Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
President Obama’s Downsized Foreign Policy – Is It Conservative?
Speaking ten years after the conclusion of the calamitous Crimean War, Conservative Prime Minister Lord Derby cautioned that foreign policy should avoid “quixotic action – inimical to the welfare of the country.” Six years later, in 1872, Conservative Party leader of the opposition and former Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli spoke, “though so momentous are the consequences of the mismanagement of our foreign relations, no one thinks of them till the mischief occurs, and then it is found how the most vital consequences have been occasioned by the mere inadvertence.” With these statements in mind, one might question whether President Obama may have been channeling conservatives when he allegedly uttered his rule of foreign policy, “Don’t do stupid [expletive].”
Traditionally, conservatism has not valued bellicose talk nor attempted to find the next “Munich” behind every negotiation. All conflict was not seen as equal – and all agreements were not as tough as some may suggest. Instead, conservatives tried to see the bigger picture. Conservative foreign policy acknowledges power is precious and ephemeral and, thus, best applied sparingly, primarily to protect the nation’s sovereignty. Righteous, courageous, humanitarian, or moral crusades might have merit, but outlay must always adhere to dominion.
Prior to the 20th century, American foreign policy was by and large a bipartisan affair centered on nationalism, placing American interests first. It was one of realism; i.e., the belief that all states desire power and expansion for self-preservation. The United States foreign policy focused on preserving itself as it negotiated, intrigued, and fought its way westward. Teddy Roosevelt promoted the idea that national security is enhanced when power is distributed or balanced, and believed America must be a world power to ensure security. In 1919, Woodrow Wilson took a different approach advocating morals are universally valid and democracies quell the instinct for power (war), therefore the promotion of democracy and international conventions were the best tonics for peace. Conservatives looked askance at Wilson’s internationalist approach, claiming it would threaten American sovereignty and interests with entanglement. Realism, not internationalism, was their view.
After WWII, a devastated world and Soviet power compelled conservatives to accept defense treaties to balance economic and military power, a strategy based on the the projection off force around the world to stop small conflicts before they could later become threats to vital American interests. Again, this was mostly bipartisan. Liberals remained committed to global accords and joined the UN, World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc. to establish norms (universally valid morals), most of which favored American values and self-preservation. To protect against the existential threat posed by the west, the Soviets developed a nuclear arsenal to match America’s. Thus, the framework for the Cold War was established. America worked diligently to contain Soviet accretion of power. Showdowns, interventions, and regional wars — sometimes with multilateral sanction — occurred. Slowly, the definition of what is a vital interest grew to include defending expectations for the UN or international conventions.
For conservatives, the fall of the Soviet Union affirmed American exceptionalism. In contrast, liberals saw this as a multilateral triumph. Neo-conservatives came to believe that, as a unipolar superpower, America had a duty to balance regional power and promote democratic values; a hybrid of realist and liberal ideas. After 9/11, conservatives and liberals began to gel around intervention to enforce multilateral sanctions and replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic government. Pre-emption was the justification. Though it was not clear at the time, these ideas were grinding to a halt when, early in the Iraq War, General Petraeus asked the president to “Tell me how this ends.” There really was no good answer for how pre-emptive American intervention would end – and this became painfully apparently when no threat to vital America interests in the form of WMD’s was uncovered … if they ever were a threat.
Thus, we arrive at the Obama administration. It speaks in lofty tones of human rights and preserving peace through multilateralism. It even nods to the notion of the “right to protect” doctrine which allows for states to interfere with the sovereignty of a UN member state if it is judged to be vital to protecting human rights. This is a bold argument for Wilsonian liberal idealism and the pursuit of a perfect world.
Yet since arriving in office, the administration has downsized the expectations of America and her allies, established new criteria for military action and pulled back to assume a more subdued role of leadership. Success for this administration is not solely defined as defeating America’s enemies by force. Success is any day American forces are not fighting, wounded, mourned, stressed … and allies are not recoiling, and taxpayer dollars not hurting, maiming, and killing civilians. Where America has led, it has reached out to ‘reset’ relations with adversaries, mostly ignoring provocative behavior in places like Abkhazia, Crimea, Ukraine, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, the South China Sea, Northeast Asia, Cuba, and Iran. America’s has chosen studied obliviousness, feigned protest, or hollow demands to keep the “resets” on course even when they do not bear fruit. Adversaries have learned that careful, low intensity aggressions using espionage, proxy rebels, stealth, standoffs, cyber war, disguised aid, and troops in unmarked uniforms will not trigger American military response. Many feel something must be done in response.
