Jeb Bush said today that the president of the USA shouldn't be "unpredictable". It was a low key way for Bush to take a swipe at Donald Trump and his speech on foreign policy yesterday in which Trump said that the USA ought to be less predictable in its foreign policy reactions. It was also a brilliant demonstration of why Jeb lost. In short, Bush is just too wedded to the past.
Bush's main point was that the president needs to make his views clear and his likely reactions clear as well. It's a throw back to the Cold War days when America's main foreign policy moves pertained to the Soviet Union and how we would respond to provocations. The theory of the "experts" at the time was that by providing certainty, we lessened the chances of a mistake leading to nuclear war. it sounds good, but it's actually totally wrong when the subject is something other than a nuclear exchange. The truth is that if the president leaves our adversaries guessing about what the USA will do, they are likely to proceed much more cautiously. There will be fewer big moves against our interests if our opponents worry that we might strike back. Indeed, today, our adversaries (and even our friends) know that we are unlikely to do anything no matter what another country does.
Think about the Obama red line in Syria. Obama said that the use of chemical weapons would cause a strong response from the USA. Assad used chemicals and nothing happened. Indeed, sixteen times the Assad forces killed civilians and military with poison gas and Obama refused even to admit that chemicals had been used. Only when the victims of the gas managed to smuggle out video of victims writhing on the ground in the aftermath of a deadly chemical attack did Obama admit that Assad had crossed the red line by using chemicals. Then he spent a few days dithering and ultimately did nothing. Instead, he entered into an agreement under which Assad supposedly destroyed all his chemical weapons. Of course, Assad has been repeatedly using chlorine gas on his adversaries over the last six months and Obama is once again denying that anything of the sort has happened. No doubt, those dead civilians in Syria just committed mass suicide by breathing in chlorine gas.
Now consider this. Trump is president and he has said that the USA won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons. Assad may thing that the USA won't react; after all, Obama did not. So Assad again uses chemical weapons. Suddenly, American planes start bombing every plant and depot in Syria where the chemical weapons are located. The attacks are over in two days. Golly, that was unpredictable. Wouldn't the next foreign leader worry about what might happen?
Or consider what would happen if the next time a Russian plane buzzes a US destroyer in the Baltic, some US planes nearby lock their missiles onto the Russian jets. None get fired, but the message comes across loud and clear. There wouldn't be any more Russian mock attacks.
Unpredictable responses, however, don't have to involve using weapons. Suppose after the next Russian buzzing of an American ship, the Pentagon announces that it is sending anti-missile defenses to be stationed in Poland or Estonia as a defense against rogue Iranian missiles. Our ambassador in Moscow could then visit the Kremlin and tell Putin that each time Russian forces take aggressive action against American interests, the USA will respond by increasing the defenses of Eastern Europe against possible Russian aggression. There would be nothing in public, but the unexpected show of strength would push the Russians back.
There are any number of unpredictable responses that can be taken against aggressive actions by other nations. It's what works best to keep our opponents from making moves to our detriment.
It's worth noting that Henry Kissinger, who most people would call the greatest Secretary of State of the last 50 years has often credited much of the success of American foreign policy in those days to our unpredictable moves. When Nixon went to China, it took the Soviets totally by surprise. It also marked the end of the worldwide Communist block and was a major step towards the ultimate victory in the Cold War.
But hey, Jeb says that being unpredictable is a bad thing. Of course, he couldn't get past being governor of Florida. That's no surprise.
Bush's main point was that the president needs to make his views clear and his likely reactions clear as well. It's a throw back to the Cold War days when America's main foreign policy moves pertained to the Soviet Union and how we would respond to provocations. The theory of the "experts" at the time was that by providing certainty, we lessened the chances of a mistake leading to nuclear war. it sounds good, but it's actually totally wrong when the subject is something other than a nuclear exchange. The truth is that if the president leaves our adversaries guessing about what the USA will do, they are likely to proceed much more cautiously. There will be fewer big moves against our interests if our opponents worry that we might strike back. Indeed, today, our adversaries (and even our friends) know that we are unlikely to do anything no matter what another country does.
Think about the Obama red line in Syria. Obama said that the use of chemical weapons would cause a strong response from the USA. Assad used chemicals and nothing happened. Indeed, sixteen times the Assad forces killed civilians and military with poison gas and Obama refused even to admit that chemicals had been used. Only when the victims of the gas managed to smuggle out video of victims writhing on the ground in the aftermath of a deadly chemical attack did Obama admit that Assad had crossed the red line by using chemicals. Then he spent a few days dithering and ultimately did nothing. Instead, he entered into an agreement under which Assad supposedly destroyed all his chemical weapons. Of course, Assad has been repeatedly using chlorine gas on his adversaries over the last six months and Obama is once again denying that anything of the sort has happened. No doubt, those dead civilians in Syria just committed mass suicide by breathing in chlorine gas.
Now consider this. Trump is president and he has said that the USA won't tolerate the use of chemical weapons. Assad may thing that the USA won't react; after all, Obama did not. So Assad again uses chemical weapons. Suddenly, American planes start bombing every plant and depot in Syria where the chemical weapons are located. The attacks are over in two days. Golly, that was unpredictable. Wouldn't the next foreign leader worry about what might happen?
Or consider what would happen if the next time a Russian plane buzzes a US destroyer in the Baltic, some US planes nearby lock their missiles onto the Russian jets. None get fired, but the message comes across loud and clear. There wouldn't be any more Russian mock attacks.
Unpredictable responses, however, don't have to involve using weapons. Suppose after the next Russian buzzing of an American ship, the Pentagon announces that it is sending anti-missile defenses to be stationed in Poland or Estonia as a defense against rogue Iranian missiles. Our ambassador in Moscow could then visit the Kremlin and tell Putin that each time Russian forces take aggressive action against American interests, the USA will respond by increasing the defenses of Eastern Europe against possible Russian aggression. There would be nothing in public, but the unexpected show of strength would push the Russians back.
There are any number of unpredictable responses that can be taken against aggressive actions by other nations. It's what works best to keep our opponents from making moves to our detriment.
It's worth noting that Henry Kissinger, who most people would call the greatest Secretary of State of the last 50 years has often credited much of the success of American foreign policy in those days to our unpredictable moves. When Nixon went to China, it took the Soviets totally by surprise. It also marked the end of the worldwide Communist block and was a major step towards the ultimate victory in the Cold War.
But hey, Jeb says that being unpredictable is a bad thing. Of course, he couldn't get past being governor of Florida. That's no surprise.
No comments:
Post a Comment