Join The Navy!

Since the Monster Debate on Foreign Policy may be postponed so that the candidates may posture appealingly next to the Wall Street Emergency Rescue and CEO Reduced Compensation Act of 2008, there is a little time for one or both contenders to reconsider his stance on US policy in the Mideast. In the (remote) hope that reevaluation might take place, the Geek has a modest proposal or two.

The United States is and always has been a maritime power. Maritime powers have an enormous advantage over continental powers such as Germany or Russia. Control and use of the sea allows for timely force projection without overseas bases.

This means that a maritime power can practice balance of power politics. The British played that game with great effect during the 19th Century. The US dabbled with the idea off and on during some of the 20th. The time has come for us to play the game with cold calculation.

What has been the historic US interest in the Mideast and Persian Gulf?

No. Not the oil. Or at least not the oil in and of itself.

Our interest since the middle of World War II has been assuring that no single nation controls all or most of the region's oil. For nearly sixty years the US employed economic, military assistance, diplomacy and covert actions to achieve the policy goal.

The Rapid Deployment Force was conceptualised in the wake of the Iranian Revolution as a way of continuing to assure the oil region did not fall under a single country's hegemony. That same reason underscored the (in)famous "tilt to Iraq" during the Iraq-Iran War.

The policy requirement of preventing a regional hegemon from emerging prompted the massive deployment of US and other forces to Saudi Arabia in the run up to the Kuwait War.

Had the foreign forces left the Arabian Peninsula in the wake of ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, a major motive for Osama bin Ladin's 1996 "Declaration of War" against the US would have been undercut. Unfortunately that didn't happen. Although the massive American presence in Saudi Arabia was removed, the relocation of our bases to the UAE was a classic case of "too little, too late."

A strong argument may be made that the No Fly Zone in southern Iraq could have been adequately enforced by aircraft from naval carriers operating over the horizon in international waters. There was no crying military need for a large US presence anywhere in the Peninsula. Even the highly unlikely possibility of a resurgent and aggressive Saddam would have been detected in time for sea based, invisible force to be brought to bear.

With that as background, it's time to get a grip on the options now available.

The first option is to get out of Iraq. The US might take the Iraqi government and its delusions of adequacy seriously. The Iraqi politically articulate elite doesn't want our forces in its country now that the noise level has been reduced to an acceptable level.

Fine. It is no longer possible for the US to "not lose" militarily in Iraq. It is most assuredly not our responsibility to make certain that the Iraqis can do a passable job of running their own country.

We have accomplished our minimum necessary policy goal. We have not lost. The black turbans could not and did not defeat us either militarily or by enervation of our political will to continue the fight. Now it is up to the autocthones. The Iraqis in all their varied sectarian and linguistic stripes have to decide how the show is going to be run.

As long as we follow a balance of power approach, our basic policy of assuring open access to the only thing in the region that matters--oil--is preserved. We can do that best by remembering that we are a maritime power.

A second requirement of a new, balance of power oriented policy is to constructively engage Iran. The Iranian regime(s) have shown a willingness to do this, most recently in 2003. It wouldn't have been easy to arrange an all-inclusive bargain then and it will be immensely more difficult now, but that is no reason not to go ahead with the effort.

This approach does not imply an Obama-esque "negotiations without preconditions." Rather it relies on old style diplomacy with the only wrinkle that the US will have to eat some crow to jump start the process. For those who argue that we can't deal with Tehran while the mullahocracy supports Hezbollah, aids black turbans in Iraq, and slips assistance to Taliban, the Geek replies that history is the guide.

Remember that the US talked openly and repeatedly with the Soviet Union--to include a Summit Meeting in 1967--even though the Soviets were sending weapons by the shipload to North Vietnam and these weapons did in fact kill and wound Americans. (The Geek has a personal involvement in the latter part of this reality and carries fragments of Russian origin metal in his body to this day.)

Sure, an effort at constructive engagement might not pay off now after years of sanctions and saber waving, but the risks are far smaller and much more easily controlled than those attendant upon the military option. And, the benefits are far greater.

Beyond that, should force be necessary, the US possesses the over-the-horizon platforms to assure the rubble formerly called Tehran to bounce past the tropopause. Still, tough talk, tough bargaining is to be preferred over tough action.

Then there is Israel.

The seemingly eternal problem of Israel.

The time is long past for the US to treat Israel with the same respect, dignity and self-interested basis as it treats all other countries.

Yes, the US should be every bit as concerned with the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Israel as it that of France, Germany, Canada or Georgia.

Yes, the US should have all the normal diplomatic and commercial relations with Israel that it does with other countries.

All the normal features of relations the US has with other democratic, more or less pluralistic regimes should and must exist with respect to Israel.

But no more than that.

No more excessive military aid. No more excessive diplomatic and political support. No more foreign aid. (Israel is by all normal criteria a developed nation and needs foreign aid no more than does Canada or Sweden.)

For our own national interest we must give the Government of Israel (GOI) a choice regarding the West Bank and Gaza. Choice one: negotiate a two state solution immediately and in good faith with our support. Choice two: continue as an oppressive colonial power in the West Bank and Gaza without our support.

Again, the US has the over-the-horizon capacity to assure Israel's territorial integrity and national sovereignty. By giving the GOI the stark choice outlined above, we are not withdrawing from effective overwatch and protection.

Will this, any of the foregoing realpolitik approaches be embraced by either of the two major candidates?

No.

John McCain has openly embraced the neocon perspective and his campaign advisers include people such as Max Boot who have learned nothing from the greatest US foreign policy debacle in history and are eager to have the Israeli tail wag the dog of US policy. Senator Obama is a neophyte in foreign policy which makes him captive of the same Democratic movers and shakers who have followed the Israel uber alles view for more than forty years.

Also, the Geek is well aware of the Israel Lobby which, like the China Lobby of sixty and more years ago, has shown itself both willing and able to inflict massive damage on the interests of the United States in order to further the interests of another country.

Lord, help us.