In fact, American response has been mild. We have withdrawn troops, threatened action, not backed up tough talk, provided limited standoff air and drone attacks, and criticized or pushed our allies to negotiate. We have often reversed course and sought a lower profile. We assiduously avoid boots on the ground or a hint at entanglement. The threshold for what must be defended as a vital American interest has been redefined and raised. Why?
Looking at a map, there is little we can do in most of the trouble spots, unless we commit vast force. Such a commitment would create space elsewhere to be exploited by other adversaries. This is due to our treaty partners and many of our friends being weak and unsure. Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea have no interest in bold American action and even less in their own. Those who seek bold American action are threatened countries living at the margin of conflict, such as Egypt, Jordan, Philippines, Vietnam, and Poland. Hesitant to act militarily on its own, US is left with unilateral or multilateral economic sanctions which are hard to establish, harder to hold together and often weak when finally implemented.
The liberal suasion of Wilsonian reason, when it comes to universal morals, is proving not to be as compelling as once thought. And America’s values are no longer dominating the world stage. Authoritarian ideas of free markets and autocratic government are on the rise in China, Russia, and in the third-world. Global conventions are being gradually subsumed by this different view. Realist nations are back, seeking power and expansion for self-preservation.
Yet, to yield begrudgingly in some of the aforementioned places might be a useful strategy if one seeks to preserve American sovereignty and national interest. The reasons are three fold:
The Need to Restore the Balance of Power in the Middle East
Fracking and tar sands have ended the days when America relied on Middle Eastern oil. The Middle East is now the Middle East’s, Europe’s and Asia’s problem. We can help, but what vital American interest is at risk in the Middle East?
We destroyed the balance of power in the Middle East when we removed Saddam. We could not make the Shiites in Iraq accept us. Shiite Iran moved to fill the vacuum. Iran is ascendant at the moment, but not without challengers. The Middle East outside of Iran, Iraq and Syria is actually quite powerful, tentative but powerful. Israel (and soon Iran) has nuclear weapons and multifaceted delivery systems – including submersible launched missiles. It can be a nuclear umbrella for Sunni nations and possibly give it leverage to resolve border issues. This is Israel’s problem because while we will help Israel in every way, not one American soldier will die protecting Israel. Pakistan, a Southwest Asian nation, will likely facilitate a Saudi nuclear arsenal for a huge price and this will help reset the balance of power. Russian presence will be tolerated, if it helps remove ISIL. But, it is not welcome except by Assad – not even by the Syrians and only as a means to an end by the Iranians and Hezbollah.
Iran, like most authoritarian regimes, sees nuclear weapons as an existential necessity. Coercion has never removed a nuclear regime. They will get nuclear weapons. How and when is all that we can influence, unless we want to strike Iran and thereby permanently forge them as a ravenous enemy forever? If we strike, an invasion to prevent any nuclear program from arising again would be required and then what? If truth be known before we ever negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran, the question of whether Iran would get a nuclear weapon was pretty much decided. And while they chant, “Death to America,” they may find others to hate in order to reassure an insecure regime, especially once America downsizes its presence. As for using nuclear weapons, a regime that is 35 years old does not have a death wish. Israel and the U.S. can respond in kind – mutual assured destruction meets assured complete reprisal. Also, nuclear weapons like the ones Iran will develop will be blunt instruments that may kill many Arabs even when targeted on Israel.
Terrorists will propagate and metastasize in the Middle East and Africa. We are sharing intelligence, military aid, and training in return for intelligence, special operations posts and the right to base standoff air and drone weapons to keep terrorism in check. We have many options. But, we are not tying ourselves to blindly support weak regimes or those who may not be able to defend themselves. And we are not confusing humanitarian obligations with an American civilian or military presence in a part of the world where the sides shift suddenly.
Russian Vulnerability Will Lead to Margin Expansionism
Russia, an economy the size of Italy, sees opportunity in Eastern Europe to gain protection by extending its territory. There is little we can do short of a major military deployment and little beyond mild sanctions that Europe will consider. Even a military defense of the Baltic NATO members seems somewhat impractical given the geography, the native Russian population, the weakness of our European allies, and the susceptibility of the Baltic states to a Russian instigated ‘soft war’ consisting of an insurrection/cyber war/green men strategy like was used in the Crimea and Ukraine.
The question here for the United States is, what are we willing to wager to keep small countries which are part of a larger but loose defense treaty like NATO secure. NATO has become so large, so amorphous, that few countries feel compelled to comply with much force. NATO is an instrument of the Cold War where massive retaliation had to be swift and sure. When NATO conducts low intensity or counter-insurgency operations, it becomes more voluntary.
In the Middle East, Russia seeks to gain leverage to raise oil prices and insulate itself from terrorism. Oil accounts for 15% of GDP and 50% of Russian government revenue. As mighty as Russia may appear, their military is not first class, their weapons incapable of defeating a strong foe and their logistics are problematic. A foothold in the Middle East to establish a puppet government in Syria aligns them with Shiite Iran and Hezbollah – neither is ideologically committed to Assad or Russia. Russians will be killing Arabs, ISIL, al Qaeda, and Arab civilians with collateral consequences. Sunnis in Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States may engage Russia as they seek to establish a new balance of power with Iran. Europe and the outside world may see Russia’s role as restoring order by securing a dictator or two, if you count Putin. Putin cares nothing about ideology. He only cares about making Russia more powerful. How powerful will Russia be when it takes sides in the Middle East – befriending some, cowering some, and alienating others? Will Russia’s actions make America a more desired ally, augmenting our influence?
China Is a Geopolitical Opportunity
The only serious threat to America’s vital interests which might evolve into an existential threat is the potential for close cooperation and alliance between China and Russia. The Chinese believe they will be strong, despite internal political, environmental, resource, and demographic issues. For this reason, the Chinese see themselves as dominating any Sino-Russo alliance. Russia, while selling enormous quantities of energy to the Chinese, fears this as well. This is why the administration has made China the focus of our diplomatic, economic and military power. We are attempting to keep China and Russia apart to prevent the rise of a more powerful Sino-Russo alliance which could seriously alter the global balance of power and give either country more incentive to expand.
Our military pivot to Asia, which is rather modest, seems to represent a strategy to conserve power, move away from the Middle East, and gain leverage and a voice with China as we try influence their instincts to expand. All of this appears to be intended to position America so it can engage China and strike mutual agreement; a means to bring America and China closer while making Russia less important. Therefore, we may prod the Chinese on the subject of North Korea or human rights, but we probably will not alienate them. We will protest against Chinese island building, Air Defense Zone extensions, and territorial claims. Yet, we are not likely to propose economic sanctions. Instead, we are quietly reminding them (and they are quietly pushing back) that we hold many cards and can make life easier in terms of trade, global capital flows, and military cooperation provided they work with us. Ultimately, China is very aware we alone have the ability to silently disrupt the flow of energy and resources through the narrow sea channels of South Asia. This is the focus the Obama Administration is taking with the Xi Jinping government. It is diplomatic jostling with a purpose to gain access to and leverage with the Chinese, while disadvantaging Russia.
Russia can play all they want along the edge of Eastern Europe, enter the fray in the Middle East, and China can even build airstrips on manmade islands. These are not threats to American vital interests. And they drain precious Russian resource and preoccupy Chinese attention. Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Assad can fight ISIL, al Qaeda, and every other splinter group that splinters into another splinter group. They may even penetrate some Sunni countries. But, it is unlikely they will have much to show for it. Jihadist gangs will replace themselves. The Middle East oil states are no longer needy proxies to be easily herded as they once were in the Cold War. They sit atop enormous sovereign wealth and have constructed pervasive, sophisticated, means to preserve and protect their regimes.
