Back to rationality in foreign policy

Policy and politics should be about one's interest.  This interest can be personal or pertaining to a larger group, but if policy/politics are not based on interest, then they will be based on some fantastical effort to create a friendly and profitable world that does not exist and is not likely to exist.

President Obama came to office without significant knowledge of or experience in foreign policy. In the early days of his presidency he seems to have believed that his university bull sessions and the idealistic dreams of the neo-liberal R2Pers represented a viable foreign policy.   He was quite gullible and susceptible to persuasion and flattery.  The decision to increase the numbers of the US armed forces troop strength for Afghanistan was a terribly poor decision.  It was clear at the time of the decision that Afghanistan as a place for nation building existed only in the minds of people like the Kagans and other neocons.  Generals are usually good at executing other peoples' plans but less good at "the vision thing' as Bush #41 called it. They usually have rigorous minds but not creative minds.  During the Iraq War the generals embraced a lot of nonsense about the evolution of forms of warfare and the fabled COIN doctrine supposedly "written" by the "genius" soldier/scholar Petraeus.  Having been convinced by the neocons that the COIN manual contained the secret to career vitality and democratization of the world, the COINista generals proceeded to "sell"   Obama on the wonderfulness of applying this operational concept in Afghanistan.  They also "sold" him the idea that they need another 30,000 troops to make their  scheme function properly.   They originally asked for 40,000, but he gave them the smaller number.  Perhaps this reflected some doubt as to whether COIN and a supporting troop "surge" had really succeeded in Iraq as well as the generals, AEI/WINEP and their cretin media allies had claimed.   In fact, it has become clearer and clearer that the "surge" in Iraq was too small to dominate the country as had been hoped and that it was the revolt of the Sunni Arab tribes against  AQ tyranny that temporarily saved the situation in Iraq.

 

At the time of the Spanish-American War there was a ferocious political struggle within the United State over the acquisition of territories taken from Spain;  Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, Guam, etc.  The United States itself was built in a process of acquiring territory from other people in our march from east to west but by 1900 the country had developed some degree of conscience about the process of smashing our way to manifest destiny.  As a result of this development there arose something called the "anti-imperialist movement."  As Barbara Tuchman recounts in her fine book, "The Proud Tower," the traditional imperialists and the anti-imperialists were locked in figurative combat over the fate of these territories.   The anti-imperialists strongly opposed the permanent retention of the Spanish empire territories.  The results of this struggle were mixed.  Cuba was quickly released from US control.  Guam and Puerto Rico were retained as was the Phillipine archipelago until FDR decided to grant independence in 1947.  

In the period of the Cold War, this kind of American adventurism in the acquisition of territory largely disappeared as the country concentrated on cooperative defense arrangements for protection against the menace of the Soviet Union and communist China.  The taste for occupation of foreign space and its permanent occupation by US military forces largely disappeared for a long time.  US troops remained in Germany, Japan and South Korea long after World War II but this was in the absence of hostilities within these countries and in cooperation with them against the East Bloc.  

The end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact created a vacuum of  perceived purpose in the collective mind of the foreign policy and military community.  For a decade the think tanks and government bureaucrats dithered and fretted over their role in life and how a new role could be used to justify budgets and pet projects.  There was no resolution to this problem until 9/11.   In spite of a wealth of evidence that Islamic jihadi groups were a gathering threat to the United States, the rulers of the foreign policy/military, were so focused on their traditional geopolitical obsessions that repeated warnings were not heeded.  9/11 opened new vistas for growth of government power, deficit funding for overseas campaigning, force structure expansion and the like.

Two disastrously uproductive and massive conventional wars followed. These were adorned with the mythology of war as social science experiment and nation building.  Promotion rates went up in the military.  Many more general officer positions were created and money flowed like water over Niagara Falls.   That stream of borrowed money funded the wars themselves and all the development projects in the target countries that so enriched local oligarchs and their American consorts.  

Now, to quote H. Rap Brown, "the chickens has come home to roost." The COIN strategy, "the surge," and the insistence by the US policy establishment that nose counting in any sort of election was more important than a rational calculation of forces all contributed to the present ongoing disintegration of Iraqi society and politics.  The same fate awaits Afghanistan because of the wildly radical nature of US policy since 9/11.  That policy has espoused the essentially Trotskyite notion of the blessed nature of continuous revolution throughout the world and that policy has failed miserably.

