Friday’s Edition: Internal vs. External Direction
The 8 political drivers
In March 2003, American tanks rolled toward Baghdad. The plan was clear: remove Saddam Hussein, install democratic institutions, and reshape Iraq into a stable ally. Enough force, applied with enough precision, would produce the intended outcome.
Twenty years and trillions of dollars later, Iraq remains fractured. The democracy never took root. Iran’s influence grew. The outcome bore no resemblance to the plan.
This is internal direction thinking applied to foreign policy. The belief that nations can impose outcomes on the world through sufficient will, resources, and action. Set the objective. Execute the strategy. Overcome resistance. The environment will yield to those with enough power to reshape it.
The United States has operated from this framework since 1945. Korea. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Libya. The pattern repeats: intervene decisively, install preferred systems, expect transformation. When transformation doesn’t happen, apply more pressure. The assumption is always the same. We control what happens next.
External direction cultures approach power differently. China’s Belt and Road Initiative doesn’t try to change governments. It works with them as they are. Authoritarian regimes, democracies, and military juntas. Beijing builds ports, railways, and power plants without demanding political reform. It reads what each environment will accept and adapts accordingly. Patient. Flexible. Opportunistic.
Internal direction cultures see adaptation as weakness. Changing course because conditions won’t support your plan feels like failure. External direction cultures see forcing through as foolish. Ignoring what the environment is telling you wastes resources and invites disaster.
Hornby mapped these orientations onto psychological types. Internal direction aligns with the North archetype, the power-seeker who dominates circumstances, sets agendas, and believes outcomes flow from the exercise of will. North types don’t work with the environment; they impose their will on the environment.
External direction aligns with the Green archetype, who reads situations and responds to what conditions allow. Green types recognize that circumstances change outcomes. They adapt their approach to what the environment will support.
American foreign policy failures aren’t failures of execution. They’re failures of assumption. The belief that enough military power can install democracy. That sanctions will collapse regimes. That pressure will produce compliance. These beliefs flow from internal direction thinking: the conviction that you control what happens next.
When the U.S. toppled Gaddafi in 2011, officials expected Libya to stabilize. It didn’t. The country fractured into warring militias. Slave markets opened. Refugees flooded toward Europe. The intervention succeeded on its own terms. The aftermath was chaos because the environment, not Washington, determined what came next.
China, in contrast, doesn’t try to remake other nations. It builds infrastructure, extends loans, and cultivates relationships with whoever holds power. When governments change, Beijing adapts. It reads the board and plays accordingly.
This isn’t moral superiority. China’s approach serves Chinese interests. The point is strategic, not ethical. External direction of foreign policy produces fewer spectacular failures because it doesn’t assume control it doesn’t have.
Internal direction thinking asks: What outcome do we want, and how do we achieve it?
External direction thinking asks: What will this environment actually support?
American policymakers keep answering the first question brilliantly. They rarely ask the second one at all.
The environment, it turns out, gets a vote.