The MSM have been spilling a lot of ink over the "success" of Obama's "leading from behind" doctrine as exhibited in Libya. Some experts in the field of geopolitics have gone so far as to extend the Libyan outcome as being but the latest in a string of unappreciated but real "successes" or at least non-failures attributable to the Nice Young Man From Chicago.
All things considered, there has been one real victory achieved by President Obama. His combination of responding to domestic political pressures--particularly the pervasive Democrat fear of being seen as "weak" on national security--combined with lofty, progressive rhetoric of the Bill Clinton sort has removed foreign policy from the election table. From his decision to allow the lethal takedown of Osama bin Laden to the murky way in which the US backed into the Libyan adventure in regime change, Obama responded more to the dictates of the public's political mood than any realistic assessment of US diplomatic needs and goals.
While it is no doubt true that defense and foreign policy will not play any discernible role in the 2012 election, which is a misfortune to say the least, the canny political sense of the incumbent in denying the Republicans any point of legitimate attack constitutes a real advantage to the Obama campaign. Also offering powerful assistance to the president's reelection effort is the combination of amazing ignorance and retro thinking which typifies the current elephantine field in its collective consideration of America's role in the world.
It is to be regretted greatly that none of the current GOP aspirants have yet gone after the record of failures which is the record of the present administration. The universe of discourse is both vast and central to the near and mid-term future of the US.
Consider Iraq. Yes, we are out of the place. That is good. But the cost of our exit has been to see failure left in the wake of the endeavor. True, the initial blunder belongs for all eternity to George W. Bush and his neocon ninny soulmates. But the Obama people knew the withdrawal date fixed by the Status of Forces Agreement was looming. They also knew that total withdrawal would be dangerous, perhaps fatally so for Iraq. So did the Iraqis. Yet, with nearly three years to act, the administration failed to find a formula which would allow sufficient troops to stay with the requisite legal immunity. Rather than search for the obvious alternatives to an act by the Iraqi parliament, Obama opted to get out of Dodge--and place the blame on the Boys In Baghdad.
Some success that--for the mullahs in Tehran and their local Iraqi henchmen.
In Afghanistan, the Obama authorized "surge" provided two results. The first was a short duration set of battlefield victories, which were meaningless given the publicly announced draw down and pull out dates giving the adversaries all they needed to know to stay the course. The second accomplishment of the Obama surge was to provide political cover and advantage as the surge forces come home before the elections.
The result was to embolden both the Taliban and Haqqini network as well as their Pakistani handlers. A second result was to undercut the will of the Karzai government to conduct the needed reforms, to develop an effective national force, or to prosecute the war with vigor. Along with the totally wrongheaded firing of General Stanley McChrystal, the date certain withdrawal schedule did nothing to enhance either the will or the operational ability of US and other foreign forces to conduct their mission with high morale and the most effective approaches on both the tactical and operational levels.
What a "success." Yes, for Islamabad and their proxies in Afghanistan.
Then there is Israel and the Palestinians. The Obama policy not only froze a bad dynamic in place, it worsened matters to a point that the two state solution has become even more unlikely now than at the end of the reign of George W. The truckling Cairo speech raised Arab expectations to a level that could not be met by a mere American president, particularly one whose guiding star was provided by domestic politics. As if that were not bad enough, the president has a very bad personal as well as political relationship with the Israeli prime minister, which in no way made it probable that Israel would go along with Washington's policy preferences.
What a success--if you are Palestinian head of government Abbas.
The "Arab Spring" had to be a success, right? After all it was the triumph of democracy over autocracy, and how can anybody see that as other than a success? Sure, it was--if you are a member of an austere, political Muslim group. As was the case in Iran all those long years ago, the legendary power of the people, the voice of the democratic ballot box, the exercise of free voting, will most probably bring austere Muslims into power. And, once there, it will take more than merely voting to get them out. (Once again see Iran as the paradigm.)
How about the "war on terror?" Fortunately our intelligence, law enforcement, and military forces are highly competent, so we have not suffered a homeland hit for ten years now. None of this is due to brilliant policy on the part of Mr Obama and his "team." On the policy level, the Obama administration has been every bit as clueless as its predecessor. BH Obama is no more willing than was George W to acknowledge that terror and other forms of asymmetrical war we have faced for more than a decade have been and are predicated on the religion. The same religion serves as the motivation of the various austere, political Islamists who carry out the acts of war and terror. Failure at the basic level of knowing the nature and character of the enemy assures the overall war will not be successful.
OK, the Geek hears you object, what about the standing of the US in the eyes of the world? It's gotta be better now than when Cowboy George was in the Oval.
You betcha, bucko. It is. And, more importantly, it is not. But that is a subject for a different post. Maybe tomorrow if the weather and the tetchy computer allow.
Showing posts with label 2012 Presidential Race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 Presidential Race. Show all posts
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Rick Perry And The Big, Bad World
As had been expected for several weeks, Rick Perry has entered the GOP contest. Of this the Geek is both glad and positive. Governor Perry appears to possess the stomach and head necessary for a down and dirty campaign against the Nice Young Man From Chicago which is singularly lacking with other Elephant hopefuls.
The Geek became a fan of Texas politics during the years necessity compelled him to live and work in the Lone Star Empire. The doings at that model of law making decorum called the "Lege" were and are as fascinating as the inner workings of the Cook County (Ill.) Democratic machine. The emergence of Perry showed him to be a man having a strong, visceral understanding of the political soul of most Texans. Over the past year Perry's performance has demonstrated that this gut level talent is not restricted to the denizens of the LSE but extends to many of We the People.
It is important to enter an important caveat here, a warning of relevance to international politics. Other significant leaders who have exhibited a strong, visceral understanding of their people's national politics such as Vladimir Putin have seen that understanding stop abruptly at the border. They have little if any understanding of the political mood or mode of other people in other countries.
Governor Perry stated strongly in Charleston that he was a strong believer in "American exceptionalism," which places him in very sharp contrast with the relativistic Mr Obama. This posture while laudable in itself demands yet another caveat in the arena of global affairs. The "exceptionalism" part of the phrase consists of characteristics, attributes, and values which are under a permanent export ban. American exceptionalism is not only made in America by dint of suffering, war, political struggles, and endless effort, it must forever stay in the land of its fabrication. It is unique to us for it is uniquely us and ours. No bayonet, no tank, no stealth fighter, no UAV, no aid program, no propaganda effort, no executive order or congressional enactment can force its export to other, foreign soils. As a transplant it must fail.
On his campaign website, Mr Perry avers that his service as a C-130 driver as well as his many foreign trips as governor give him insight into the needs of American diplomatic and national security policy. While it is true that the governor flew Herky birds with numerous RONs and TDYs, the result would be an intimate acquaintance with nocturnal resorts of entertainment and recreation but little contact with the dark doings of foreign chanceries or the gavottes in distant corridors of power. (To this truism any person with a peripatetic military experience can attest.) And, as governor Mr Perry's overseas jaunts were in the interest of the economic development of the LSE not the national interests of the US.
In his speech at Charleston, the Texan was more than kind when he characterized whatever passes as foreign policy within the Obama administration as a "muddle." It is, of course, far worse than that. It is even worse than a collection of blunders wrapped in empty, high sounding rhetoric. Rather, it is an ideologically driven exercise in ad hoc reaction coupled with a set of self-defeating visions of how the world ought to be if only it were designed in Left leaning academic salons located near the University of Chicago campus.
At least implicitly (if Rick "No One Crosses Me and Lives" Perry can ever be merely implicit) the Texas Cyclone of Prayer vowed to change this. He evidently intends to assure the US once again walks tall and proud on the international stage. This would be a welcome change after the years of "leading from behind" but carries with it yet another, larger caveat.
This caveat resides in the coterie Perry has assembled to date as his advisers on foreign and national security affairs. Without notable exception, it is comprised of neocon ninnies out of the years of the Bush/Cheney administration. At the head of the list is the execrable Doug Feith, the top architect of the debacle in Iraq. Other members have an equally illustrious record. From their post administration writings and speeches, it is apparent they have neither learned nor forgotten a single iota. None have seen the failings produced by their own ideologically predicated view of the world and the role of the US in that world.
Unless Governor Perry expands his advisory staff, there is a very grave danger that his understanding of the abilities and limits of American power will be as disastrously off the mark as were those of George W. Bush. Neither the US nor the world can live with yet another ideologically predicated misreading of what the US can and cannot do with respect to the internal workings of other countries.
It is important to note that not since George H.W. Bush left office has the US enjoyed the services of a president who was both internationally focused and relatively bereft of ideological blinders. The many years of Clinton, George W. Bush and His Hindmost, Barack Obama--each with either or both a disinterest in foreign affairs or ideological predicates of overwhelming power--have seen the steady decline of the US as a Great Power with influence and potency. Given that the next president will be laboring under serious budgetary constraints, the question of the relations of the US with the rest of the world as well as the American capacity and will to defend and advance its national interests will be under very severe challenge.
More than ever we will need a president who realistically assesses our national interests and tailors our diplomacy and military to protect and advance those interests regardless of extraneous considerations including ideological preferences and prejudices. The next president will face a world which remains what it always has been--a dangerous place replete with countries which oppose us and our interests and actors both state and non-state who wish to do us harm. The world will also contain countries which share values and norms with us and with which we have coinciding national interests.
The next president must do what the present incumbent has failed to do with striking obviousness--parse between the enemies and the allies. He must be able and willing to cozen and stroke the latter while drawing in a credible manner the necessary lines in the sand regarding the former.
As Perry lacks any significant foreign policy experience and whose direct experience with military affairs and war fighting is limited to the perspective offered from the cockpit of a C-130, he will depend heavily on his foreign policy and national security teams. Given his first picks as advisers, there is, unfortunately, little if any reason to be hopeful in this regard.
In the future national interest as well as his own personal political fortune, Governor Perry ought to fire the present advisory staff. It is the only smart and prudential thing to do. He has to put daylight between himself and George W. Bush, and listening to the old gang of neocon ninnies is not the way to offset the inevitable Obama camp attacks seeking to make Perry look like the much disliked (not to say hated) Bush, Jr.
(Full disclosure in blogging statement: The Geek is not angling for a job with the Perry camp as he is constitutionally incapable of working for anyone.)
The Geek became a fan of Texas politics during the years necessity compelled him to live and work in the Lone Star Empire. The doings at that model of law making decorum called the "Lege" were and are as fascinating as the inner workings of the Cook County (Ill.) Democratic machine. The emergence of Perry showed him to be a man having a strong, visceral understanding of the political soul of most Texans. Over the past year Perry's performance has demonstrated that this gut level talent is not restricted to the denizens of the LSE but extends to many of We the People.
It is important to enter an important caveat here, a warning of relevance to international politics. Other significant leaders who have exhibited a strong, visceral understanding of their people's national politics such as Vladimir Putin have seen that understanding stop abruptly at the border. They have little if any understanding of the political mood or mode of other people in other countries.
Governor Perry stated strongly in Charleston that he was a strong believer in "American exceptionalism," which places him in very sharp contrast with the relativistic Mr Obama. This posture while laudable in itself demands yet another caveat in the arena of global affairs. The "exceptionalism" part of the phrase consists of characteristics, attributes, and values which are under a permanent export ban. American exceptionalism is not only made in America by dint of suffering, war, political struggles, and endless effort, it must forever stay in the land of its fabrication. It is unique to us for it is uniquely us and ours. No bayonet, no tank, no stealth fighter, no UAV, no aid program, no propaganda effort, no executive order or congressional enactment can force its export to other, foreign soils. As a transplant it must fail.
