How Should America Prioritize Threats to its Security?

 

Mark N. Katz, writing in the National Interest, put this in a simple but important way:

In formulating its defense policy, the United States has to face four separate security challenges simultaneously: China, Russia, Iran, and Sunni jihadism. This is very different from the Cold War era when, although America faced security problems in many parts of the globe, there was one overarching challenge that it confronted throughout the world: the Soviet Union.

During the Cold War, as Peter will confirm, I’m sure, our foreign policy was generally consistent from Administration to Administration: It was governed by the strategic logic of the Cold War. This is no longer true:

 The challenges posed by Russia, China, Iran, and the Sunni jihadists are largely separate from one another. The threat Russia poses to American interests is mainly in Europe. The one posed by China is mainly in East and Southeast Asia. Iran and the Sunni jihadists both threaten American allies and interests in the Middle East, but they are also a threat to each other.  While distinct, these four separate challenges do interact with one another. For example, America’s growing concern with Russian policy toward Ukraine and Europe means that U.S. foreign policy cannot “pivot toward Asia” (i.e., focus on containing China) as fully as the Obama administration may have wanted. Further, while Iran and the Sunni jihadists are virulently opposed to each other, Washington has to be concerned that any actions it might take to weaken one will only serve to strengthen the other.

How, then, should America prioritize these concerns?

Particularly in light of this?

52-3-fig4

 

Published in Foreign Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 58 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    The question with China to me seems to be if they want to be part of our system, ie. the Western Democratic Order or if they want to make a system that is theirs the way Russia seems to be going. I can’t say what they think will be more beneficial. Its always nice to have your own but the benefits of the WDO offers China greater financial opportunities. When I say being led what I mean is will they want to take a path to integrate into our existing world order given enough incentive. If we block them from making their own competing structure will they accept some path for joining ours? If they do want to join us I think they will have to accept further domestic liberalization. I don’t know if their leadership is willing to do this.

    Of all of these powers we have the closest economic ties with China. This means if we play it right we could make it more profitable and prestigious for them to not get out of line. Basically I think with respect to China and Asia I can imagine a scenario where it is a win-win. I can’t imagine that with any of our other opponents.

    • #31
  2. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Manfred Arcane:

    Putinism is dangerous, no doubt. But so is EU socialism. The EU can buck up and hold off Russia – they only have 7x Russia’s GDP and 4.5x their manpower to work with don’t you know. And we can pitch in as well to some degree. The choice here is not between the status quo and “Europe of the World Wars.”

    Yah, but why would we want an EU that is too independent from us? Also while EU socialism is bad it mostly just bad for Europeans, and in the grand scheme of things its nothing like the old Communism. Trust me as up tight as the French and Germans are what they have works fairly well when compared to what Eastern Europe had. They want a large welfare state, well that is on them. I’m not bothered by that. I don’t think it hurts us in any way that is meaningful. Putin’s New Russia threatens large scale war. A War that by treaty we can’t avoid should it start.

    My point is we should make everyone dependent on us for security and stability. In return we get the political stability to allow for our large and interconnected world that our economy is benefiting from. This way we also help establish the guidelines and principles of this interconnected world.

    • #32
  3. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Valiuth: Also while EU socialism is bad it mostly just bad for Europeans, and in the grand scheme of things its nothing like the old Communism

    Yes, …. but so what.  “old Communism” is not what Russian threatens with these days.

    Furthermore, socialism in Europe does inspire socialism in the US, I think.  If the EU has to pay 2-3% of GDP for its defense, it spends 2-3% of GDP less on the social welfare state.  That is a BIG deal, IMO.

    • #33
  4. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Valiuth: Putin’s New Russia threatens large scale war. A War that by treaty we can’t avoid should it start.

    Not sure I really believe the first sentence – not if the EU has any backbone at all.  And the fact that we are locked into that treaty is a bad thing, isn’t it?  This kind of arrangement contributed mightily to both WWs.

    • #34
  5. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Valiuth: My point is we should make everyone dependent on us for security and stability. In return we get the political stability to allow for our large and interconnected world that our economy is benefiting from. This way we also help establish the guidelines and principles of this interconnected world.

    But at what cost?  Not one we can easily afford these days, I don’t think.

