Archive - May 8, 2009

I have GOT to get this book: The Godfather Doctrine: A Foreign Policy Parable.

Yes, someone used The Godfather (Parts I and II) to help explain the various international relations theory the U.S. has employed in the past.  

Victorino Matus over at Uncle Rupert's shop has more:

Not since the end of the Cold War have I witnessed such an intense, exhaustive, and heated debate among foreign policy scholars. The conflagration took place this morning at the Washington office of the German Marshall Fund. The hotly contested issue: Is Tom Hagen, consigliere to the Corleone crime family, a realist or a liberal internationalist?

John Hulsman and Wess Mitchell argued that Tom was the latter: Hagen’s problem is he thinks Sonny is the problem, not the other families. More than anything else, Tom yearns for a return to a “Sicilian Bretton Woods” where everyone sits around and negotiates peacefully. When the war of the five families breaks out, Tom’s major concern is about how the conflict will hurt business.

Robert Kagan disagreed. After his return from Hollywood (and what sort of liberal would allow a horse’s head to be left on someone’s bed?), Tom urges Don Corleone to make the deal with Sollozzo the Turk—let us organize the drug trade. In fact, the consigliere is a realist.

But what sort of realist? A Kissingerian realist?

{...}The authors readily admit the analogy only goes so far. But, as Wess Mitchell noted, “when you boil it down, the typology still holds.” Don Corleone is the declining hegemon. Sollozzo the Turk is not a superpower but a tool of other nefarious regimes. He is an opportunist, likened to Ahmadinejad. When Tom Hagen warns Sonny that the war against Tattaglia and Sollozzo can spiral into a war against all the families, Sonny welcomes it. He fails, in Hulsman’s words, “to differentiate between primary and secondary threats.” And the war does cost a lot in terms of manpower and resources. Enter Michael, who sees a way out through his venture in Las Vegas. He negotiates, offering a chance for the other families to benefit (but only to a certain extent).

“He negotiates?” scoffed Kagan. “His first ‘negotiation’ ended with his putting bullets in the heads of the cop and Sollozzo.” And of course he concludes by eliminating the heads of the five families. So much for being an integrator. “Michael is unsatisfied with just killing Tattaglia and Sollozzo. What Michael wants is total security,” a very American notion.{...}

Is this an odd notion, that someone would use the Corleones to explain international relations theory? I don't think so.  I think it works perfectly.  To quote (of all freakin' people) Nora Ephron from (of all freakin' movies) You've Got Mail:

Kathleen: What is it with men and The Godfather?

Joe: Hello?  The Godfather is the I-Ching.  The Godfather is the sum of all wisdom.  The Godfather is the answer to any question.  What should I take on my vacation?  Leave the gun, take the cannoli.  What day is it? Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Wednesday.  The answer to your question is 'go to the mattresses.' You're at war. 'It's not personal, it's business. It's not personal it's business.' Recite that to yourself every time you feel you're losing your nerve. I know you worry about being brave, this is your chance. Fight. Fight to the death.

See what I mean?  The Godfather IS the I-Ching.  Why not try to explain foreign policy by using it.  

Somewhere, in the dreary fifth floor of Ross Hall, home of the the Iowa State University Political Science Department, my favorite international relations theory professor Dr. Mansbach, is kicking himself that he didn't think of this.