:26 PM

        The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/739

     

    Trackback Entries

     


    Comments

    #  March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM      Converted_Comment
    Converted comment: Posted by: Daddy at March 7, 2005 02:36 PM

    That was a good metaphor!

    I don't know if it was worth sitting through three years of The Amazing Race, but....

    Oh, if Poland allied itself with the US for economic gain, wouldn't that be a Joe Millionaire alliance?

     
     
    #  March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM      Converted_Comment
    Converted comment: Posted by: kris at March 7, 2005 02:45 PM

    No. The U.S. actually *is* Joe Millionaire. It'd be more like The Bachelor.

     
     
    #  March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM      Converted_Comment
    Converted comment: Posted by: Daddy at March 7, 2005 02:59 PM

    So, what you're saying is....we don't really HAVE fifty million dollars? :)

     
     
    #  March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM      Converted_Comment
    Converted comment: Posted by: james at March 7, 2005 03:54 PM

    on survivor, everyone has an alliance with everyone else. it's all lies, lies, lies, the logic being, why tell someone that you aren't in an alliance with them unless you have to?

    it's only when it comes to the final vote or when your head is on the chopping block that you find out who your "real" alliance partners were.

    more often than not, most of your alliances were illusory. it's all fine and well for a country to say "yes, we are aligned with you US! so keep protecting us, keep sending us aid." but as soon as it comes to put up or shut up time, the survivor-like alliances are exposed for the shams that they always were.

     
     
    #  March 8th, 2005 2:05 AM      jonts
    teresting essay.

    Those tempoaray 'coalition of the willing' alliances are actually turning out to be fairly unreliable. The international group
    that coordinated tsunami relief (US, India, one or two others) actually had to be disbanded after a month as the UN was doing a better coordinating job.

    NATO, I hope will become weaker not stronger- Bush has been trying to strenthen NATO as a counterwieght (replacement ?) to the UN e.g. when he called for NATO to be a forum for addressing political issues (European, led by Germany essentially said no.)  
     

     

     


    To leave a comment you must be logged in.
    Log in here
    or Get an Account here.


      page rendered in 0.2677 seconds | ©2004, 2005 Dummocrats.com