    • #35
  6. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Yes its true Russia doesn’t threaten us with Communism, but to me it always seems like when people talk about socialist Europe they like to make it seem like France, and Germany are somehow engaged in what the USSR and my old homeland of Romania were doing behind the iron curtain. No one who lived through that (and I don’t count myself as having lived through it though I was born into it in 85) would seriously compare the two. I don’t like the EU anymore than most conservatives. I think they would do better without its current set up. But why should it bother us how much they spend on their social welfare. They have a lot of money if they want to buy themselves goodies they think they need I’m fine with that. I don’t need the world to be a Libertarian utopia. The world would be a better place if more countries were like Europe than if they were like Russia. Europe is overall good with some bad policies. Russia is fundamentally broken, and in its current state it is irreconcilably bad in my opinion.

    • #36
  7. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Manfred Arcane:

    Valiuth: My point is we should make everyone dependent on us for security and stability. In return we get the political stability to allow for our large and interconnected world that our economy is benefiting from. This way we also help establish the guidelines and principles of this interconnected world.

    But at what cost? Not one we can easily afford these days, I don’t think.

    Can we afford to not have an interconnected world economy? If it is happening with or without us can we afford not to be the driving influence in how it is shaped? I don’t think we can go back to the old world orders, but even if we do I don’t think we will be better off for it. New innovation and economic growth requires more resources and in larger numbers than ever before. We can not be self sufficient without accepting a drastic reduction in quality of life. Someone has to be out in front, and I think it will be better for us and for everyone if it is the US or at least some other Liberal nation.

    • #37
  8. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Manfred Arcane:

    Valiuth: Putin’s New Russia threatens large scale war. A War that by treaty we can’t avoid should it start.

    Not sure I really believe the first sentence – not if the EU has any backbone at all. And the fact that we are locked into that treaty is a bad thing, isn’t it? This kind of arrangement contributed mightily to both WWs.

    The problems of the first World Wars was not having a strong enough democratic alliance to deter offensive action by illiberal and beligerant regimes. The threat of war I think can come from Russian over confidence and Western timidity. If they think us unable or unwilling to defend our alliance against them they will at some point probe too deeply and there will be no recourse but war, assuming the Russian don’t pull back right away. But, why would they? By that point they will have deluded themselves into think they are right, and ready.

    If we didn’t have the treaty or we ignore it we only increase Russian chances for victory which can only increase their motivation for demanding more.

    Even without a treaty I don’t think we could escape a full out war in Europe (we didn’t escape the last two). If Russia wins then the loosing nations of Western Europe might rearm in preparation for a future retaliation. Guaranteeing more war. Essentially the stability Europe has enjoyed since WWII will be gone.

    • #38
  9. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Valiuth: Even without a treaty I don’t think we could escape a full out war in Europe (we didn’t escape the last two). If Russia wins then the loosing nations of Western Europe might rearm in preparation for a future retaliation. Guaranteeing more war. Essentially the stability Europe has enjoyed since WWII will be gone.

    Boy, you seem to have a pretty grim view of the future.  Why there would be any serious prospect of war now, given that there wasn’t much of the same during the much more hostile times of the Cold War is beyond me.

    • #39
  10. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Valiuth: Can we afford to not have an interconnected world economy

    Who ever contemplated this?

    • #40
  11. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I have not read all the comments, but I think there is an ecology to global life and that all of these threats, and those we don’t see yet like the Gaza tunnels, must be considered simultaneously and each as affecting all of the others.

    • #41
  12. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Manfred Arcane:

    Valiuth: Can we afford to not have an interconnected world economy

    Who ever contemplated this?

    Well I don’t think it will be easy to have a connected world where rouge states like ISIS are running around or where every power has their own proprietary regional frame work like Russia wishes to create. I think an internationally open system of commerce and economics is not a natural thing. A politically and militarily devided worlds of spheres of influence and control will not yield a modern world. I think it will simply revive an older less pleasant one.

    Manfred Arcane:

    Boy, you seem to have a pretty grim view of the future. Why there would be any serious prospect of war now, given that there wasn’t much of the same during the much more hostile times of the Cold War is beyond me.

    I think it is always a safe bet to bet that things will get worse, because they always can. Furthermore I think peoples attitudes that such an event is impossible only serve to give everyone the confidence that somehow things can’t possibly spin out of control. That surely no one will risk everything for Latvia. People have grown complacent, and I think that makes war more likely. There were many times during the cold war when things did nearly break out. But, at that time we all had a very clear strategic view of what we wanted, now we don’t.