President Obama, for all his faults, seems to have learned not to listen to the jacobins and neo-Wilsonians when they prod him toward reflexive commitment of military force.  The president's wise, if late, decision not to attack Syria's armed forces, his steadfast search for a negotiated solution with Iran against the pressure of the Zionists, his reluctance to plunge into the depths of the Ukraine crisis and his insistence on continuing the withdrawal from Afghanistan all pointed to a return the kind of rationalist foreign policy followed by the United States from the end of WW II until the hysteria of post 9/11 life swept away the careful consideration of risks and benefits that had controlled US policy.  

President Obama's policy speech at West Point announces the end of jacobin imperialist dominated policy in Washington.  pl  

 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/28/us-usa-obama-foreign-idUSKBN0E70NB20140528

http://time.com/120645/obama-west-point-doctrine-foreign-policy/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Proud_Tower

Comments

[William R. Cumming]

PL! A brilliant post IMO! Perhaps one reason the USA over its history [with a number of exceptions--Hawaii e.g.] has always left after its involvement in non-contiguous areas to the USA mainland. Sometimes it took decades but we did leave. Perhaps the Peter Sellars movie THE MOUSE THAT ROARED somewhat more instructive than Dustin Hoffman in WAG THE DOG!

Personally I believe that the largely US led defense posture of Japan and Germany will end. The struggle for dominance on the Eurasian continent seems well underway. But we could easily see additional states this century from say Cuba or Northern Mexico!

And Viet Nam could well be a principal ally of the USA in the S. China sea.

Interesting times no doubt but perhaps "interesting times" as a Chinese curse?

[jon]

Col., I agree with you generally, but think your view is a bit too sanguine. I do share the relief that Obama seems to have turned away from idealism and magical thinking. Generally, I think he appreciates the substantial limits to US power, and is trying to conserve power and to enhance future strategic posture.

However, Obama campaigned on Iraq being the wrong war, and Afghanistan the right war. He has been very consistent in carrying that out, despite the entire lack of evidence that Afghanistan had any inclination to move into western orbit. He listened far too attentively to too many generals promising too ambitious progress.

Obama also has moved very slowly to take advantage of nascent democracies like Myanmar, and has not encouraged progress and moderation among our allies like Thailand, which have led to deteriorating conditions.

He seems to permit too much scope among various factions within the State Department and other agencies, leading to conflicting policies being advanced simultaneously and in conflict with each other. Having a clearly articulated foreign policy and tighter managerial administration would have gone a long way to improving outcomes. The US was almost entirely flatfooted during the Arab Spring, for example, and shows no likelihood for that to change.

Still, Obama managed to not commit any feet on the ground to Libya during its revolution, and despite diplomatic gymnastics has very little fingerprints of meddling in the Ukraine debacle. And all this with John Kerry's performance seemingly single minded in making Hilary Clinton look like Metternicht.

[turcopolier]

jon

Nitpicking. In the main you seem to agree with my thesis. pl

[VietnamVet]

Colonel,

Even though your predictions are always on the mark, I pray to God that this one is correct.

I listened to John Kerry interview on NewsHour last night. I can’t believe I voted for him. Old age sure takes a toll. He said he is a Realist. He is clearly delusional. Supporting the Israel First policy of the overthrow of the Assad Regime with moderate Jihadists is crazy; there are no moderate Wahhabi warriors fighting for the true god.

Happily supporting the neo-conservative facist coup and then blaming Russia for the peoples of the Eastern Provinces fighting Right Sector goons and mercenaries rampaging through their land is crazy. We are on the fast track to a nuclear war with Russia.

Today may be too late to start the negotiations for a peaceful settlement of Ukraine Crisis. Too much blood may have already been spilled on both sides for them to back down.

[shepherd]

Well said. I've often wondered if Obama started reading SST around the time of Libya.

[turcopolier]

shepherd

It is tempting to think that might be true. pl

[Fred]

Hi Barrack! (Sorry, somebody had to say that.). Hopefully that doesn't mean the valley will now be besieged by Yankee tourists does it? Though he and Michelle should take the time to visit.

[Imagine]

Passionate, inspired career arcs are driven by "meaning & purpose".

Adreas's excellent historical comic book "Addicted to War" brings home the reality that we currently have a professional military-industrial complex dedicated to exporting war without end; it is their raison d'etre. At present I see little to block nor counterbalance this force, Pres. Obama's wishes notwithstanding. Also, surprisingly, I'm seeing a distinction between the professional warfighters, who astoundingly this decade are coming out AGAINST grand adventures (as it's their lives that are on the line), vs. the War Party and profiteers (to whom it's Someone Else's Problem, there is no downside to burning cannon fodder).

