American Vice President Biden’s frequent statements, which can be regarded as tactlessness in a diplomatic sense, can suggest the “Who are administering such a giant force?” question at the first glance. What could have been the explanation of partially declaring the country, who had been persuaded for a strategy oriented in Syria and Iraq during the most required period, as being negligent as Obama’s Vice-President did with adding the Arabic countries to the same category? Besides, how could a man, who is famous for his similar inconsistent statements and apologies straight after, be in the “No.2” position, which administers a world giant?
Leaving aside the reality and image formation, which are pointed out by similar diplomatically scandalous statements, information errors which could be regarded as illiteracy indicators can be heard a lot from American authorities. When you bear in mind that movie actors can sit in the president’s chair in the American system, despite their governorship experience, it could be assumed that there is a deep contradiction between this slight representation and strategic decision-making.
American authorities’ profiles, which show a lightweight image compared to a lot of respondent from the point of individual skill and accumulation, can misguide their respondents. The surprising performances of the allied, and even third world, executives, who outweigh their American respondents in terms of their intellectual capacity and political vision, accumulation of knowledge, historical and actual grasp on the field, had taken others’ attentions time to time.
The lightness of American executives, like in the recent Biden example, and individual legal acquis of respondents can be deceptive about the decision-making skill and strategic vision of these countries, which are still super powers. The Minister, the authority, who comes in front of you as a respondent, could have reached that position via complicated power balances of the American election system. This situation doesn’t mean that an emperorship-quality power’s strategic vision is reflected to this representation. The specific weight of the power represented by the person should be assumed while making an evaluation, rather than the individual weight of the person. In other words, the existence of the state system, which has an account of the economic, political and martial power balances and interferes in these balances, should be kept in mind.
Trying to make a judgment about the power and capacity of this type of state by looking at the occasional confounding sloppiness of American executives can deceive, before everything else, the ones who want to work with them. And, especially, the ones who will be entering a strategic alliance or opposition relation in an extremely risky region like Turkey.
This case doesn’t mean that America is the absolute power that designates everything, but also, it doesn’t require underestimating this power by looking at the individual styles of the ones at the showcase.
The states, that have global dominance claims, had strategies that exceed people and even ruling parties; these won’t show radical changes according to ruling parties. At most, the wording and some priorities will change.
Tens of examples can be shown about the fact that not every development might go as previously planned. However, alternatives will be prepared for such unpredictable cases. For example, nowadays it is being revealed that the invasion plan for Afghanistan had been prepared during the Clinton period, and was to be put in action if deemed necessary.
We are witnessing a period where the delusion of the ones, who are underestimating America’s power by looking at the likes of Biden or H. Clinton, and the ones, who absolutize this power and assume that America’s power is designating everything, is coinciding.
1- The ones, who are looking down on America’s power by looking at the individual performances of some spokesmen, should keep in mind that even if this country doesn’t designate everything, this country desires to hold the initiative and designate the area, which would be opened to secondary and tertiary powers, and for now protecting this capacity. It could be said that, despite their inconsistent policies, they are still controlling the areas that are important for them in the direction of strategic benefits, and are acting with a mind directed at preventing the formation of uncontrolled powers in the Middle East. For example, it’s beneficial to be reminded that they are holding enough power to break the “Not even a leaf will move in the Middle East without Ankara’s permission” statement, following the increase in Turkey’s impact on the region.
2- On top of absolutizing this power, the ones, who believe that not even a leaf will move in the Middle East without America’s permission, are falling in to the same situation with the ones who are confusing Turkey’s real power with its potential power.
Maybe the USA is not in its past power, but it’s clear that the regional dynamics don’t have enough power to act on their own and designate basic strategies. The evaluations, which will be made without reading the system behind the individual representation, might get their respondents in a bind. Most importantly, the one who had “persuaded” the regional countries to use them against the severity environment, which is claimed to be formed by them, is the same Biden, who had accused the regional countries from Saudi Arabia to Turkey with acting out of control, and the system he represents. It’s not impossible for this game to be broken, but it’s beneficial to think about how and with which mind this could be achieved rather than heroism.