On his campaign website, Mr Perry avers that his service as a C-130 driver as well as his many foreign trips as governor give him insight into the needs of American diplomatic and national security policy. While it is true that the governor flew Herky birds with numerous RONs and TDYs, the result would be an intimate acquaintance with nocturnal resorts of entertainment and recreation but little contact with the dark doings of foreign chanceries or the gavottes in distant corridors of power. (To this truism any person with a peripatetic military experience can attest.) And, as governor Mr Perry's overseas jaunts were in the interest of the economic development of the LSE not the national interests of the US.
In his speech at Charleston, the Texan was more than kind when he characterized whatever passes as foreign policy within the Obama administration as a "muddle." It is, of course, far worse than that. It is even worse than a collection of blunders wrapped in empty, high sounding rhetoric. Rather, it is an ideologically driven exercise in ad hoc reaction coupled with a set of self-defeating visions of how the world ought to be if only it were designed in Left leaning academic salons located near the University of Chicago campus.
At least implicitly (if Rick "No One Crosses Me and Lives" Perry can ever be merely implicit) the Texas Cyclone of Prayer vowed to change this. He evidently intends to assure the US once again walks tall and proud on the international stage. This would be a welcome change after the years of "leading from behind" but carries with it yet another, larger caveat.
This caveat resides in the coterie Perry has assembled to date as his advisers on foreign and national security affairs. Without notable exception, it is comprised of neocon ninnies out of the years of the Bush/Cheney administration. At the head of the list is the execrable Doug Feith, the top architect of the debacle in Iraq. Other members have an equally illustrious record. From their post administration writings and speeches, it is apparent they have neither learned nor forgotten a single iota. None have seen the failings produced by their own ideologically predicated view of the world and the role of the US in that world.
Unless Governor Perry expands his advisory staff, there is a very grave danger that his understanding of the abilities and limits of American power will be as disastrously off the mark as were those of George W. Bush. Neither the US nor the world can live with yet another ideologically predicated misreading of what the US can and cannot do with respect to the internal workings of other countries.
It is important to note that not since George H.W. Bush left office has the US enjoyed the services of a president who was both internationally focused and relatively bereft of ideological blinders. The many years of Clinton, George W. Bush and His Hindmost, Barack Obama--each with either or both a disinterest in foreign affairs or ideological predicates of overwhelming power--have seen the steady decline of the US as a Great Power with influence and potency. Given that the next president will be laboring under serious budgetary constraints, the question of the relations of the US with the rest of the world as well as the American capacity and will to defend and advance its national interests will be under very severe challenge.
More than ever we will need a president who realistically assesses our national interests and tailors our diplomacy and military to protect and advance those interests regardless of extraneous considerations including ideological preferences and prejudices. The next president will face a world which remains what it always has been--a dangerous place replete with countries which oppose us and our interests and actors both state and non-state who wish to do us harm. The world will also contain countries which share values and norms with us and with which we have coinciding national interests.
The next president must do what the present incumbent has failed to do with striking obviousness--parse between the enemies and the allies. He must be able and willing to cozen and stroke the latter while drawing in a credible manner the necessary lines in the sand regarding the former.
As Perry lacks any significant foreign policy experience and whose direct experience with military affairs and war fighting is limited to the perspective offered from the cockpit of a C-130, he will depend heavily on his foreign policy and national security teams. Given his first picks as advisers, there is, unfortunately, little if any reason to be hopeful in this regard.
In the future national interest as well as his own personal political fortune, Governor Perry ought to fire the present advisory staff. It is the only smart and prudential thing to do. He has to put daylight between himself and George W. Bush, and listening to the old gang of neocon ninnies is not the way to offset the inevitable Obama camp attacks seeking to make Perry look like the much disliked (not to say hated) Bush, Jr.
(Full disclosure in blogging statement: The Geek is not angling for a job with the Perry camp as he is constitutionally incapable of working for anyone.)
Monday, June 13, 2011
Newt Turns To Foreign Policy
Newt Gingrich, a man who has habitually given himself very high marks in the native intelligence department, is in the process of renewing, redefining, relaunching or repairing his quest for the presidency. While it is tempting to dismiss him as Georgia's answer to Donald Trump--far more interested in promoting his brand than actually putting his hind end in the Oval, that seductive idea must be resisted. The man takes himself far too seriously for that sort of thing.
It is in this context--the concept of Newt as serious contender--that the former House Speaker's address to the Republican Jewish Coalition must be considered. Of course, the speech was carefully tailored to the audience, its concerns, fears, anxieties, hopes, all of which focus quite unsurprisingly on Israel. Thus the impression given by the Gingrich remarks to the effect that the Israeli tail would wave the American dog with even greater vigor than usual in a Gingrich administration must be discounted.
Mr Gingrich must be intellectually honest enough to understand that the fate of the state of Israel is not the be all and end all of US foreign affairs. This is not to imply that Israel and its relations with the Arab and Muslim states is not a trivial consideration in the calculus of American interests, but it does mean that Israel, even in a Gingrich presidency, would not be the only or even the major consideration guiding our playing of the game of nations.
In his remarks Gingrich offered nine specific points which would mark his mode of operation in global politics. Some are inconsequential on the macro level while important to some in Israel and most of the Israel Lobby here in the US. (The executive order transferring our embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv on the first day of the Gingrich administration stands out in this area.) Other bullets have genuine salience.
In this area is Gingrich's rejection of the Obama Formulation regarding the borders of Israel. Given that Newt did not quote the Formulation with total accuracy, his main criticism holds true. The 1967 borders of Israel do not meet the requirement set forth in Resolution 242 to the effect that the borders must be both secure and defensible. Even with land swaps to accommodate the "settlements" and giving due regard to the changes in military technology which have occurred over the past forty years, the borders put in place at the time of the armistice ending the wars of independence do not meet the "secure and defensible" test. At the least the Israelis must have a military presence in the Jordan valley to provide some early if not particularly distant warning of impending attack by land. In addition, the government of Israel would need some means of assuring the Palestinian territory remained demilitarized and free of the crude but deadly missiles so beloved by Hamas and similar terror oriented Islamic groups.
