So as anyone who has followed the news lately is aware, Putin has invaded and now annexed Crimea, a part of Ukraine. To me, this is likely due to the weakness of the Obama administration's foreign policy. I haven't written a whole lot about foreign policy on this blog, so I figured I would start.
My Views on America's Appropriate Stance in the World
As I see it, the United States is the anchor of the free world. I do not at all agree with those claiming that we need to withdraw from the world, that we need to "get our own house in order" and stop focusing so much on the rest of the world. As I see it, this is a recipe for disaster, for a few reasons. I think one major problem with the stability that has been underwritten by the United States for so many years is that many people come to take it for granted, thinking that it is just a given, and not realizing that this stability is only maintained by the presence of U.S. strength in the world, not a natural state of the world.
One of the arguments often given by some who wish to reduce the defense budget are that the United States spends more on defense than every other major country in the world combined. The flaw to this viewpoint is the assumption that every other such country spends a reasonable amount on defense and the United States massively over-spends, maintaining a massive, ultra-large, ultra-powerful, and ultimately unnecessary, military. The reality, however, is that the reason why the U.S. spends more than everyone else is because everyone else barely spends anything.
Aside from the United States, the only country that has any real power projection capability is the United Kingdom, and even theirs is limited. One of the largest spenders on defense in the world, France, for example, had to have the U.S. airlift their troops into Mali. The reason most of these nations have not had to spend much on defense at all over the years is because they have lived under the defense umbrella that is provided and maintained by the United States. It is the United States that served as the check on the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It is the United States that maintains the military infrastructure that these various countries utilize when conducting military operations (aerial refueling, air transport, targeting capabilities, logistics, etc...). It is the United States that keeps the sea lanes open and who underwrites global trade and global security.
President Obama seems to be very much of the belief that the United States should not play a major role in global affairs, that American power is not a good thing. His foreign policy is one based on retrenchment. One of the first steps in this was when he pulled the rug out from under Poland and the Czech Republic regarding the missile defense (and sixty years to the day of Poland having been invaded by Russia). In return, he got absolutely nothing from Russia, and now the ultimate middle finger from Russia with its invasion and annexing of Crimea. Unfortunately, because he used the drones to kill terrorists routinely, because he gave the order for the Navy SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden, and because most people do not pay attention to foreign policy overall, Obama has appeared strong in the foreign policy department to most people.
To many people who do pay attention, he has appeared weak in his dealings with countries such as Russia and Iran, but until something concrete happened as a result of those policies, there was no way to really point it out. One of the things pointed out during the 2012 Presidential election was how usually the Republican candidate is seen as much stronger on foreign policy than the Democratic candidate, but this time the Democratic candidate was seen as equally strong. The reality was that Obama was significantly weaker.
Myself, I am a firm believer in the United States as the primary underwriter of global security and fully support a very strong American military and American military presence throughout the world, not for the maintenance of "empire" as people such as Ron Paul like to claim, but for the preservation of peace, or non-violence. I am not really much a believer in peace. Real peace is rare. The natural state of humanity, and of nature even, is one of violence and conflict. Peace and prosperity usually are only the result of a liberal democracy possessing overwhelming strength. If the world is compared to a waterhole, nations like Iran, Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, etc...are the crocodiles. Most of the liberal democracies in the world are the baby hippopotamuses. And the United States is the adult mother hippo. Because the crocodiles know that if they do anything to any of the baby hippos, the mother hippo will rip them apart, they leave the baby hippos alone (this is how it happens in real waterholes shared by crocodiles and hippos). And after many years of this, it can give some the illusion that the waterhole is a pretty peaceful place, and that the mother hippo being so strong isn't really needed anymore. They do not realize that it is the presence of the mother hippo that keeps the crocodiles in line. When the mother hippo leaves the waterhole, the crocodiles, in particular the big crocodiles, are not going to waste any time and will begin bullying, cajoling, swallowing, etc...the baby hippos.
This is what we are seeing with Russia annexing Crimea. Putin has said he has no plans to go beyond this, but earlier in March, he had also said he had no plans to take Crimea either. And we know that dictators throughout history have a tendency to lie to the free world about their ultimate intentions. What if he decides to go for one or some of the Baltic states next? Or Poland even? As Charles Krauthammer has pointed out in a segment of the Special Report on Fox News, this is how major wars start.
And what will all of this lead to? We can be sure that every crocodile in the world is watching the United States on this closely. China, Iran, North Korea, etc...is China going to make a play for some of the islands controlled by Japan? Will North Korea seek to bully South Korea more? Will Israel end up attacking Iran? Will a major war result?
Three major beliefs I have always held, albeit as an amateur on the subject of foreign policy, are that:
1) The belief that major wars are a thing of the past is a naïve position, as no one can predict the future
2) The belief that this or that type of warfare is no longer really needed (for example a conventional military as opposed to one more focused on Special Operations, the type of war the administration thought/thinks is going to primarily be the future, is very naïve, as no one can predict the future
3) History shows that major wars can come about in ways that take everyone by surprise, where only in hindsight does one see all of the puzzle pieces connected together in a way that seems obvious. They are sort of like financial crises in that sense.
What we are seeing with Russia right now, and possibly with other countries in the near future, is a demonstration of this. How can anyone claim that the era of the major conventional land army is a thing of the past, or that major wars can never happen? For all of these, I am a solid neoconservative on the issue of foreign policy. The United States cannot retreat from global affairs, and the idea that we should be cutting our military right now is an extremely bad idea. I do not believe in the concept that other countries need to "share more of the burden" with the United States on maintaining global security, for a few reasons:
1) This can create a situation where no one will do anything to deal with any type of problem because if multiple countries are needed to act, nothing may get done. It is safer to have on ultra-powerful nation that can take action, on its own if necessary, but preferably lead the rest of the nations of the free world in acting together to stop tragedies.
2) Quite a number of the free nations of the world do not have the ability financially to maintain any kind of strong military. They are debt-laden and have enough trouble as it is maintaining their current large social welfare states (themselves a product of not having to spend much on defense over the years thanks to the United States).
"American power" is seen as a oxymoron by much of the world right now, but it should not be. American power needs to be something seen as supreme, and highly respected. Something that is not to be challenged, unless said nation wants to receive the metaphorical equivalent of the crocodile getting its head ripped off.
I will write follow up on this in some additional posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment