Just a blogger in the wilderness, trying to make sense of our foreign policy. Because of the many levels of security, knowledge, intelligence, and experience out there, it’s a pretty daunting task, but maybe it’s of some use.
Syria-Still burning. As Israel gets further involved to secure their interests, Walter Russell Mead thinks Obama could cut a deal with the Israelis to help them deal with the deteriorating conditions in Syria, Iran and Egypt, and get some concessions on the Palestinian issue. One big concern in Syria has been a long conflict that inflames other fault lines throughout the region.
Al Jazeera live blog on Syria here. Possibly 70,000 dead so far.
Libya-There’s a book out on Benghazi (the authors do not look favorably on John Brennan conducting covert operations without the knowledge of most everyone else, which they claim caused the retaliatory attack, killing Ambassador Stevens). Obama’s Libyan war has also stirred the uprisings in Mali, and Algeria, and which could spill over into Niger. Regardless of what you think of our strategy, the same authors lament the lack of an overall strategy, and stronger leadership.
Afpak-We’re in a pretty much un-winnable situation, but our objective really hasn’t been met. The FATA region of northwest Pakistan is poor, tribal, and not even controlled by the federal government. Enemy fighters in Afghanistan simply melt back into Pakistan, recharge, and return. The Taliban mill around, kill our troops, and know they can pretty much wait us out. Kabul is notoriously corrupt. Pakistan is barely stable, and nuclear. The area is still home to the Haqqani network and some Al Qaida fighters.
Iran-Part of the axis of evil or not, Iran is a state sponsor of terror in Hezbollah, is still supporting Assad in Syria as a key ally, and is still trying like mad to get nuclear weapons. In order to be top dog in the region, they lie, project, delay, and play aggressive, belligerent games. They are almost completely untrustworthy, even by international standards. Yes, we took over Britain’s colonial project, yes, we helped to install a Shah, yes, the Khomeni came back and is running an aggressive, repressive theocratic regime alongside Ahmadinejad. There are many ways of thinking about what happens if Iran gets the bomb. Almost none of them are good.
Even Obama has said Iran getting the bomb is a red line, so we’ll see how this develops.
———————————-
Since Obama took office, it seems his overall inclination is towards Enlightenment humanist/universalist ideals. Many former human rights players turned diplomats are those he chooses for positions of power. Some of their idealism is tempered by realpolitik, and Obama has often had to rely the experience of others.
Other, more hawkish Democrats like Hilary Clinton and the Clinton camp have gone along to get along. In the Wilsonian tradition, he seeks to subsume U.S. interests to international organizations, laws and courts. I would guess his strongest base are made up of the peaceniks, one-worlder types, secular humanists, human rights people, and the anti-Bush crowd. This noted, he’s enjoyed much broader popular support due to strong feelings of isolationism, his having appropriated the Clinton wing, and other factors. Our economic recession/depression, the American people’s suspicion of our long wars and continuing challenges have contributed to his relative popularity.
Here’s to hoping we don’t back ourselves into worse situations.
It was a mess when Ambassador Stevens was there, and was killed, but is it getting worse?:
‘As Westerners evacuate Libya’s eastern city of Benghazi, Islamist militias—whose fighters apparently number in the thousands—are moving in.’
The destabilization of Libya post-Gadhafi has also added to the destabilization of Algeria, and Mali as well. Our policies and the assumptions behind them are not lining up well with conditions on the ground. This can help create the vacuum that invites the real radicals in.
What difference does it make? Well, quite a bit actually, for troop morale, for protecting our interests, pursuing our interests, and making and executing good policy with enough realism to not put ourselves in worse positions.
***Comments are very much worth a read.
Want to understand Islamism better and the forces in the region which will require much better policy out of us? Totten mentions checking out Sayyid Qutb. A must read.
