GOP Candidates Must Articulate Role of U.S. Troops in Middle East
Today, AEI, Heritage, and CNN will host a debate of the Republican presidential candidates focusing on national security and foreign affairs. Over at AEI, we were asked to raise issues to be addressed in the debate. Here, I argued that the Obama administration has dealt our foreign policy a serious blow by its headlong rush for the exits in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But Republican candidates also need to address the role of American troops in those places that do not require the massive expenditure of blood and treasure to reform them into western democracies. I think that after clearing out our enemies, whether it be al Qaeda or the Saddam Hussein regime, our military should not try to nation build. It would be nice if we could turn every nation into a democracy (if only because democracies do not wage war against each other), but we don't have the resources for it, and many nations are not ready for it. Instead, we can play a central role by guaranteeing power-sharing deals between the powerful tribes and groups within a country, while protecting them from foreign enemies. That would provide a measure of stability in these countries, turn them in a friendly direction toward us, without straining our resources as far as the last two wars.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: GOP Candidates Must Articulate Role of U.S. Troops in Middle East
I think that is spot-on analysis, John. There is certainly a role for the United States to play in international affairs well beyond what folks like Ron Paul would have us do, but the last decade has seen us expend a tremendous amount of blood and treasure for limited gains.
It's not that nation building can't work, but you really need more to work with to make it successful than what we have had in countries such as Iraq and Afganistan. It's one thing to rebuild Germany after you have broken its industrial base and conquered it. It's another thing to rebuild an Iraq that is a relatively recent artificial construct that was created by the Europeans because the Ottoman Empire backed the wrong horse.
This is one of the reasons why I don't necessarily share the lamentations about our departure from Iraq. I'm not sure what another couple years would do that hasn't already been done. I also suspect the most we'll get out of Afghanistan is a weak and corrupt central government in Kabul and some balance of power between warring factions.
Oct '11
Re: GOP Candidates Must Articulate Role of U.S. Troops in Middle East
I think this is right, and I don't think they should stop at forces used in nation building. Candidates should have to show us how our national defense requires that we keep 52,000 troops in Germany, 49,000 troops in Japan, 28,500 troops in South Korea, and 10,000 troops in Italy. If it means rethinking NATO and other treaties, then that has to be done. Senator Rand Paul has rightly challenged Congress to justify our massive defense spending, and our president should have to do the same.
On the other hand, I'm a strong believer that free trade is necessary for a successful democracy. If we destroy a country's infrastructure through war, I'm not opposed to building it back up, especially if it facilitates trade and commerce. I think we've gone far beyond that in Iraq and Afghanistan, and perhaps they should be the ones paying for such rebuilding.
Oct '10
Re: GOP Candidates Must Articulate Role of U.S. Troops in Middle East
I'm fine with massive defense spending given the threat posture in the world and how we've weakened key defenses like the United States Navy. That said QuickerBrownFox is bringing up some excellent points in regards to troop deployments to protect nations that have more than enough economic ability to provide substantially for their own defense.
It can make great sense to have military forces posted overseas, but they need to be working on protecting our own national interests such as keeping China from knocking over Taiwan or having forces in Europe who can respond to a crisis in the Middle East after than they could from someplace else.
I would like to know why we need so many people in Europe and South Korea. I also like to know what the point of NATO is given that the Warsaw Pact is long gone. Its performance in Libya and Afghanistan hasn't been comforting.
Edited on Nov 22, 2011 at 12:19pmNov '10
Re: GOP Candidates Must Articulate Role of U.S. Troops in Middle East
I am getting really tired of the endless debates among Sneezy, Sleepy, Dopey, Doc, Happy, Bashful & Grumpy.
Re: GOP Candidates Must Articulate Role of U.S. Troops in Middle East
I am concerned that "guaranteeing power-sharing agreements between the powerful tribes and groups" means an endless commitment to an ill-defined goal.
It is certainly more level-headed than nation-building, but I think it is still a bridge too far. I wonder if the tribes or groups we promote as being worthy of sharing in power are not hobbled in the long run by their association with a resented foreign power. The Bush and Obama administrations have done a poor job in picking allies to this point.
I wish the candidates would explain how long-term occupation of these areas is conducive to the security of American rights. Does our security require the occupation and transformation of every failed state in the world to make sure that they do not become terrorist breeding grounds?
Victory means the preservation of our liberties and our way of life. Will we ever get to a point where law-abiding citizens are not pawed at and scanned at the airport? Must we continue to support a massive homeland security apparatus in perpetuity?
Mar '11
Re: GOP Candidates Must Articulate Role of U.S. Troops in Middle East
I'm all for a smaller military and reduced roles. I think we do too much, and that' trying to be the world's policeman is contrary to our best interests. I'm not a pure isolationist, but I think we could use some more isolationism, to put it in simple terms.
That said, I simply cannot abide Ron Paul as President. If the man would just say "we should mind our own business" that would be fine. But he goes beyond that to degrees that would make Neville Chamberlain look hawkish. He apologizes for Al Qaeda, and indeed, seems afraid of them. "Boy, we better not make Al Qaeda mad at us or they'll come get us!" seems to sum up his speeches. He comes off as a big ole' fraidy cat. It's right and fine to debate whether or not we should have bases in Saudi. It's beyond the pale to quake before terrorists and give in to their demands.
Mar '11
Re: GOP Candidates Must Articulate Role of U.S. Troops in Middle East
Publius:
It's not that nation building can't work, but you really need more to work with to make it successful than what we have had in countries such as Iraq and Afganistan.
Nation building CAN work, but the fact that no one wants to face is that nation building takes four things:
That means an unprecedented commitment in blood, treasure, and time. I just don't see American viewing Iraq or Afghanistan as worth it. We still haven't even left Germany or Japan after 65 years, and everyone agrees, that Iraq and Afghanistan would take much longer.
Oct '10
Re: GOP Candidates Must Articulate Role of U.S. Troops in Middle East
Douglas,
That's a very fine post. I have a concurring opinion in that I agree with what you wrote, but I think it's even harder than that. You appear to need some sort of cultural unity and a tradition of having strong national institutions. Japan and Germany both had unified populations and strong institutions even if those institutions were either subverted by the evil people who ran the show or destroyed during the conflict that lead to their conquest.