I keep harping on the need to consider what is rational from the point of view of other nations making decisions. Even if I can't really do that because I don't have their point of view, I'm aware that it should be done.
But what if leaders and their citizens are incapable of making rational decisions even from their own frame of reference? People have trouble making decisions rationally on economic matters (tip to Instapundit):
Ten years ago, watching Argentina implode, I used to spend a lot of time asking analysts and other financial journalists why they couldn't do the obviously necessary things to stabilize their economy and maintain access to world markets. Ten years later, as Argentina continues to actively maintain its pariah status with unnecessarily aggressive negotiating tactics, this seems entirely normal. The technocratically obvious solution is rarely politically possible, except maybe in a few tiny and very homogenous countries in Northern Europe.
How much worse is it when matters of state up to decisions for war are being made?
And good grief, just figuring out what is rational from their point of view isn't even the end of the problem. They might not choose what is rational from their point of view, in the end.
That's why crises between foes who are in proximity and over issues of importance are so dangerous and can escalate to war. Each side can think it is being rational and each side can read the other side completely wrong--or decide they can't respond rationally to survive the crisis, rationally preferring to risk war based on their narrow interests rather than national interests (perhaps even convincing themselves their narrow interests are the same the national interest).
I remain grateful that even if America and China develop into rivals, we don't face each other across the Fulda Gap over control of the most concentrated collection of economic, financial, and military power potential on the planet.
