Just to add a comment:

I think Obama relies too heavily on soft power, and I predict that throughout his presidency he will consistently forgo a hard power strategy when it is both more profitable and reliable than a soft power one. If indeed he does do this, I also predict that the US will decline even faster than it is currently.

Someone please give Obama a copy of "The Prince."

> esa wrote:

> How was the Bush hardpower strategy profitable?>

There are many hard power options, and not all options are equal. Some in fact, like the ones Bush chose, are down right stupid under certain circumstances. It may be that providing the incentive of aid is more effective than coercion or vice versa. However, the most effective and reliable strategies in international relations are typically ones that fall within the boundaries of hard power.

Bush crushed Saddam and broke Al Qaeda's back globally.

I think people are going to miss how effective Bush was in curtailing Al Qaeda.

Abit of both is needed to run a country

Frenzy
My President is black, infact hes half white so even in a racist mind hes half right

> Noir wrote:

> Soft power can achivie things hard power cannot. For instance is the business world (ive studied this in leadership psychology) you can aspire people with soft power (influence) to work efficiently, trought giving them motication and internal joy for their work. While you can fear people into staying at work or working hard, the minute you turn your back they will be taking breaks etc. In addition hard power often has transaction costs when implicated, such as costly routines to catch slackers etc. Furhtermore soft power can often be much more effective to aspire creativity and inovation (look to google)>

Interesting. My study of psychology indicated that providing positive reinforcement on a variable ratio schedule was the most effective for maximizing work place efficiency. Although, I do agree, that having a kind of bonding relationship between co workers and leadership is also an effective way to improve work efficiency. We work better with people we know better.

However, in dealing with other countries, this soft power stuff comes off as fake. It's like offering an empty hand on many occasion. "Yeah we stand for justice and equality for all" is just typically inappropriate in business or foreign relations transactions. Soft power has its uses, don't get me wrong, but it's most useful as a complement to hard power, not as a substitute.

Korea is a perfect example of where hard power is needed. The soft power approach does not work with a man who starves his own populace for the sake of maintaining the largest army in the world.

However let's not forget the problems of hard power incorrectly applied. Pakistan is only now beginning to address its problems, long after getting a fleet of shiny F-16s.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Why are hard power and soft power mutually exclusive with one another? <

> Frenzy wrote:

> Abit of both is needed to run a country <

Okay, cool.  So we're in agreement that both are necessary.

That being said, I would argue that there's no way to judge whether one is better than the other because each one is needed in a different situation.  Generally, when in doubt, the use of both methods against the same target is an effective approach, as it allows nations to choose whether they want to be the subject of soft or hard power.  Once used, however, it would define, for the long term, whether hard or soft power was a better tool to be used. 

It's like comparing whether a syringe is better than a chainsaw.  Each one has their uses.  Just as you wouldn't try to operate on someone using a chainsaw, the US shouldn't threaten to nuke Canada over a trade dispute.  The trick isn't to come up with a "when all else fails" approach, but to better know the person you're dealing with so that you know which approach will work.  That's why I go for the carrots and sticks approach: It shows a pattern for long term relations with the target country.  An outright rejection of an offer indicates hostility, while acceptance, or even a counteroffer or negotiation, are indicators that soft power is a better tool than hard power.

If you use soft power in the wrong scenario, you look like a wimp, lose credibility, and are generally ineffective.  If you use hard power in the wrong scenario, you create enemies for absolutely no reason.  Intelligence fixes it.

"I think whether one is better than the other is a matter of testing whether people are more motivated by social incentives or economical/power ones."

economical/power incentives are only motivational because of soft power persuading people that the economy and power is important. without soft power, hard power is useless.

Pretty much.  Although Hitler was pure hard power.  He was harder than a teenager who ate a bottle of viagra.

We're talking pretty much about foreign relations here, though.