I don't read the Washington Post much. If I come across a link to an article that interests me, I read it. David Ignatius' 19 Oct post, "
The foreign policy debate we should be having" piqued my interest.
What debate should we be having other than
- Why the Obama National Security establishment failed to a) deter b) detect c) prepare for d) defeat or e) accurately assess and report the al Queda attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the death of the American ambassador and three other American citizens?
- How the administration so horribly mis-judged the outcome of the "Arab Spring" in Egypt and other countries?
- How the president's "Reset" policy in regards to Russia has empowered Vladimir Putin consolidate his control of that country's government and act in ways contrary to U.S. national interests?
- How the administrations reckless spending, supplication, and mis-judgements have emboldened China to challenge its neighbors, Japan, the Philipines, and Taiwan?
- How dithering while trying to guage the wind of the American presidential race has allowed the crises in Syria, and Iran to boil over?
- How telling an enemy the date you intend to cease hostilities against them and withdraw will not result in any outcome other than defeat.
I could go on.... but you get my point.
Ignatius' first object is to take the focus off of Obama's numerous severe foreign policy failures.
He says the foreign policy debate we should be having is about grand strategy.
He's right. But it should be in addition to, not in lieu of, the aforementioned.
Ignatius discusses an article in The Wilson Quarterly dated 1 Oct. by Michael J. Mazarr, "
The Risks of Ignoring Strategic Insolvency."
Now, I admit that I have not read Mr. Mazarr's article yet. But I am addressing Mr. Ignatius' article in any case. The abstract for the article reads,
"The post-war U.S. approach to strategy is rapidly becoming insolvent and unsustainable. If Washington continues to cling to its existing role on the premise that the international order depends upon it, the result will be increasing resistance, economic ruin, and strategic failure with consequences harming U.S. credibility, diplomacy, and military operations."
It becomes somewhat apparent why Ignatius chose to direct his readership to this particular article.
"post-war" - post- which war? the one engaged in by some 30,000 Servicemembers in Afghanistan? The one on-going in Lybia, or the one in Syria, or the one between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah? Or the one about to occur between Israel and one or more of its neighbors? Perhaps the conflict simmering between China and one of its neighbors across the the China Sea? Or perhaps the civil war being waged in Mexico between the Mexican government and the drug cartels. Only Progressives and caricature beauty pagent contestants believe that they can achieve World Peace.
But he is correct, the U.S. approach to strategy is rapidly becoming unsustainable; because the country is rapidly becoming insolvent. I do want to read Mr. Mazarr's article to see if he addresses what happens if Washington DOES NOT continue to maintain its realization that the international order DOES depend upon the United States? I doubt that he does. I'd say we've had 4 or 5 years of pre-view. And it isn't pretty.
But I'll bet he doesn't talk about that alternative. No, and that is the second point of Ignatius' article. No. Here are the take-aways that make this a donation in kind:
"When you watch the debate Monday night, ask yourself whether the candidates are thinking strategically. Are they repeating rhetorical tropes about the United States as the “indispensable power” that can resolve any crisis? Or are they weighing commitments carefully to make sure that they can deliver what they promise?"
"Romney espouses the traditional, 21-gun-salute version, with its vision of a “shining city on a hill” and a unique calling to global leadership. And he talks about increasing the military budget as if that’s axiomatically a good thing. But he doesn’t explain how we’ll pay for this five-course meal of power, or how the country will digest it."
"My guess is that Obama, deep down, favors a more restrained version of American power, but he rarely says so in public."
So, beginning with the false alternative; if you are for a diminishment of U.S. power, prestige and influence you are "thinking strategically." If not, then you are "repeating rhetorical tropes" and will bring the nation to wrack and ruin if you are elected president.
And, in case any WaPo readers didn't already know it, it is axiomatic that Romney isn't thinking strategically because he sees the necessity for a militarily and diplomatically strong United States. Obama will be able to deliver what he promises, because he promises so much less - even when he promises no less than Romney.
Michael Kinsley, no blood and guts chickenhawk neo-Con he, wrote a few months back that when looking at budgets and revenues, you bought the national security you needed and bought the domestic programs you could afford. I would recommend that article to Mssrs. Ignatius and Mazaar.
So, now that we are down here however many inches from the top of this post, where does Ignatius get it right? He is right that the U.S. cannot resolve every crisis. Policy makers must weigh commitments carefully.
Ignatius compares the U.S. to Britain when its attempt to manage its global empire exceeded its ability to do so. Through the long lens of History, one wonders why Britain fought a war in Afghanistan. One may wonder why we are still fighting one there.
Ancient Rome fought a border war with the Parthians (Mesopotamia) for over 250 years during the declining years of the Empire.
The more some things change, the more they stay the same...
It's interesting that Ignatius calls Reagan's decision to pull out of Lebanon "cold-blooded" at the same time he cold-bloodly recommends that the U.S. pull out of the world and forfeit the capabilities to engage for strategic or humanitarian reasons. He peremptorily abandons future Lebanons to their fate. And future Americans to less freedom, less prosperity and less security.
The entire government must live within its means. Historically, federal tax revenues average no more than 20% of GDP, regardless of tax rates. Our federal expenditures should normally be less than 20% of GDP. That is the only sustainable fiscal policy.
Expenditures for Defense have historically averaged around 4-5% of GDP, rising during periods of war. Russia plans to increase its defense spending to 3.7% of GDP over the next 2-3 years. Who really knows what China's is. But even spending 6% of GDP on Defense would still leave 14% of a $15T GDP to spend on domestic priorities. That should work. Then we look at the world realistically.
The nature of American's is to help those who need help. We can't change our nature. But we have to recognize that our strength does have limitations, that it is illegitimate for the government to act contrary to the country's security, that we will have to make choices based upon our values AND our interests. For one example, Joseph Kony is doing horrible things in Uganda. Uganda is a friendly country in Africa. Our values lead us to help. Our relationship with Uganda makes it in our interest to help. Kony poses no near-term threat to U.S. interests in the region. There is some chance that U.S. assistance could defeat Kony, improve ties with an important nation on an important continent and in the longer term, delay the spread of militant Islam. I would be willing but reluctant to risk American lives or very much treasure there - if we had the treasure to risk. On the other hand, China is doing horrible things in Tibet. Our values lead us to want to help. The geographic location of Tibet and the super power status of China makes military action impossible. Don't even pretend. A rigorous application of classical Just War Theory can clarify the considerations and help to avoid bad decisions. But there is no mathematical formula that will spit out the right decisions.
Every decision that must find the best possible balance between American values, American interests, and America's capabilities is a difficult one. Obama has repeatedly shown himself to be not up to the task. Contrary to what David Ignatius would like you to believe, Mitt Romney is better suited to make those difficult decisions.