    • #42
  13. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @IWalton

    Start with a foreign policy, something global that has to do with US interests, anything coherent will be an improvement. Then realize some things change some don’t.  China’s strategic probe, push, thrust wont change, Russia can look east rather than west in which case they are a natural balance to China.  Arabs probably won’t change.  Iran, freed of the  Mullahs can and has.  So lets set a goal of getting rid of the Mullahs, keep our cool with Putin but push back, always have an unassailable presence in the Pacific and South China Sea.   And grow our economy which shouldn’t be rocket science. 

    • #43
  14. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Manfred Arcane:

    I don’t think most Americans care that much about a diminished role for the US in guiding World Affairs, except insofar as they want to see freedom expand (or, if you are a Democrat, see the expansion of their social welfarist agendas), and the US is, generally speaking, the best hope for that right now. Frankly we are pretty tired of bearing this burden, and would love for someone else to take it from us, but no one else is very well qualified.

    The thing is, if another country steps up then they’ll be implementing their vision.  There’s no way that another country is going to take on the job and then implement the US’ plan for the world.  In many instances it isn’t self evidently the right thing to do – or at least not evident to other countries.

    How realistic it is to implement a “plan for the world” is another issue – I suspect that the realisation that it isn’t that realistic at all would exacerbate the weariness – I mean if it isn’t going to work mostly the way one wants why bother, right?

    Though it may still be worth it stop a vision that you don’t much like.

    • #44
  15. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    This thread hasn’t elicited many concrete policy prescriptions yet.  For discussion:

    1) Keep oil prices low – as a top national priority, for a long time into the future -, and (seemingly contradictory) open the spigot on US hydrocarbon wealth.  (Obviously, there would need to be a balance between low prices and sufficient profit for oil exploration/exploitation in the US)

    Benefit: Make the US supplier of fuel to Europe, Japan, China, etc., rather than Russia and Iran.  Diminish financial resources of bad actors, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia – and make China more dependent on US.

    2) (Controversial, I presume) Tax imports from China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other autocratic countries to pay for US military supremacy.

    Benefit: a) we need more revenue, to afford the military we need to offset Chinese military expansion, Russian military adventurism.  b) We can use access to US markets as leverage to ‘liberalize’ other societies.

    Risk: Might need to pay more for financing our deficit.

    3) Proselytize much more for Western/Christian values using ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. as exemplars of Islam gone bad.

    4)  Get Sunnis and Shias to fight each other first; Support massively the Kurds, even at expense of ruining relations with Turks (FYI, we could put a ballistic missile defense site in ‘Kurdistan’ that would go a long way towards defending against Iranian ballistic missiles.)

    5) Implement pro-growth policies in US (yeah, I know – there is a little problem here with Democrats)

    6) Get EU to underpin NATO more, less US.

    • #45
  16. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:

    Zafar: How to manage and direct the change?

    What are your suggestions?

    You don’t ask easy questions.

    But imho, with a light touch:

    • Make sure that it’s more advantageous to trade with the US than to fight it, and be realistic wrt which part of these countries’ (China, Russia, Iran) agendas you need to ask them to give up to do this.
    • Focus on common areas of interest and build on them – they’ll grow and become more dominant in these countries’ polities if you encourage that. You can live with some disagreement (think: you, Saudi, Israel) but not with too much (think: IS).  
    • If it’s realistic, support the people (as they are) over the regimes – the people will last longer, it’s a good investment.
    • Sometimes the enemy of your enemy really is your friend of the moment – Russia in Ukraine and IS in Iraq and Syria and China in SE and S Asia have created a lot of low hanging fruit.  Grab it. Be realistic, not political, about Iran.
    • #46
  17. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Zafar: Sometimes the enemy of your enemy really is your friend of the moment – Russia in Ukraine and IS in Iraq and Syria and China in SE and S Asia have created a lot of low hanging fruit.  Grab it. Be realistic, not political, about Iran.

    Would be nice to understand what you mean here.  It is a bit opaque.  Do we cede $150 billion to Iran with next to no strings attached or not, for example.  And what are you saying about ‘Russia in Ukraine’ – can’t figure it out?  More specifics please.

    • #47
  18. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Manfred Arcane:

    Zafar: Sometimes the enemy of your enemy really is your friend of the moment – Russia in Ukraine and IS in Iraq and Syria and China in SE and S Asia have created a lot of low hanging fruit. Grab it. Be realistic, not political, about Iran.

    Would be nice to understand what you mean here. It is a bit opaque. Do we cede $150 billion to Iran with next to no strings attached or not, for example. And what are you saying about ‘Russia in Ukraine’ – can’t figure it out? More specifics please.

    Sorry for being unclear.  I meant that one of the outcomes of Russian behaviour in Ukraine (and China’s in SE an S Asia and IS’ in Iraq) is that it can clarify the thinking of nearby polities – who suddenly realise (or remember) that, hey, a strong substantive relationship with the West would be a good thing.  That’s an opportunity not to be wasted by inattention or completely unrealistic demands.

    Re Iran’s $100 billion in frozen funds: It’s. Their. Money. Not ours. Are we extortionists?

    • #48
  19. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Zafar: Re Iran’s $100 billion in frozen funds: It’s. Their. Money. Not ours. Are we extortionists?

    So.  So, what about all the economic sanctions on Iran?  After all, It’s. Their. Country, no?  If you don’t want Iran with the nuclear bomb, what do you do?  Bomb them?

    • #49
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    It seems different to me.

    Refusing to trade with someone is a decision which anybody can freely make. We sometimes organise these as groups of people (boycotts) or countries (sanctions) – but in the end, boycotts and sanctions only work if people agree to participate in them.  The Iran sanctions only worked because enough countries complied enough of the time. (Okay, there was some ‘encouragement’ from the US, but basically that’s what happened.)

    Actually holding (taking) someone else’s money until they do what we want seems another thing to me.  It’s crossing the line from modifying my own behaviour (to encourage you to modify yours) to taking something that you have and that you would normally have an absolute right to.

    Perhaps it was justified wrt nuclear proliferation, perhaps it wasn’t (and was never really about nuclear proliferation per se, which I am starting to think), but can you see that it might also seem somewhat dishonest to set one condition for the release of somebody’s funds that you’re holding, then when they meet that condition you set some more conditions….and then some more maybe…

    What are our agreements worth, in that case, and why should anybody trust them?

    • #50
  21. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Zafar:It seems different to me.

    Refusing to trade with someone is a decision which anybody can freely make. We sometimes organise these as groups of people (boycotts) or countries (sanctions) – but in the end, boycotts and sanctions only work if people agree to participate in them. The Iran sanctions only worked because enough countries complied enough of the time. (Okay, there was some ‘encouragement’ from the US, but basically that’s what happened.)

    Actually holding (taking) someone else’s money until they do what we want seems another thing to me. It’s crossing the line from modifying my own behaviour (to encourage you to modify yours) to taking something that you have and that you would normally have an absolute right to.

    Perhaps it was justified wrt nuclear proliferation, perhaps it wasn’t (and was never really about nuclear proliferation per se, which I am starting to think), …

    I don’t think you have made a very solid case.  If the choice is between bombing Iran or squeezing the country financially, it can be an easy decision.  Any country that threatens the annihilation of an ally, can not complain if we stick it to them.

    • #51
  22. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Zafar: but can you see that it might also seem somewhat dishonest to set one condition for the release of somebody’s funds that you’re holding, then when they meet that condition you set some more conditions….and then some more maybe… What are our agreements worth, in that case, and why should anybody trust them?

    And this needs clarification.  What are the ‘conditions’ ‘we’ set?  Congress hasn’t set any conditions.  It has not been involved in the negotiations at all, contrary to standard practices in years past.  We got what we got from Iran, not what we wanted, not what ‘we’ (most Americans) thinks is a reasonable commitment from the Mullahs.  This doesn’t conform to what I think of when using the phrase, ‘set the conditions.’

    • #52
  23. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Manfred Arcane:

    And this needs clarification. What are the ‘conditions’ ‘we’ set? Congress hasn’t set any conditions. It has not been involved in the negotiations at all, contrary to standard practices in years past. We got what we got from Iran, not what we wanted, not what ‘we’ (most Americans) thinks is a reasonable commitment from the Mullahs. This doesn’t conform to what I think of when using the phrase, ‘set the conditions.’