A quote from Hill’s forward to Ajami’s new book on Syria as discussed in the video:
“[The] greatest strategic challenge of the twenty-first century is involves “reversing Islamic radicalism”‘
Both men want to see more leadership out of this administration. They both argue that there needs American led involvement of some sort in Syria. It’s a bad neighborhood, and we’ve got to provide leadership and side with the rebels as best we can.
Hill pushes further to suggest that if America doesn’t lead onto a new set of challenges that now face the West, then Europe surely isn’t capable of leading either. If we don’t strike out on our own as Truman did with bold leadership after World War II, we will end a generations long experiment in American exceptionalism. If we don’t lead, someone who doesn’t share our values, probably will.
I wanted to contrast this vision with Francis Fukuyama’s new piece, entitled ‘Life In A G-Zero World,‘ where if I’m not mistaken, Fukuyama is ok with such a diminished role for the U.S:
‘It is clear that no other power is going to step in to fill this role of structuring world politics on a grand scale. It does not necessarily imply, however, that the world will turn into a chaotic free-for-all. What occurs after the retreat of US hegemony will depend critically on the behavior of American partners and their willingness to invest in new multilateral structures. The dominant role of the US in years past relieved American allies of the need to invest in their own capabilities or to take the lead in solving regional problems. They now need to step up to the plate.’
and:
‘The regional military balance has already shifted toward China more than many American allies would like to admit. Moreover, while the basic American commitment to Tokyo under the US-Japan Security Agreement remains sound, the willingness of the Obama administration to risk military conflict with China over some uninhabited islands in the middle of the Pacific is not at all clear.’
————————–
We are, of course, using our intelligence agencies, military, special ops, drone strikes and many of Bush’s War On Terror policies to address realities, which I presume, can’t be ignored.
It’s certainly true that the U.S. will need some mix of increased tax revenue (flat tax?) and reduced spending (which it certainly won’t see under Obama, and which will be difficult under any President) if we’re to get out of the fiscal mess we’re in. We’ve got military commitments across the globe.
But does it follow that if the End of History hasn’t materialized that we just throw in our lot with European Statist models of governance, shrink our economy and prosperity, end our bold international leadership, and choose to drift along with European interests in the G-Zero world, hoping for the best?
I’ve had my hand on my wallet for a long time, hoping for the best and waiting for the worst. I think it’s reasonable to be skeptical of the current ideas guiding U.S. foreign policy, no matter how much that idealism is tempered by realpolitik. It’s too easy to get played by the bad actors, somewhat used by even our allies, and to spend too much of our capital engaged in deeply flawed international models. We’re drifting along with events.
Jones premise is to deal with the Muslim world as we’re finding it:
‘A central goal remains counterbalancing Iran — not only preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons but also checking its long-term regional ambitions. Iran views the United States as its main ideological and geopolitical enemy, and it is seeking to become the preeminent power in the Middle East and to promote its revolutionary ideology. Tehran has lent support to a number of U.S. adversaries and organizations that challenge U.S. interests, including Shiite groups in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Palestinian terrorist groups, Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, and the Venezuelan government under Hugo Chávez.
Related On This Site Al Qaida still there, and our objective may not be met. At least some folks in the media know just how much of a mess Pakistan can be, and the FATA region. Just ask Lara Logan…Some Tuesday Links-Two Foreign Fronts
It was an Islamist raid on a natural gas plant in Algeria which started on Wednesday, with many foreign workers being taken hostage, and possibly one American dead so far. Information is still hard to come by:
‘Algeria’s state news service says about 60 foreign hostages remain unaccounted for in the standoff with Islamist militants now entering its third day.
The report also says special forces have resumed negotiations after an assault Thursday at the natural gas facility in the Sahara in eastern Algeria’
Some people hid, some have been killed. Obviously, many foreign nationals were working there. The militants have reportedly demanded release of the blind sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Egyptian leader of a militant Islamist group currently being held in prison in North Carolina for his involvement in the the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Truly a peace-loving man.
So far, our media is not specially focused on the rise and resurgence of such Islamist movements, and Islamism more generally, and how to deal with them as best we can. It hasn’t focused on how such movements in Mali and Mauritania are related to Libya (Obama’s war), nor the dark days likely ahead of Egypt with a Brotherhood led government and what our policy challenges will be regarding Egypt and its neighbors. This is where much of Islam is right now, and we need to respond. It feels like we’re flying half-blind guided by realpolitik under a set of liberal internationalist principles and Obama’s leadership.
I suspect we’ll be hearing more talk about supporting the Algerian army, not jumping to conclusions, and supporting our allies. There’ll be talk of still trying to criminally investigate Benghazi and “working towards peace through international channels” while mingling amongst a crowd of governments trying to figure out where its citizens and interests are.
As a friend asks?: Is the end game really peace, or is it to bend U.S. interests and policy to a set of universalist, more human rights centered, Western Left ideals? If so, how’s that working out?
Update: Still unclear how many dead. It appears to be over, with many casualties.\]
In a bloody finale, Algerian special forces stormed a natural gas complex in the Sahara desert on Saturday to end a standoff with Islamist extremists that left at least 19 hostages and 29 militants dead. Dozens of foreign workers remain unaccounted for, leading to fears the death toll could rise.
————————————–
Kurdistan link:
Maybe the Kurds are going to rely on Turkey for some stability and are less likely to form independent Kurdistan-From Foreign Affairs: ‘Revenge Of The Kurds‘.
‘Ever since an armed mob torched a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, President Obama has vowed to bring the killers of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans to justice. Yet four months after the assault, U.S. counterterrorism and intelligence officials tell The Daily Beast that the hunt for those responsible remains stymied by poor cooperation by North African governments’
Well, there’s a surprise.
Addition: France will be intervening in Mali, as Al-Qaeda affiliated Islamists now control about 1.3 million people and much of the country.
As discussed many times on this blog: The current administration’s position on Bush’s War On Terror policies (whatever problems arise from that definition) has mostly been to continue them. We’re still doing the dirty work.
It’s also clear we need to prevent the kinds of conditions that lead to safe haven for groups like Al Qaeda to actively plan and coordinate attacks that would occur on our soil. That could be happening in Mali right now. Under the neo-cons (use American military force to spread democracy and pursue our self-interest) we invaded Afghanistan to do exactly the same, and we’re still there for primarily this reason.
A few questions:
-Some people are clearly not worth sitting around the table with, discussing options. Do we just continue the War On Terror indefinitely on our own?
-Some people can be cajoled, threatened, and enticed into recognizing international law, courts and institutions, at least for a while. The U.N. has some benefits, but is notably dysfunctional, so why should we continue with the same model if it doesn’t lead to outcomes we want? Shouldn’t we at least try and tweak the model if it can’t intervene in Syria and if tyrants like Gadhafi have a seat at the table?
***For American conservatives, these international institutions generally operate under ideals that are more common to Europe and the Western, universalist Left, and have been used to create world and international institutions which pursue Western interests. They don’t always represent American conservative interests, and in fact, depending on the institution, they can be leveraged against those interests.
Philosophical consistency for American conservatism would mean recognizing that the good reasons for open trade, freer markets, taxation with representation and smaller government here at home could also extend into the broader world, but that self-interest and common interests are often at odds when we come into contact with that world. Practically speaking, the more liberal, universalist worldview has been most successful in projecting Western power and interests abroad (often being underwritten with our military capabilities). Human rights campaigns and ‘girl power’ can do some good, but I’d argue shouldn’t be the primary focus of our foreign policy, but rather a recognized part of it.
There are many broader human endeavors, especially the Sciences, medicine, and much education which transcend the American pursuit of self-interest, that should naturally be expected to flourish and at times, guide our interests, but not necessarily under the current framework.
How does America lead or pursue its interests in this new landscape?: We need to confront the rise of Islamism and the realities of many Muslim societies through our policy. Putting women’s rights and international institutions front and center when you’re dealing with Al Qaida and the Taliban, assorted enemies, a suspicious China and a weaker adversarial Russia has serious problems …Via Youtube-Uncommon Knowledge With Fouad Ajami And Charles Hill…Daniel Deudney tries to build a global raft partially upon Kant’s idealism and says the global institutions we’ve got are better than nothing: Repost-Daniel Deudney On YouTube Responding to Robert Kagan: ‘Liberal Democracy Vs. Autocracy’
Click through for some ideas on resetting conservative foreign policy principles:
‘If Republicans adopt this basic view as a counterpoint to that of the second Obama Administration, it would be good for the country. It makes sense on its own terms and it would encourage a more serious approach to a subject we have lately tended to sleepwalk through. Can Republicans come together around this vision? Please, I hope so.’
The Republican party has not been showing good foreign policy leadership, and there seems to be a real lack of overall vision lately. Garfinkle throws out some ideas: American liberty as the measure of all things, international security through strengthened sovereignty, and live and let live, as some possible guiding alternatives.
In the meantime, what’s the current administration’s approach?:
‘The central liberal internationalist premise is the value of a rules-based international order that restrains powerful states and thereby reassures their enemies and allies alike and allows weaker states to have sufficient voice in the system that they will not choose to exit’
America must be restrained, and constantly appeal to and/or help to create an international order, regardless of the design flaws of the current international order. The liberal international map doesn’t always line up with the terrain, and can overlook many problems beyond the limits of its understanding.
For example:
—What kind of table do we have to sit at if Al Qaida and the Taliban, or the people ruling Northern Mali are on the other side? Obama is still using drone strikes, special ops and security agency capabilities on them anyways, so some of this may simply be politics.
—Does the formality of speaking with the Taliban, say, before some potential military action, or listening to Gadhafi or Ahmadinejad (both state sponsors of terror) drone on for an hour on the floor of the U.N., or waiting for the U.N. to act in the case of Syria, have some symbolic value that eclipses the value of our freedom to act unilaterally or in an alternative coalition to which we are bound under different rules in protecting our interests?
—What dangers are coming from picking winners and supporting rebels (which America has almost always done from installing a Shah, to supporting the Taliban against the Russians) in what seem like endless Middle-Eastern conflicts according to the liberal internationalist doctrine alone?
—What if Russia is simply adversarial (Cold War), and like some in China, would pursue interests and ideals that put it in direct conflict with what we hold most dear, as well as our interests?
And perhaps most importantly:
—What confers legitimacy and moral authority upon those international bodies to whom we would appeal to resolve our disputes, bind ourselves, and try to bind others, given the enormous chasms between peoples and ideas, free and unfree societies, wealthier and impoverished nations, rogue actors and rogue states?
Part of the reason the U.N looks and acts the way it does, is because it reflects what’s out there. The incentives may simply be wrong.
I suppose the burden is on those of us who espouse more conservative, or classically liberal Western ideas and principles to come up with something. Generally the ideals which guide many European secular humanists, the human rights crowd, and those who often seek peace unto itself find liberal internationalism appealing, and many such folks have been most effective at creating international institutions. That said, I’m not necessarily on board what’s become of the neo-conservative option either; using military force to spread democracy, often resting upon the national greatness platform. The long-term consequences and costs of Iraq are up for debate, but if Iraq is how that vision is implemented, a debate is overdue in my opinion. We can still pursue our interests, but we’ve arguably got to be a little smarter and more strategic about it. We’ve got to earn our national greatness again.
Here’s a suggestion I threw up before, just to put it out there:
How about a coalition of free traders, that works for the common self-interest of protecting the life-blood of our respective economies with naval forces against piracy, drug-runners, and corrupt and aggressive regimes that agitate in international waters? Perhaps America, Britain, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Germany, France, Israel, Brazil, Chile (China down the road) could start something like a cleaned up, international, merchant marines?
Or maybe regional trading partners are responsible for their own waters and borders, and more powerful actors can assist in regional waters and international waters. It would be nice to see trade come front and center in at least guiding how freer and more trade oriented societies pursue common interest, and this could include China, to some extent.
———————————-
What about here at home, and our economy?:
-As Garfinkle points out, domestic policy will affect what we do abroad:
Many people are looking around and seeing signs of cultural and political stagnation and real economic stagnation, if not decline, for the U.S. relative to the rest of the world. The winds have changed, but we still can set our sails again.
At the end of the video below made right after Obama was elected in 2008, Peter Thiel argued that real growth has been stagnant since about 1970 after accounting for the recent housing collapse. The average family is working harder to stay mostly in the same place. He attributes this to the fact that real technological advancement is obviously occurring, but just not exponentially, and it’s not exponentially increasing real wages, nor the same growth rate for the GDP we had for previous generations (mainly the Boomers). Those days of economic growth may be gone and this is mostly due to increased global competition and a new landscape to which America needs to adapt.
He wants to reframe the debate away from the culture wars and battles for control of the public square (the decline of institutionalized religion, the rise of feminism, women in the workforce, race, identity politics etc). Politically, the Left clearly has a lot of reasons for holding aloft science and technology (at the very least they’ll always need a goose to lay the golden eggs, but it goes much deeper). The Right begrudgingly accepts the importance of technology, but downplays its importance and has its own plans, according to Thiel.
He’s started the Thiel Fund that offers money to people willing to pursue an idea outside of the academy. He wants people to focus on the state of education, especially STEM going forward, to be a little more realistic on the tech economy, and to stay competitive globally and to work toward open trade and freer capital markets.
Addition: Does he advocate for greater realism on the tech front or is he lamenting the lack of grand, sometimes utopian visions attached to capital markets? See the link to Virginia Postrel above.
How does America lead or pursue its interests in this new landscape?: We need to confront the rise of Islamism and the realities of many Muslim societies through our policy. Putting women’s rights and international institutions front and center when you’re dealing with Al Qaida and the Taliban, assorted enemies, a suspicious China and a weaker adversarial Russia has serious problems …Via Youtube-Uncommon Knowledge With Fouad Ajami And Charles Hill…Daniel Deudney tries to build a global raft partially upon Kant’s idealism and says the global institutions we’ve got are better than nothing: Repost-Daniel Deudney On YouTube Responding to Robert Kagan: ‘Liberal Democracy Vs. Autocracy’
‘The political disagreement, between the protesters and the government, has been compounded by another: between the opposition protesters and the Muslim Brotherhood foot soldiers. For the latter, though, the conflict isn’t political — it’s religious and moral.’
There is extreme poverty in Egypt, as well as an entrenched, corrupt bureaucracy and the oppression it laid for generations upon citizens and opposition groups. The Brotherhood’s ties throughout the region and their sudden responsibilities and many of their positions are aligning with the larger Islamist movement in the Arab world. It’s not exactly spring.
‘Last night I mentioned the weirdly aggressive-sounding declaration from officials in Hainan, China’s southernmost island, that starting January 1 they would assert the right to stop and board vessels passing through anything they considered “Chinese” waters. That’s the entirety of the area shown within the red line at right, which covers many of the world’s major sea lanes.’
A very good analysis of the current Hamas-IDF skirmish in Gaza, and where it fits into other trends in the Middle East, with an interesting, modest proposal at the end (you’ll have to click through):
‘Today, we have to reverse the arrows: The ups and downs of the Palestinian impasse, like whether it is kinetic or not at any given time, have become instrumental with regard to the far more consequential future of politics in Egypt. Egypt is now less reliably useful to the United States as a mediator in Israeli-Palestinian affairs, but it has become far more important to the United States because its uncertain future will ramify across the entire, now destabilized Arab world, and also impinge significantly on the role of Iran and Turkey amid the Arabs.’
