The world situation is going from bad to worse. America has a leadership crisis. President Obama seems unable to distinguish between words and reality; he often thinks it is sufficient to talk about something even if he does nothing (or worse, something counterproductive) about it. Obama has announced no strategy for dealing with our adversaries. It has been over five years, but there is still no plan, no central idea, no concept that connects America's actions or plans. Perhaps one could argue that Obama's concept is to keep out of war no matter what happens, but events like our airstrikes in Libya undermine that view.
The truth is that someone needs to explain to the American people what it is that our government considers to be of strategic importance to this country. We don't need every last detail or every nuance, but we deserve to know simple things like whether or not an attack on a NATO member (like Poland or Estonia) would be an attack on something considered vital for a national security. We also need to understand if in the age of Obama a nuclear armed Iran is something that must be prevented or just a concept that must be opposed for political purposes. Does the USA really care about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, or is that another bit of international political theater? Do we want to keep Putin from reassembling the Russian Empire or have we conceded that Moscow will regain hegemony over its neighbors. In an even more stark question, does Obama think that any interest around the world merits an American military response? Would we actually go to war if the UK were invaded (not that such an invasion is on the horizon)?
Much of the confusion in American foreign policy these days comes from a lack of direction. It is not enough for Obama to have the state department fight against climate change or human trafficking. Nations still take actions that affect us and there needs to be a policy as to which of those actions we can accept and which we will oppose. The American people deserve to know the government's view so that we can debate the propriety of it. The government itself needs to understand that view so that it can properly plan for responsive measures as certain types of world events unfold. Our friends around the globe need to understand that they are dealing with a rational and prepared nation in the USA. We do not have to accept all of the desires of our friends, but we at least owe them a bit of clarity with regard to our intentions and plans. Finally, our adversaries should also hear about our plans. It is possible, for example, that Assad would still have killed thousands with chemical weapons even had the USA announced a policy of no tolerance and a quick military response against anyone who dared employ such horrid measures. Most likely, however, after the first such attack Assad would have stopped any further use of the weapons had Obama sent 100 planes to bomb Syrian chemical facilities. Such moves have a way of convincing the malevolent among the world's leaders that it might be better to change their conduct.
A second item that needs to be completed immediately by the American government is the restoration of credibility regarding its statements. If the president says that something will not be tolerated, the we ought not tolerate it once it happens. For example, with the new evidence that chemical weapons have again been used in Syria, we should strike quickly at the Syrian chemical facilities. If Obama tells Russia that we will not tolerate an invasion of the eastern half of Ukraine, the we need to take steps that show our resolve. We do not have to threaten "boots on the ground" (I hate that cliché), but we also ought not take the possibility off the table within w millisecond of something happening. Would Putin have moved any more slowly had the USA not taken the possibility of troop involvement off the table and instead sent an extra 10,000 men from the USA to a base in Germany? It certainly would not have hurt the effort to slow the attack on Crimea and it might have prevented today's move into Ukraine.
The truth is that someone needs to explain to the American people what it is that our government considers to be of strategic importance to this country. We don't need every last detail or every nuance, but we deserve to know simple things like whether or not an attack on a NATO member (like Poland or Estonia) would be an attack on something considered vital for a national security. We also need to understand if in the age of Obama a nuclear armed Iran is something that must be prevented or just a concept that must be opposed for political purposes. Does the USA really care about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, or is that another bit of international political theater? Do we want to keep Putin from reassembling the Russian Empire or have we conceded that Moscow will regain hegemony over its neighbors. In an even more stark question, does Obama think that any interest around the world merits an American military response? Would we actually go to war if the UK were invaded (not that such an invasion is on the horizon)?
Much of the confusion in American foreign policy these days comes from a lack of direction. It is not enough for Obama to have the state department fight against climate change or human trafficking. Nations still take actions that affect us and there needs to be a policy as to which of those actions we can accept and which we will oppose. The American people deserve to know the government's view so that we can debate the propriety of it. The government itself needs to understand that view so that it can properly plan for responsive measures as certain types of world events unfold. Our friends around the globe need to understand that they are dealing with a rational and prepared nation in the USA. We do not have to accept all of the desires of our friends, but we at least owe them a bit of clarity with regard to our intentions and plans. Finally, our adversaries should also hear about our plans. It is possible, for example, that Assad would still have killed thousands with chemical weapons even had the USA announced a policy of no tolerance and a quick military response against anyone who dared employ such horrid measures. Most likely, however, after the first such attack Assad would have stopped any further use of the weapons had Obama sent 100 planes to bomb Syrian chemical facilities. Such moves have a way of convincing the malevolent among the world's leaders that it might be better to change their conduct.
A second item that needs to be completed immediately by the American government is the restoration of credibility regarding its statements. If the president says that something will not be tolerated, the we ought not tolerate it once it happens. For example, with the new evidence that chemical weapons have again been used in Syria, we should strike quickly at the Syrian chemical facilities. If Obama tells Russia that we will not tolerate an invasion of the eastern half of Ukraine, the we need to take steps that show our resolve. We do not have to threaten "boots on the ground" (I hate that cliché), but we also ought not take the possibility off the table within w millisecond of something happening. Would Putin have moved any more slowly had the USA not taken the possibility of troop involvement off the table and instead sent an extra 10,000 men from the USA to a base in Germany? It certainly would not have hurt the effort to slow the attack on Crimea and it might have prevented today's move into Ukraine.
No comments:
Post a Comment