Also salient and relevant to reality was Gingrich's renunciation of any "right of return" on the part of Palestinians displaced by either the wars of independence or the Six Day War of 1967. While some of the displacement was forced (particularly during the wars of independence) by Israeli forces, most of the refugees were cozened by Arab governments into leaving their homes and lands with the expectation of returning behind the ever-victorious Arab armies. That the expectations were thwarted by Israeli military prowess in no way provides some right of return. Gingrich properly notes that the allowing of unlimited return by the refugees or their descendants would constitute a form of demographic suicide. He might have added that the alternative of financial compensation would be the same in economic terms.
On an issue which is of great importance to Israel which is also one of concern to civilized states generally, Gingrich stated that he would take more robust actions against Iran so as to prevent it realizing its nuclear objectives. What might be done beyond that which has already been tried and failed, the Deep Thinker from Georgia did not say. The idea of Iran and its eschatological leadership gaining nuclear weapons does not provide for easy repose. But, absent the use of force there seems very little probability of preventing the regime from acquiring the bomb. Admittedly, it would be politically suicidal for a potential candidate to commit his administration to preemptive war, but does Mr Gingrich really, really believe that all who hear or read his speech could conclude other than he anticipated using the "military option?"
The Gingrich Nine Point Plan shows the former congressman is not a big supporter of the UN. He makes this clear with two of his bullets.
He proposes closing the UN refugee camps. This is a good idea and long overdue as the camps, originally intended to be short term emergency shelters for those displaced during the wars of independence over sixty years ago, have transmogrified into permanent enclaves of the impoverished, the disaffected, the alienated, the dependent, the hopeless. As such they have proved perfect recruiting grounds for assorted terror groups both secular and Islamist.
While he wants these camps shut down he provides no mechanism for their replacement. Even if one grants all the negatives regarding the camps which he lists, it is not enough to merely shut them down. Presumably the new Palestinian state and government would take the responsibility of integrating the former refugees and their descendants but this will require (unfortunately) some measure of foreign assistance. To be credible as opposed to merely emotionally evocative, Newt should have outlined a process, a system at the least.
But the one time bomb thrower saved his larger critique of the UN for the subject of that body recognizing an independent Palestinian state. In essence the Gingrich administration would stop paying UN dues should the folly by the Hudson play create-a-state. He considers it likely that the UN will do something akin to creating a state called Palestine given the organization's well established record of beating up on Israel.
It is true that the UN generally and the UN Human Rights Council in particular loves kicking Israel around on a regular basis. It is also true that the UN has delusions of adequacy with respect to acting as if it were some sort of governing body, but even in its worst moments there are sane diplomats in Turtle Bay with the result that the UN will not create a Palestine. This will most likely be the case even absent the US veto in the Security Council. (Hint: Think Russia and China and their apprehensions regarding the UN and its ambitions of overreach.)
Gingrich would have done his campaign and his audience a greater service had he taken a principled position on the UN itself. The UN may have outlived whatever utility it might have had in bygone decades. The time may be here for a new, tighter organization in which the genuine liberal democracies with a commitment to such features as open inquiry and expression, separation of church and state, independent judiciary, free enterprise, and the dignity of the individual constitute the membership. If so and if he shares that view, why not say so? Bashing the UN because it bashes Israel is fun but not useful.
Gingrich shows himself as Gingrich most pure and simple with point nine of his list. He wants to totally transform the culture of the State Department. His reasons are vague at best as are his accusations against the crew at Foggy Bottom. His taking on the State Department with a full throated call for "new blood was redolent of the days when assorted Republicans considered the department to be filled with lily livered Red loving cookie pushers.
The reality is quite different from the Gingrich caricature. As has been demonstrated by the contents of the infamous WikiLeaks data dump, We the People are being very well served by a foreign service of highly competent and quite dedicated nature. As a historian specializing in 20th Century military, diplomatic, and intelligence history, the Geek has become convinced that our State Department has never been better. It has faults--for example it is too bureaucratized--but these can be addressed without the draconian approach advocated by Gingrich. Simply put, in this contention, Newt is off-the-wall and out-to-lunch.
When one does not support a war--don't blame the grunts. And, Newt, when one does not like a foreign policy--don't blame the foreign service officers. In both cases the blame (if any) rests with the politicians, with the president and his "team." Get rid of them and you are rid of the obnoxious policy.
Presumably this is what Gingrich wants to do--get rid of Obama and his "team." While it is doubtful that Gingrich is the man to do the ridding, he is to be given two thumbs up. One is for making the out-of-right-field effort to answer the question of "who will rid us of this meddlesome president." The other is for bringing foreign policy back to center stage even if only briefly and in a patently tendentious way.
It is in this context--the concept of Newt as serious contender--that the former House Speaker's address to the Republican Jewish Coalition must be considered. Of course, the speech was carefully tailored to the audience, its concerns, fears, anxieties, hopes, all of which focus quite unsurprisingly on Israel. Thus the impression given by the Gingrich remarks to the effect that the Israeli tail would wave the American dog with even greater vigor than usual in a Gingrich administration must be discounted.
Mr Gingrich must be intellectually honest enough to understand that the fate of the state of Israel is not the be all and end all of US foreign affairs. This is not to imply that Israel and its relations with the Arab and Muslim states is not a trivial consideration in the calculus of American interests, but it does mean that Israel, even in a Gingrich presidency, would not be the only or even the major consideration guiding our playing of the game of nations.
In his remarks Gingrich offered nine specific points which would mark his mode of operation in global politics. Some are inconsequential on the macro level while important to some in Israel and most of the Israel Lobby here in the US. (The executive order transferring our embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv on the first day of the Gingrich administration stands out in this area.) Other bullets have genuine salience.
In this area is Gingrich's rejection of the Obama Formulation regarding the borders of Israel. Given that Newt did not quote the Formulation with total accuracy, his main criticism holds true. The 1967 borders of Israel do not meet the requirement set forth in Resolution 242 to the effect that the borders must be both secure and defensible. Even with land swaps to accommodate the "settlements" and giving due regard to the changes in military technology which have occurred over the past forty years, the borders put in place at the time of the armistice ending the wars of independence do not meet the "secure and defensible" test. At the least the Israelis must have a military presence in the Jordan valley to provide some early if not particularly distant warning of impending attack by land. In addition, the government of Israel would need some means of assuring the Palestinian territory remained demilitarized and free of the crude but deadly missiles so beloved by Hamas and similar terror oriented Islamic groups.
Also salient and relevant to reality was Gingrich's renunciation of any "right of return" on the part of Palestinians displaced by either the wars of independence or the Six Day War of 1967. While some of the displacement was forced (particularly during the wars of independence) by Israeli forces, most of the refugees were cozened by Arab governments into leaving their homes and lands with the expectation of returning behind the ever-victorious Arab armies. That the expectations were thwarted by Israeli military prowess in no way provides some right of return. Gingrich properly notes that the allowing of unlimited return by the refugees or their descendants would constitute a form of demographic suicide. He might have added that the alternative of financial compensation would be the same in economic terms.
On an issue which is of great importance to Israel which is also one of concern to civilized states generally, Gingrich stated that he would take more robust actions against Iran so as to prevent it realizing its nuclear objectives. What might be done beyond that which has already been tried and failed, the Deep Thinker from Georgia did not say. The idea of Iran and its eschatological leadership gaining nuclear weapons does not provide for easy repose. But, absent the use of force there seems very little probability of preventing the regime from acquiring the bomb. Admittedly, it would be politically suicidal for a potential candidate to commit his administration to preemptive war, but does Mr Gingrich really, really believe that all who hear or read his speech could conclude other than he anticipated using the "military option?"
The Gingrich Nine Point Plan shows the former congressman is not a big supporter of the UN. He makes this clear with two of his bullets.
He proposes closing the UN refugee camps. This is a good idea and long overdue as the camps, originally intended to be short term emergency shelters for those displaced during the wars of independence over sixty years ago, have transmogrified into permanent enclaves of the impoverished, the disaffected, the alienated, the dependent, the hopeless. As such they have proved perfect recruiting grounds for assorted terror groups both secular and Islamist.
While he wants these camps shut down he provides no mechanism for their replacement. Even if one grants all the negatives regarding the camps which he lists, it is not enough to merely shut them down. Presumably the new Palestinian state and government would take the responsibility of integrating the former refugees and their descendants but this will require (unfortunately) some measure of foreign assistance. To be credible as opposed to merely emotionally evocative, Newt should have outlined a process, a system at the least.
But the one time bomb thrower saved his larger critique of the UN for the subject of that body recognizing an independent Palestinian state. In essence the Gingrich administration would stop paying UN dues should the folly by the Hudson play create-a-state. He considers it likely that the UN will do something akin to creating a state called Palestine given the organization's well established record of beating up on Israel.
It is true that the UN generally and the UN Human Rights Council in particular loves kicking Israel around on a regular basis. It is also true that the UN has delusions of adequacy with respect to acting as if it were some sort of governing body, but even in its worst moments there are sane diplomats in Turtle Bay with the result that the UN will not create a Palestine. This will most likely be the case even absent the US veto in the Security Council. (Hint: Think Russia and China and their apprehensions regarding the UN and its ambitions of overreach.)
Gingrich would have done his campaign and his audience a greater service had he taken a principled position on the UN itself. The UN may have outlived whatever utility it might have had in bygone decades. The time may be here for a new, tighter organization in which the genuine liberal democracies with a commitment to such features as open inquiry and expression, separation of church and state, independent judiciary, free enterprise, and the dignity of the individual constitute the membership. If so and if he shares that view, why not say so? Bashing the UN because it bashes Israel is fun but not useful.
Gingrich shows himself as Gingrich most pure and simple with point nine of his list. He wants to totally transform the culture of the State Department. His reasons are vague at best as are his accusations against the crew at Foggy Bottom. His taking on the State Department with a full throated call for "new blood was redolent of the days when assorted Republicans considered the department to be filled with lily livered Red loving cookie pushers.
The reality is quite different from the Gingrich caricature. As has been demonstrated by the contents of the infamous WikiLeaks data dump, We the People are being very well served by a foreign service of highly competent and quite dedicated nature. As a historian specializing in 20th Century military, diplomatic, and intelligence history, the Geek has become convinced that our State Department has never been better. It has faults--for example it is too bureaucratized--but these can be addressed without the draconian approach advocated by Gingrich. Simply put, in this contention, Newt is off-the-wall and out-to-lunch.
When one does not support a war--don't blame the grunts. And, Newt, when one does not like a foreign policy--don't blame the foreign service officers. In both cases the blame (if any) rests with the politicians, with the president and his "team." Get rid of them and you are rid of the obnoxious policy.
Presumably this is what Gingrich wants to do--get rid of Obama and his "team." While it is doubtful that Gingrich is the man to do the ridding, he is to be given two thumbs up. One is for making the out-of-right-field effort to answer the question of "who will rid us of this meddlesome president." The other is for bringing foreign policy back to center stage even if only briefly and in a patently tendentious way.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
A Suggestion For Republican Presidential Aspirants
The next election is going to be decided primarily but not exclusively on the matter of jobs and who has the better ideas for creating them. Other matters such as the deficit, national security, and foreign policy will be (much?) further down the list of voter concerns. Of course, a terrorist outrage will change the priorities rather rapidly.