While there is temptation to jump into every conflict and stand up to the multitude of carefully calibrated aggressions by Russia, Iran, China and the dozens of terrorist groups across the globe, the overriding goal of the Obama administration seems to be to prevent a Sino-Russo power alliance from emerging. For this reason, the administration is not preoccupied with stopping the Chinese from drilling for oil in the South China Sea or pushing for action on North Korea. The United states may even be hinting a pathway exists for a gradual, peaceful reintegration of Taiwan, the final confirmation of China’s legitimacy. The Obama Policy is betting that China’s internal problems will gradually preoccupy the nation while relations along the shared border with Russia will remain friendly, but coolly professional. It is not completely unhappy to see Russia caught up in the Middle East – as this may discredit Russia in the eyes of China. It sees Chinese acceptance of America as a competitor, a trading partner, and an important weight to tilt the balance of power in China’s favor from time to time. With this policy, the administration seems to accept that China will be realistic and desire power and expansion for its own self-preservation until it arrives at a point where the cost and benefit balances. This is the reason the administration believes the Chinese need to a mutual, strategic balance of power with the United States.
Conclusion
President Obama has awkwardly extracted — or is in the process of extracting — America from places where our interests have waned in Iraq or Afghanistan. The administration grasps the world is more tightly knit, interdependent, and digitally connected. The president is mindful of how this changes our nation’s and our competitors’ economic and military power. Added to this is the reality that we face deficits and an aging population, a critical factor affecting American power. In addition, modern defense may be less about deployment, kinetics, or attrition. Leverage comes from stealth, precision and disruption of digital infrastructure … more shock, less awe. And finally, defending the Straits of Hormuz, Malacca, or Formosa may no longer represent the kind of vital interests they once did when America was fighting the Cold War with a strategy to contain Communism by defending allies while we gradually imported increasing amounts of Middle Eastern oil.
A foreign policy based upon realism, geopolitical balance and conserving the nation’s resources while building up economic strength may be just what conservatives in mid-19th century Britain or America would recognize as essential to protect a nation’s sovereignty and place its interests first. For these reasons, it could be argued the Obama foreign policy avoids the “quixotic action – inimical to the welfare of the nation,” the “mischief” which arises from “mere inadvertence,” as all good conservative foreign policy should. It acknowledges power to be precious, ephemeral, and to be used sparingly. Following a template that many conservatives might recognize, it seems the President has noted the changes to the diplomatic, economic and military power that have taken shape since the end of the Cold War and 9/11. In response he has recalibrated the nation’s foreign policy to focus on what is emerging as the future vital national interests. We can disagree, but it might be hard to say a conservative foreign policy would not seek the same broad purpose.
Image Credit: By White House (Photo by Chuck Kennedy) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Published in Foreign Policy
That’s about the level of the conversation that he must have with his advisers. Like his 2004 convention speech, it sounds good and intriguingly this one seems easy to implement. The only problem I can see with this approach is whether a person is himself a stupid sh*t. Then the world can appear inverted and stupid actions look like smart actions even though they are really stupid.
Don’t do stupid sh*t. What a great idea in general — but what if it is a child’s view of complicated things where real people get killed and families displaced, raped, crucified, smothered, sold into sex slavery? What then?
I’ll spend more time this evening and read the rest, JM. Thanks for the post.
As always a good observation from you.
I don’t disagree with your compelling examples. But I remain open to the idea that not intervening everywhere unless there are high stakes probably is a pretty conservative notion. The definition of American interests needs to be thought through very carefully before we ship out one empty body bag, just in case we need it. I am not a peacenik, but I am practical. My experience taught me not to always trust everyone up the line to make good decisions. Committing other people is easy if you have never been committed to a fire fight yourself. The same applies to our wealth, our industry, our taxes, and our way of life. Where we choose to draw lines had better justify the cost.
Perhaps the President is Chauncey Gardiner, a kind of idiot recluse, from the movie “Being There” who bumbles along and appears to utter profundity and wisdom quite by accident and the generous misunderstanding of others. But I do think he really wants to avoid entanglement. And that has all the markings of traditional conservative thinking. His reasons may be very liberal for disengaging, but he is not betting big to promote democracy or multilateralism – per Woodrow Wilson. Conservatives used to fear such bets.
Larry, one other thought:
If we jump in and start today to clean up things, we could be engaged on a half dozen fronts and wind up like Gulliver, tied down by Lilliputians. Our capability to defend, even if we had the force levels we had under Reagan, cannot support interventions of this scale. Warfare is different. Even showdowns are different. We can perhaps fight smarter. Technology from sensors, to standoff weapons systems, to cyber war – very different. Yet our enemies are not overwhelming, but they are plentiful and mischievous. Too many fronts. Too many different types of conflict – trade, diplomacy, asymmetrical, terrorist, rogue state and aggressive states. There is not enough navy, air force and army to do it all well or even poorly. Even Reagan picked his conflicts wisely. He marshaled resource and evaded conflict to save himself for the big ones.
Were there any conservatives left after WWII? We learned a lot of wrong lessons from the post war world. The Wilsonian dream of multilateral diplomacy wouldn’t go away and since we could dominate the UN for a few years it seemed to work. Wrong lesson. We helped rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan, so we thought these major government initiatiatives were miraculous. Wrong lesson. We spent, grew government, pursued stabilization policies and thought we could fine tune an economy and counteract recessions. Wrong lesson. There was a lot going on we didn’t understand. We learned wrong lessons about unions and our industrial strength, our ability to extract confiscatory taxes and still flourish as well. The ground up post Cold War foreign policy analysis hasn’t happened and is called for to match the ongoing conservative questions about domestic policy. But the world has changed and we have learned a few other things right as well. You raise huge, important difficult questions. This will be fun to watch.
John Penfold:
John, this is what I am struggling with and hope some offer some insight here. It is confusing.
Like Syria, the what “we wish for” and the “what it takes” may not equate. You can apply that same analysis and you might find in favor of caution in the Ukraine, Crimea, the Baltic State’s security, N. Korea, and the South China Sea.
Let Russian dies, spend and consume themselves trying to build alliances with Islamic states, dictators and terrorists. It is an unpredictable alliance. And it will make some pretty serious enemies. Al Qaeda, welcome to Chechnya.
Mad,
I’m afraid that this is more sympathy for the devil. His foreign policy has been as huge a disaster as his domestic policy. In both cases a slavish media has papered over this disaster and propagandized the voters into oblivion.
I prefer not to participate in these crimes against America in any way. I will not let him off the hook. Supporting Marxists and Jihadists around the world is not in any way conservative. Destroying the Health Care system is not in any way conservative. Encouraging the destruction of secular marriage is not in any way conservative. Hyper regulating the economy with environmental paranoia is not in any way conservative.
May he be driven from office, one way or another, as soon as possible.
Regards,
Jim
James,
Not sympathy for the devil, though I don’t see Obama as a devil. He is more a sly payer with a game plan to me.
I do have genuine curiousness. Conservative foreign policy used to be pretty conservative. While I may not like the choices the President is making, he appears to be acting to curtail taking on every cause. Since when does it fall to us to make the world safe or even in our image. The world needs to step up for itself. We can help, but taking it to the point where everything becomes a vital national interest is problematic, isn’t it?
Mad,
You can not simply decide that we’ve had too many entanglements and then withdraw from the world. We act out not just the multi-cultural denial of our own values but actually blame ourselves for the world’s problems. This is ridiculous. The world has problems because it doesn’t get Democracy, Capitalism, and Human Rights. We are in a better way not because we have exploited them. On the contrary we have made every effort to help them. We are in a better way because without any better way to describe it, we are right.
This is not boastfulness. This is not triumphalism. This is not bullying. This is the truth and the truth will set you free. I could have sworn somebody else said that “set you free line” before I did. Maybe you know who.
Regards,
Jim
James,
Thanks again. Just not as sure as you might be about writing checks we might not be able to cash. I am trying to figure out what a good conservative policy is. Intervention, selection, or circle the wagons. Intervening cost money and lives. The results are not always clear. Should we be more careful about trying to save the world? If we intervene, whose side should we be on? Sometimes the choices are not clear. And how much are we willing to spend? We claim we want balanced budgets.
I’d characterize Obama’s foreign policy as Idiotarian rather than Conservative.