But peace is more profitable than war. Nations who remain at peace for decades are able to reap a "peace dividend" that grows exponentially, as value invested in infrastructure and education comes round to create tenfold increase. A growth in golden talents. Whereas, nations who invest all they have in war, consisting yes of employment but mostly of burned consumables: energy/food/fireworks/life-times--have sunk their talents into literal holes in the ground. It is bad stewardship. "What little you have, will be taken away and given to the one who actually took care of things."

How to shift the meaning & purpose of the military-industrial complex so that it derives meaning/value/profit/enjoyment from peace?

[Jack]

Thanks Col.

It looks like there is still hope for our republic. What is your opinion of how this new policy will play if Japan or Taiwan get in a shooting match with China?

[William Herschel]

This is an outrage.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/05/30/us/politics/ap-us-obama-europe.html

[Imagine]

recall from April: Ray McGovern of VIPS
"Killing the Putin-Obama ‘Trust’" [is biggest fallout]
http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2014/04/28/killing-the-putin-obama-trust/
Still "Needed: Obama-Putin Summit on Ukraine"
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/04/needed-obama-putin-summit-on-ukraine/

If Pres. Obama is REALLY smart, the public disparagements of Russia are a smokescreen, and he'll hold a discreet and very private meeting with Putin on the sidelines that we won't hear about for six months. Without Kerry or Nuland.

International relations must be treated like a very-long-term marriage relationship. Your wife is highly intelligent, you wouldn't want to treat her like crap because you're going to have to live beside her for the rest of your life. Why in the world would you want to do this to Russia? Different cultures /always/ have different viewpoints and different reality tunnels, adults gotta sit down and work it out /together/.

[bth]

Col. at the time of the Afghan surge and the Iraq withdrawal it was pretty easy, real time to estimate the flow. Namely it cost around twice as much to put a soldier in Afghanistan vs Iraq. If the overall budget couldn't go up politically and DoD, Congress and the primes really didn't want defense spending to go down much, that meant that for every soldier leaving Iraq, about 0.5 could be added to Afghanistan. That is the way it went.

[LJ]

"President Obama's policy speech at West Point announces the end of jacobin imperialist dominated policy in Washington."

Disagree. Although this speech would certainly give the impression there will be a new direction in foreign policy, next to nothing will change. Obama makes speeches; then he carries out the wishes of the enduring, unelected government. Then he will make more speeches.

I say the jacobin imperialist dominated policy will continue. BTW, I hope very much you are right.

[William Herschel]

A comment from The Vineyard of the Saker (unfortunately translated from the Russian):

"This is an attempt to translate from Russian. The link to original post:
Website PRAVOSUDIYA.NET : http://pravosudija.net/article/sgovor

Conspiracy
I already reported that after the elections Poroshenko met with strange American delegation headed by the Director of the National Service of covert operations Frank Archibald , which included a former CIA chief in Ukraine Jeffrey Egan , the current - Raymond Mark Davidson , Mark Buggy ( CIA , Istanbul) Andrzej Derlatka , a CIA agent in the Polish intelligence Agency , CIA, and member of CIA Kevin Duffin who working as senior vice president of the insurance company Brower .

Poroshenko and Archibald signed (as they say in Odessa , you'll laugh ) paper entitled , no more no less , as " an agreement on military cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine."

Strange part of the U.S. delegation is explained by the fact that the professional diplomats would not understand at all what it was about, and by the fact that the U.S. Congress would not authorize the usual military cooperation agreement which involves sending military trainers and direct participation of American troops in the armed conflict in Ukraine.

However, the National Service of covert operations includes service operations paramilitary operations. Thus the CIA bypass Congress may exercise full international cooperation in the military industry. Except that instead of the instructors in the form of the U.S. armed forces taking direct part in hostilities - mercenaries of private military companies will be involved.

Now it's official, though a semi-secret (or at least , will not be published), bypassing normal (legitimate and well-controlled by Congress) ways to finance military operations in Ukraine it will be done through channels such as private insurance company Brower, belonging to the CIA.

N-V

31 May, 2014 11:12"

[Alba Etie]

Jack
And what would Russia do if the 'guns begin to shoot ' between the PRC and the ASEAN countries- ,in the South China Sea ? These United States are obligated by treaty to defend Japan anyway yes ?

[oofda]

Excellent piece, Colonel. Thanks.

[PS]

I have a hard time looking at the WaPo editorial page when Krauthammer appears there of late. Against my better judgment, I read his recent piece on the "turn to Asia." To summarize his thesis: China, Japan, etc. don't believe the turn to Asia because the U.S. isn't leaving tens of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hello! China would love nothing more than to see the U.S. waste its treasure and blood on the sand of the ME.

[LJ]

And now we have the "European Reassurance Initiative?" How is that not more of the same?