The reality is that jobs and the deficit are linked directly and materially to both national security and foreign policy. There are a lot of people who may not like that linkage, may even argue that it doesn't exist today any more than it did in the good old days of the cold war. Wishful thinking, for the world and its politics to say nothing of its economic dynamics have shifted markedly since the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union faded away.
The short period of apparent American unipolar dominance has ended. The globalization phenomena have continued. And, the threat of violent political Islam remains upon us. All of these provide links between jobs, the deficit, national security, and foreign policy. Given that no serious contender on the GOP side has put forth any excuse for a foreign and national security policy beyond traditional boilerplate and bromides, the Geek being public spirited has taken it upon himself to provide some ideas for the so far empty Republican platitudes.
Any viable foreign policy for the future must be predicated upon a few clear cut predicates which are both in our national interest and comport reasonably well with our historical values and norms. Fortunately, it is not hard to have a policy which is true to our roots while protecting and advancing our future. The matter is actually so simple that even a politician can grasp it.
The first principle of American foreign policy must be that of non-intervention. By this, it is meant that the US will not intervene in the purely internal affairs of a sovereign state. We may deplore and rhetorically condemn a state for what it does to its citizens. We may deny it any cooperation, assistance, or support, but we will not use any method to seek regime change. Unless. Unless a state harbors, facilitates, or engages in the direct or indirect use of force against our interests, our citizens, or, under carefully circumscribed circumstances, those of states with which the US has a close and ongoing relationship. Unless a state infringes on this bright and shining line, it and its leaders are safe from our kinetic capacities.
The US should get out of the foreign aid game except for humanitarian needs and then only in conjunction with ad hoc coalitions of states and NGOs having a shared concern in the specific need. It is particularly critical that the US not provide any direct aid to any Muslim majority state so as to preclude the usage of that aid as "proof" that the US is paying jizya. All too often Muslim clerics have taken the public position that the foreign aid provided by the US to, say, Egypt, is not aid but rather the protection money paid to Muslims under the doctrine of infidel submission to Muslim protection.
In a similar way, the US should ramp down its payments to the UN both for direct operating expenses and peacekeeping until they reach a level that the American per capita payment is no more than the average per capita contribution from the General Assembly's aggregate membership. The UN is not particularly useful nor effective in meeting the needs of now and the future. Far better are ad hoc coalitions brought together by coinciding national interest. These coalitions have been far more effective from the days of the First Gulf War until now than has either the UN or regional organizations.
The US must also get out of the arms transfer game. No more free weapons to anyone. While direct military sales should remain intact, the long standing program of providing free or cut rate weapons to "friendly" states has long outlived its usefulness. Over the decades, this approach has done much to perpetuate in power an array of highly distasteful dictatorships to no real advantage of the US and many disadvantages.
The time has come to dismantle the web of overseas military bases which are a no longer needed legacy of the cold war. A few, small joint tenancy bases for rapid reaction and special operation forces must be retained but major overseas deployments and basing of heavy American units is not a strategic advantage any longer given the changes in the nature of future threats and defense technology generally.
Now for something radical. The time is on us to furl the nuclear umbrella. It is not credible any longer given the changes in the makeup of the nuclear club in recent years. While the US must retain a finite deterrent oriented nuclear capability, the reality of now and the future is that regional balances of nuclear deterrence is more likely to be more credible to those smaller powers most tempted to go to war over long standing frictions or ambitions. While this necessarily implies nuclear proliferation, this consequence will not make the globe less safe, rather it extends the dynamic of high risk equals high stability which was the hallmark of the cold war to potential regional conflicts.
This proposal does not mean an end to conflict but rather makes the world safe for war. Conflicts will have to be carried on in ways which decouple the potential of escalation across the nuclear threshold. With the possible exception of an eschatological regime, states are not given to mutual suicide pacts. This in turn implies that most future wars--at least those between nuclear capable states--will be conducted by proxy, terror, targeted killings, or will occur in cyberspace. Not pretty to be sure but without the globe rocking impact of even a very limited nuclear exchange.
This radical proposal is not radical so much as it is an honest acknowledgement that the nuclear control regime as well as the missile technology control counterpart sought by the status quo powers of the US, the USSR, and China has failed substantially. States for reasons which are sufficient to themselves have violated the agreements which they have signed and transferred or allowed to have transferred prohibited knowledge and materials to non-nuclear, non-missile states. This will continue with or without a clear abandonment by the US of the failed agreements and dependent regimes.
Knowledge is the key word here. Not simply for nuclear and related matters but as a prime, perhaps the prime criterion for defining American relationship with other states. Given that invention, innovation, and the pursuing of new knowledge is the key to a better, more prosperous and perhaps more stable and secure global future, it is imperative that the US guide its foreign relations on the principle of commitment to open and free inquiry and expression in all fields of discourse without exception or limit.
Our closest, broadest, and most profound relations must be with states which show a total dedication of some duration to free and open inquiry, expression, and exchange of information. While relations with states which limit freedom of inquiry and expression are both possible and necessary, these must be both ad hoc and based simply on specific coinciding interests. The most intimate relations the US can have are those with states which share the value of untrammeled inquiry and expression.
The more restrictive a state is of free inquiry and expression, the more arm's length the relation with the US should, must be. This will work to the disadvantage of the restrictive state over time as will its very restrictiveness. Indeed, a viable national security strategy is to cooperate with the restriction of information flow to the restrictive state. This will hurt the restrictor far more than it will the US and its collaborators in this form of intellectual blockade.
Even though the US must retain a nuclear arsenal of finite deterrent orientation, our emphasis must be on approaches suitable for the post-nuclear environment. This means further development of post-nuclear weapons systems whether hyperbaric explosives, smart nails, or similar projectiles and means of delivery. It also means a much greater capacity in special operations including those of a lethal and black nature. And, above all, it means a focus on cyberspace in both defensive and offensive ways.