I’m not sure you can define and implement a conservative foreign policy as domestically it stands for conservation of history, tradition and a check upon dramatic change. What’s called for is a nationalist foreign policy where the priorities are a) furthering our interests as a nation, b) supporting our allies and c) maintaining a balance of power. Maybe we need to adapt the British policy of the 18th century. Use naval and air power to fence in the land powers while supplying the resources (money, arms, diplomacy) to ensure no one power becomes too dominant on the land. After all, we are very much like an island. In Realpolitik, what matters is not who our allies are, but what correlation of power benefits us.
All that said, I’m not sure the public wants to think of their nation as a country so amoral as to sit idly by while innocents in their thousands are abused, enslaved and slaughtered. To adapt a phrase, a liberal foreign policy would have no brain and a conservative foreign policy would have no heart.
Obama’s foreign policy is proof that just like LSU, you can go into Harvard dumb and come out dumb too.
Steve C. Great point! That is the issue: “To adapt a phrase, a liberal foreign policy would have no brain and a conservative foreign policy would have no heart.”
We hold beliefs of right and wrong. Yet “nationalist foreign policy” lands one squarely in the camp of “realism” or preserving the nation by expanding its power. The two can overlap. But, they are often mutually exclusive.
This is why foreign policy might be best when short and full of holes.
And then there is the cold steel – a nation’s foreign policy power depends upon resources, geography, and a bit of leadership.
All which cost time, talen and treasure. Spending on foreign policy means less for prosperity at home.
James Madison
The first order of business is to understand how little we can control events. We exaggerate our ability to shape outcomes, control events, move whole cultures. We cannot rely on experts in these matters as there is no such thing. Some folks have insights and wisdom, adults who’ve been around a while, few if any are career politicians. Our attention span is short and our check book fat, so serious efforts rapidly turn into check writing, photo ops, corruption, rip off and dysfunction, It’s government for god’s sake. What you point to as Gulliver spread around beyond our attention span and control. But this doesn’t mean withdrawal and not playing on the world stage because there are things we can and must do in this Hobbesian world. Our military is really good at what they do if we don’t ask them to be social workers and nation builders. We need to stop trying to make them and our diplomats reflect the political social flavor of the day. We can forward deploy, sail big dangerous ships around, be ubiquitous and appear invincible. This is essential in the South China Sea and the Pacific. We’re there, Asians want us there, they are used to us, comfortable with our presence and it is safer to be there, part of the landscape than to have to sail forward as challenges occur.
We are protected by two moats, and self-sufficient in food, energy, and resources.
What is an American vital interest? To stop suffering? Yes, but that requires deftness and doesn’t always mean backing it up by force. To stop territorial expansion? How exactly can the U.S. stop island building in the South China Sea? By economic sanctions? Economic sanctions in a trade integrated world are tricky. The Russian sanctions over Crimea and Ukraine or the Iranian sanctions are hard to construct, implement and hold together. Force? What force can we put into the Ukraine? Boots on the ground with the body bags they must carry? If we cannot put boots in, should we make matters worse by inflaming the situation by indiscriminately inserting weapons? And what about treaties? How far will we go to stop Russian sponsored insurrection inside NATO member Estonia? Air power, boots? Europe is unlikely to send troops.
These are no longer theoretical questions.
For a nation which is independent in food, energy and resources, we need to weigh action carefully. Fracturing for oil has changed the stakes in our foreign policy. Humanitarian relief is one thing, keeping power balanced is fine, but defending one-sided treaties and shaping events or stopping China, Iran or Russia? What vital interest is involved and how much will it cost?
James Madison
I’d probably never deploy economic sanctions as we can’t know what the impact will be and probably it won’t be what we think or want. In short they don’t work, they are acts of warfare and not to be applied lightly. I’ve had political leaders admit to me that they don’t work, but say, “but we had to do something”. We aren’t protected by two motes and we aren’t independent in food and energy or anything else. We are interdependent, part of a global economy and essential to it. Pulling back into autarky which you don’t mean would be insane, but as we withdraw, others fill the vacuum and those who do so are unlikely to be friends and allies, so ultimately we either reengage or end up in autarky. That is a sure formula for economic and political decline. We want robust trade and for that to exist there must be some order and predictability and who is going to provide that if not us in cooperation with allies? These things are costly which means we need to have a robust economy and abundant savings. We’re going in the opposite direction. Among the few things we can control is domestic economic policy and we can’t even do that, so we must indeed be modest in our foreign policy, but that doesn’t mean no foreign policy.
John, very well put and I quote the last point because I began my tedious feed quoting from people from a different age who were early conservative thinkers in a different framework, Britain. They had just experienced their Iraq War, the Crimean War. They were trying to define limits for a conservative viewpoint.
Elsewhere, Brent pointed out that “vital interests” are very subjective. Yes indeed.
We are self-sufficient in an existential way – we could survive longer and better than most. But your point about trade, which I agree with, makes a case for engagement. Again, the cost/benefit starts to grab hold, as you point out,
My rhetorical question about the President’s conservative appearing foreign policy was more self-reflection. My view is we need to re-think some things – the cost of defending places that are remote to us and favor our adversaries. We need to understand what the may mean for our self-preservation and expansion (realism).
Confusing our “wants” with our “needs” is something that can present some challenges at the margin. This is the same problem conservatives sometimes have with domestic policy. There is no conservative handbook about what gets done and what gets left out. And man is prideful and can be tempted.
Thank you again!!!
I was young and not viewing the entire endeavor with the appropriate context but I seem to recall the main factor pushing the Bush I administration into Somalia was public intolerance. For some reason, we were not able to withstand ten months of constant lead stories on the famine in Africa. We “had to do something”. My question is can we, as a people, withstand the images of human suffering indefinitely? I don’t think that journalists will be able to resist showing the stories of waves of refugees, beheadings, roof-tossings etc. Can we know about these and withdraw without going insane?
Thanks, I want to make another really broad generalization.
In our relations with friends, foes allies and neighbors we need to know how we want events to unfold, and work diplomatically and economically in ways we think will increase favorable outcomes. That means engaged professionals because they’re the only ones paying attention to 95% of the world. So we must have a coherent and simple foreign policy vision we can articulate and stick to because without that there is entropy, with all missions, country directors, station chiefs doing the things that they think good, or which enhance their careers. Our embassies are too big, with too many agencies, every important bureaucracy wants their own foreign service, so we spend too much time and effort worrying about their security. That’s crazy. And leadership matters, Planned parenthood and LGBT are among our important priorities, probably from Hillary. These simple pushes and influences are the appropriate method as long as they don’t carry threats, but these priorities are insane. We aren’t paying attention. Cuba is our enemy and they now control Venezuela, helped Evo Morales win in Bolivia, haven’t given up on Peru or Ecuador and and are trying to undermine the governing consensus in Colombia. They have allies on the Hill and in the media and our silence and disinterest creates a vacuum they fill. So we need a foreign policy establishment to keep tabs.
John,
I’m working on getting you involved in the foreign policy establishment. You could make a good contribution. Perhaps we need more citizen based foreign policy?
Keeping foreign policy principles simple seems like a good suggestion. Reason: we need simplicity but we may also need some flexibility because our adversaries get a vote and do things we don’t expect. That is why we ought to be able to describe what we want simply – here’s what we believe and why, here’s what we will do, here’s what we won’t do, and here’s what we expect our allies will do. Then, we try to follow it as closely as possible – but not enslave ourselves. Again the world is a tricky place and does not always fit our vision.
JM, I appreciate how it must have taken you a long time to develop this post. Yet, my reading of it is, it seems to give Obama credit for having an actual foreign policy. My opinion is that his foreign policy thoughts are as shallow as “don’t do stupid [stuff]”.
Regarding your analysis, I think there’s value in having a president with narrow and realistic foreign policy goals which are tightly aligned with American national interests. I just have trouble finding where Obama’s actions demonstrate an alignment with America’s national interests and the international system established and fostered by America. His words and actions have played to his progressive supporters, not to our allies and this system. They have led other nations (allies and opponents) to respond in ways which reflect the loss of American standing and interest in the world. I don’t see how the increasing instability in the world will turn out better for our allies and the system.
Obama can be very happy that he has a “D” after his name. Once a Republican is elected president, any instability or foreign policy mistakes (real or perceived) will be trumpeted as such by our media.
Ted,
The most stupid of all the stupid stuff is electing Obama for two terms.
Regards,
Jim