    The conditions in the Vienna agreement between Iran and the P5+1.  The ones adopted by the UN Security Council.  Nobody got everything they wanted.

    I don’t know who the other P4s sent to Vienna to negotiate/sign (Germany sent Angela Merkel?), but I’m not sure that should be Iran’s concern.  Whoever a country sends is who represents the country.  Right?  They showed up.  They (finally) agreed.

    Now you may think that the conditions set on Iran are inadequate, you may think that Congress will vote against the deal in numbers high enough to preclude a presidential veto, you might think it’s realistic to try and get Iran to negotiate another deal with the P5+1 and that you could get the P4+1 on board for this – all valid povs btw, albeit ones I disagree with, but again: that is not Iran’s problem (yet).

    • #53
  24. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Manfred Arcane:

    If the choice is between bombing Iran or squeezing the country financially, it can be an easy decision.

    Yes, that’s absolutely true.  If those are the only two choices.  The third choice is an agreement of some sort.  Then it becomes a question of that agreement’s contents and what all the countries involved in imposing sanctions think.

    Any country that threatens the annihilation of an ally, can not complain if we stick it to them.

    Honestly – people write as if the US has nothing to gain from the deal as it is.  I don’t think that’s true.  The US (and the West) gained some significant wins (monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program, reduction in Iran’s nuclear program for at least fifteen years, a five to eight year delay in Iran getting access to high tech weapons systems) and some very useful likely outcomes (coordination with Iran against ISIS and the Taliban, significant economic engagement that will change the regime’s calculation of cost benefit) – all with the sanctions to date and no war.  There are even some Israelis who think it’s not that bad.

    All of this in the context of a continued extreme imbalance of power in favour of the US (and Israel) vs Iran, and crucial partners in the embargo (China, Russia, France, Germany) starting to think that they had gotten what they wanted. Would they stick with Iran sanctions to achieve US goals they didn’t share?

    • #54
  25. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Zafar: Honestly – people write as if the US has nothing to gain from the deal as it is.  I don’t think that’s true.  The US (and the West) gained some significant wins (monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program, reduction in Iran’s nuclear program for at least fifteen years, a five to eight year delay in Iran getting access to high tech weapons systems) and some very useful likely outcomes (coordination with Iran against ISIS and the Taliban, significant economic engagement that will change the regime’s calculation of cost benefit) – all with the sanctions to date and no war.  There are even some Israelis who think it’s not that bad. All of this in the context of a continued extreme imbalance of power in favour of the US (and Israel) vs Iran, and crucial partners in the embargo (China, Russia, France, Germany) starting to think that they had gotten what they wanted. Would they stick with Iran sanctions to achieve US goals they didn’t share?

    Hope you are right.  The Economist seems to agree with you:

    http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21659725-nuclear-agreement-iran-very-different-one-north-korea-not-d-j

    But there are two issues here, sanctions and frozen assets ($12 Billion).  I would keep the latter – as recompense for American soldiers killed and maimed by Iranian IEDs – unless Iran acknowledged Israel’s right to exist and desisted from threatening them.  Any President who fails to carry this out is an ……..

    • #55
  26. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    $100 billion, but as I said:

    Perhaps it was justified wrt nuclear proliferation, perhaps it wasn’t (and was never really about nuclear proliferation per se, which I am starting to think), but can you see that it might also seem somewhat dishonest to set one condition for the release of somebody’s funds that you’re holding, then when they meet that condition you set some more conditions….and then some more maybe…

    Wrt the Economist’s views: inshallah it will work out well for us all.

    • #56
  27. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Zafar:$100 billion, but as I said:

    Perhaps it was justified wrt nuclear proliferation, perhaps it wasn’t (and was never really about nuclear proliferation per se, which I am starting to think), but can you see that it might also seem somewhat dishonest to set one condition for the release of somebody’s funds that you’re holding, then when they meet that condition you set some more conditions….and then some more maybe…

    Wrt the Economist’s views: inshallah it will work out well for us all.

    I’m explaining what the ….. President have should have insisted on from the get-go.

    And, aren’t you going to end the tease and tell us what you mean by “and was never really about nuclear proliferation per se, which I am starting to think”?

    • #57
  28. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    It’s about power and influence.

    • #58
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.