The day of the massive naval fleet, the floating sovereignty of the nuclear powered aircraft carrier battle group, are ending. This also applies to heavy armored forces which demand forward deployment or a long build-up period. Arguably, the day of the manned bomber is also over or nearly so given the rapid improvements in the technology of UAVs. On the budget front, this is a mix of good and bad news: less money for force maintenance but a lot more bucks for research, development, and procurement. Such is life--no peace dividend.
This cursory view of the national security and foreign policy waterfront is meant to be indicative not a prescription. The real deal on which to get a grip is simply that the world has changed and is changing more and much faster than the Romney-Gingrich-Palin-Huntsman-or whoever group appears to recognize. It has changed more and much faster and in directions quite foreign to the mind of Professor Obama. Someone out there needs to understand this and make some detailed policy statements that show they are actually well oriented in time and place.
It won't happen of course. But one can hope for a change. It is our future which is at risk.
The reality is that jobs and the deficit are linked directly and materially to both national security and foreign policy. There are a lot of people who may not like that linkage, may even argue that it doesn't exist today any more than it did in the good old days of the cold war. Wishful thinking, for the world and its politics to say nothing of its economic dynamics have shifted markedly since the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union faded away.
The short period of apparent American unipolar dominance has ended. The globalization phenomena have continued. And, the threat of violent political Islam remains upon us. All of these provide links between jobs, the deficit, national security, and foreign policy. Given that no serious contender on the GOP side has put forth any excuse for a foreign and national security policy beyond traditional boilerplate and bromides, the Geek being public spirited has taken it upon himself to provide some ideas for the so far empty Republican platitudes.
Any viable foreign policy for the future must be predicated upon a few clear cut predicates which are both in our national interest and comport reasonably well with our historical values and norms. Fortunately, it is not hard to have a policy which is true to our roots while protecting and advancing our future. The matter is actually so simple that even a politician can grasp it.
The first principle of American foreign policy must be that of non-intervention. By this, it is meant that the US will not intervene in the purely internal affairs of a sovereign state. We may deplore and rhetorically condemn a state for what it does to its citizens. We may deny it any cooperation, assistance, or support, but we will not use any method to seek regime change. Unless. Unless a state harbors, facilitates, or engages in the direct or indirect use of force against our interests, our citizens, or, under carefully circumscribed circumstances, those of states with which the US has a close and ongoing relationship. Unless a state infringes on this bright and shining line, it and its leaders are safe from our kinetic capacities.
The US should get out of the foreign aid game except for humanitarian needs and then only in conjunction with ad hoc coalitions of states and NGOs having a shared concern in the specific need. It is particularly critical that the US not provide any direct aid to any Muslim majority state so as to preclude the usage of that aid as "proof" that the US is paying jizya. All too often Muslim clerics have taken the public position that the foreign aid provided by the US to, say, Egypt, is not aid but rather the protection money paid to Muslims under the doctrine of infidel submission to Muslim protection.
In a similar way, the US should ramp down its payments to the UN both for direct operating expenses and peacekeeping until they reach a level that the American per capita payment is no more than the average per capita contribution from the General Assembly's aggregate membership. The UN is not particularly useful nor effective in meeting the needs of now and the future. Far better are ad hoc coalitions brought together by coinciding national interest. These coalitions have been far more effective from the days of the First Gulf War until now than has either the UN or regional organizations.
The US must also get out of the arms transfer game. No more free weapons to anyone. While direct military sales should remain intact, the long standing program of providing free or cut rate weapons to "friendly" states has long outlived its usefulness. Over the decades, this approach has done much to perpetuate in power an array of highly distasteful dictatorships to no real advantage of the US and many disadvantages.
The time has come to dismantle the web of overseas military bases which are a no longer needed legacy of the cold war. A few, small joint tenancy bases for rapid reaction and special operation forces must be retained but major overseas deployments and basing of heavy American units is not a strategic advantage any longer given the changes in the nature of future threats and defense technology generally.
Now for something radical. The time is on us to furl the nuclear umbrella. It is not credible any longer given the changes in the makeup of the nuclear club in recent years. While the US must retain a finite deterrent oriented nuclear capability, the reality of now and the future is that regional balances of nuclear deterrence is more likely to be more credible to those smaller powers most tempted to go to war over long standing frictions or ambitions. While this necessarily implies nuclear proliferation, this consequence will not make the globe less safe, rather it extends the dynamic of high risk equals high stability which was the hallmark of the cold war to potential regional conflicts.
This proposal does not mean an end to conflict but rather makes the world safe for war. Conflicts will have to be carried on in ways which decouple the potential of escalation across the nuclear threshold. With the possible exception of an eschatological regime, states are not given to mutual suicide pacts. This in turn implies that most future wars--at least those between nuclear capable states--will be conducted by proxy, terror, targeted killings, or will occur in cyberspace. Not pretty to be sure but without the globe rocking impact of even a very limited nuclear exchange.
This radical proposal is not radical so much as it is an honest acknowledgement that the nuclear control regime as well as the missile technology control counterpart sought by the status quo powers of the US, the USSR, and China has failed substantially. States for reasons which are sufficient to themselves have violated the agreements which they have signed and transferred or allowed to have transferred prohibited knowledge and materials to non-nuclear, non-missile states. This will continue with or without a clear abandonment by the US of the failed agreements and dependent regimes.
Knowledge is the key word here. Not simply for nuclear and related matters but as a prime, perhaps the prime criterion for defining American relationship with other states. Given that invention, innovation, and the pursuing of new knowledge is the key to a better, more prosperous and perhaps more stable and secure global future, it is imperative that the US guide its foreign relations on the principle of commitment to open and free inquiry and expression in all fields of discourse without exception or limit.
Our closest, broadest, and most profound relations must be with states which show a total dedication of some duration to free and open inquiry, expression, and exchange of information. While relations with states which limit freedom of inquiry and expression are both possible and necessary, these must be both ad hoc and based simply on specific coinciding interests. The most intimate relations the US can have are those with states which share the value of untrammeled inquiry and expression.
The more restrictive a state is of free inquiry and expression, the more arm's length the relation with the US should, must be. This will work to the disadvantage of the restrictive state over time as will its very restrictiveness. Indeed, a viable national security strategy is to cooperate with the restriction of information flow to the restrictive state. This will hurt the restrictor far more than it will the US and its collaborators in this form of intellectual blockade.
Even though the US must retain a nuclear arsenal of finite deterrent orientation, our emphasis must be on approaches suitable for the post-nuclear environment. This means further development of post-nuclear weapons systems whether hyperbaric explosives, smart nails, or similar projectiles and means of delivery. It also means a much greater capacity in special operations including those of a lethal and black nature. And, above all, it means a focus on cyberspace in both defensive and offensive ways.
The day of the massive naval fleet, the floating sovereignty of the nuclear powered aircraft carrier battle group, are ending. This also applies to heavy armored forces which demand forward deployment or a long build-up period. Arguably, the day of the manned bomber is also over or nearly so given the rapid improvements in the technology of UAVs. On the budget front, this is a mix of good and bad news: less money for force maintenance but a lot more bucks for research, development, and procurement. Such is life--no peace dividend.
This cursory view of the national security and foreign policy waterfront is meant to be indicative not a prescription. The real deal on which to get a grip is simply that the world has changed and is changing more and much faster than the Romney-Gingrich-Palin-Huntsman-or whoever group appears to recognize. It has changed more and much faster and in directions quite foreign to the mind of Professor Obama. Someone out there needs to understand this and make some detailed policy statements that show they are actually well oriented in time and place.
It won't happen of course. But one can hope for a change. It is our future which is at risk.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Bugs Bunny "What A Maroon!" Award IV
Once upon a time the Republican Party was noted for containing within its ranks of presidential contenders individuals who were well rooted in the realities of international politics. Even if the potential candidate himself was not intimate with the ins and outs of foreign and defense policy, he was typically well connected with those who were. And, more importantly, was willing and able to both listen and learn.
Those days are gone. Long gone.
The Republican primacy in foreign affairs died with the emergence of George W. Bush, an amateur at best in the international affairs arena. This amateur, it was hoped, would be redeemed from the worst effects of his ignorance by the presence of presumably adult supervisors such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell. As events proved, not only was George W. immune to any wise counsel which any of these men might have given, but, worse, most of the presumed adults proved to be every bit as adolescent in their approach to the world as the president.
Now, unfortunately, it appears that the Republicans have gone downhill from even the abysmal level of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld years. There are no foreign policy mavens (to put it as politely as possible) among the crowd of names mentioned as possible contenders for the Republican nomination in 2012. Not a single one of the "names," not Haley Barbour, not Mitch Daniels, not Tim Pawlenty and certainly not Sarah Palin has a meaningful word one to say on matters of foreign and defense policy.
As a result of this intellectual deficit which rivals that of the US budget, it is not shocking that one time governor Mitt Romney has made an effort to portray himself as a deep thinker on defense and foreign affairs. It is this attempt which earns him a very well deserved Bugs Bunny Memorial "What a Maroon!" Award for this week.
Oh, how the editors of the WaPo must have chortled with glee when they provided the rope, er, no, the space so that Mr Romney might hang himself. On Tuesday this week the former chief executive of Massachusetts opined that the new START with Russia was President Obama's "worst foreign policy mistake."
Wowie! Zowie! That's a mouthful. The "worst" mistake? Really, now, Mr Romney, and just what do you consider the president's policy regarding the Iranian nuclear weapons project to have been? A success? A mild mistake?
Or, Mr Romney, how do you rate Mr Obama's treatment of Israel? A glittering example of creative diplomacy leading inevitably to Mideast peace? A comedy of errors? A travesty?
Then there is the small matter of Mr Obama not having either a coherent foreign policy or even the awareness that he is lacking one. Tell us, Mr Romney, from your perch high atop the foreign policy pinnacle, how do you estimate this? An oversight? A fine example of flexibility, a sort of diplomatic equivalent of evolution in action?
With blunders of the highest magnitude such as these, why pick on the one aspect of Mr Obama's Crusade For A Better, Gentler World, which is not, repeat, not a glaring error? While ReSTART is not perfect, it is a step in the correct direction--the direction of basing nuclear deterrence on a finite rather than a mutually assured destruction basis.
While it is to be expected that John Kerry disagrees most vehemently with the Romney assessment of ReSTART, it is almost a surprise that Senator Lugar does the same in words which rival--or perhaps surpass--those of Senator Kerry in vitriol. Both senators were right in their criticism of Romney--and the tone in which the criticism was delivered.
The Romney Objections to ReSTART are based on misapprehensions, misinterpretations, factual perversion, and, perhaps unintentional, mendacity. The new agreement with the Russians does not leave the US at a disadvantage. It does not place the US in a position of strategic inferiority to the Kremlin. It does not place our European allies at greater risk. And, most importantly, it does not give the Kremlin a veto power over any and all efforts we might make in the area of ballistic missile defense.
It is both appalling and a tad pathetic that a man who is generally considered to be a leading contender for the Republican nomination in two years delivered himself of such a sophomoric treatise as Mr Romney did. Considering the full panoply of foreign policy missteps, mistakes, errors, and blunders committed by the Clueless One In The Oval, there is no need to invent a blunder.
If Mr Romney does genuinely think that ReSTART is the "greatest foreign policy mistake" of the Obama administration to date, he is so out-to-lunch, so divorced from the real world, that he disqualifies himself from running for president. However, this view and its expression does earn Mitt Romney the What A Maroon! Award and that is consolation enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)