If there is a most appropriate criticism that can be leveled against president Obama and secretaries of state Clinton and Kerry, it is that none of them seem to have any concept of the true purpose of American foreign policy. We should not be looking at failures in Crimea, Syria, or Iraq in determining the overall success of American foreign policy in the age of Obama. Those failures are mere symptoms of a much larger problem. Simply put, none of the people responsible for formulating that foreign policy have clear strategic goals in mind, goals that would both inform and guide our specific national actions around the world.
This may sound like an abstraction of the sort one would only discuss in a symposium at a university rather than a real world issue. Be assured that it is not. Let me give you an example. When Ronald Reagan became president his foreign policy was directed at all times towards one goal, the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War. That was a major shift in the goal of the USA; prior to Reagan, America's purpose had been containment of Communism. Under containment doctrines first enunciated in the late 1940's, America would not directly confront the Soviets but would hem them in and try to stop their expansion. Reagan changed this. America sent teams to help the Afghans drive the Russians out of that country. America sent help to the Contras, rebels who were trying to overthrow the pro-Soviet Sandinista government in Nicaragua. America did what it could to help the Solidarity movement in Poland and the other anti-Soviet groups in Eastern Europe. America also built up its military forces, thereby putting pressure on the Soviet empire to keep pace, something that it eventually could no longer do. That clear and over-arching goal led to a major success for the USA.
Now ask yourself this question: what is the current over-arching goal of America's foreign policy? If you have an easy answer to that question, then you have not been listening to our leaders, because they have no idea what the answer to that question is. To be clear, if president Obama were here and were asked that question, he would, no doubt, have a typical bit of political boilerplate that he could spit out as his answer. We all know, however, that talking points are not an answer. There needs to be more.
Think about it. Should America be engaged throughout the world working for peace, for free trade, for freedom for the world's inhabitants, for the destruction of those who would impose their rule on others by force, etc? Each of these is a very important question, and the answer to each such question cannot be something to which America just gives lip service. Our leaders have to know in their souls the answers to these questions. Otherwise, every thing they do, every action we take as a country is nothing but an ad hoc solution, another move in a meaningless game of chess which will never have winners, only losers.
Since the end of the Cold War, American power had been used to preserve order in the world. American power made possible the peace and success of much of the globe. But since 2009, where have we been going? Sure, Obama first declared the War in Iraq over, then he told us the War on Terror was over, and finally we learned that the War in Afghanistan was to be over at the end of 2016. Declarations of peace, however, only work when the other side agrees that the war has ended. Just ask the Iraqis how well the end of the war in Iraq is going when ISIS is running amok and conquering almost half of the country. Will things be any better in Afghanistan when Obama's declaration of the end of the war is followed by a total American withdrawal?
It may be that America's strategic interests do not require any American presence in Afghanistan. But how would Obama decide that question when he has no idea what America's strategic interests are? If you are one of the unfortunate few who actually reads Hillary Clinton's latest book which is supposedly all about the hard choices in foreign policy, you will be left wondering at the end exactly what Mrs. Clinton sees as the goals of that foreign policy. The issue is not whether or not the Russian word on the so-called reset button was properly spelled. It is not even whether or not we made this or that short term accommodation with Vladimir Putin while Mrs. Clinton was in office. The question is what is the overall goal of the USA in dealing with Putin's Russia. This, of course, is just a part of the question as to what the goal of our foreign policy is, but even limited only to Russia, it is a subject that is conveniently ignored in all of Hard Choices.
This may sound like an abstraction of the sort one would only discuss in a symposium at a university rather than a real world issue. Be assured that it is not. Let me give you an example. When Ronald Reagan became president his foreign policy was directed at all times towards one goal, the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War. That was a major shift in the goal of the USA; prior to Reagan, America's purpose had been containment of Communism. Under containment doctrines first enunciated in the late 1940's, America would not directly confront the Soviets but would hem them in and try to stop their expansion. Reagan changed this. America sent teams to help the Afghans drive the Russians out of that country. America sent help to the Contras, rebels who were trying to overthrow the pro-Soviet Sandinista government in Nicaragua. America did what it could to help the Solidarity movement in Poland and the other anti-Soviet groups in Eastern Europe. America also built up its military forces, thereby putting pressure on the Soviet empire to keep pace, something that it eventually could no longer do. That clear and over-arching goal led to a major success for the USA.
Now ask yourself this question: what is the current over-arching goal of America's foreign policy? If you have an easy answer to that question, then you have not been listening to our leaders, because they have no idea what the answer to that question is. To be clear, if president Obama were here and were asked that question, he would, no doubt, have a typical bit of political boilerplate that he could spit out as his answer. We all know, however, that talking points are not an answer. There needs to be more.
Think about it. Should America be engaged throughout the world working for peace, for free trade, for freedom for the world's inhabitants, for the destruction of those who would impose their rule on others by force, etc? Each of these is a very important question, and the answer to each such question cannot be something to which America just gives lip service. Our leaders have to know in their souls the answers to these questions. Otherwise, every thing they do, every action we take as a country is nothing but an ad hoc solution, another move in a meaningless game of chess which will never have winners, only losers.
Since the end of the Cold War, American power had been used to preserve order in the world. American power made possible the peace and success of much of the globe. But since 2009, where have we been going? Sure, Obama first declared the War in Iraq over, then he told us the War on Terror was over, and finally we learned that the War in Afghanistan was to be over at the end of 2016. Declarations of peace, however, only work when the other side agrees that the war has ended. Just ask the Iraqis how well the end of the war in Iraq is going when ISIS is running amok and conquering almost half of the country. Will things be any better in Afghanistan when Obama's declaration of the end of the war is followed by a total American withdrawal?
It may be that America's strategic interests do not require any American presence in Afghanistan. But how would Obama decide that question when he has no idea what America's strategic interests are? If you are one of the unfortunate few who actually reads Hillary Clinton's latest book which is supposedly all about the hard choices in foreign policy, you will be left wondering at the end exactly what Mrs. Clinton sees as the goals of that foreign policy. The issue is not whether or not the Russian word on the so-called reset button was properly spelled. It is not even whether or not we made this or that short term accommodation with Vladimir Putin while Mrs. Clinton was in office. The question is what is the overall goal of the USA in dealing with Putin's Russia. This, of course, is just a part of the question as to what the goal of our foreign policy is, but even limited only to Russia, it is a subject that is conveniently ignored in all of Hard Choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment