I will admit to having proudly voted for President Obama over Sen. McCain in large part because I trusted then Sen. Obama and his team of advisers over foreign policy far more than I did Sen. McCain. As a voter my main concerns were that we end the needless war in Iraq in an honorable fashion that reduced the risk of civilian casualties and genocide occurring in the wake of our withdrawal, that we promptly win the war in Afghanistan, we continue to fight for free trade, we stop nuclear proliferation, we support democratic government abroad, and we repair our tattered alliances abroad. Sen. Obama had stark realists on his side, Bill Richardson, Zbigniew Brzezinsk, Gen. James Jones, Gen. Shinsheki, Colin Powell, and Brent Scowcraft not to mention foreign policy powerhouse Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate. McCain in contrast had delusional neo-conservatives from Robert Kagan to Bill Kristol to Joe Liebermen supporting him with the inexperienced Alaskan governor Sarah ("I can see Russia from my house!") Palin as his running mate. While in many respects it was intellectually dishonest to paint the more centrist McCain as 'four more years of Bush' it actually rang true on the foreign policy question. That is until President Obama took office and promptly made liberal neo-con Hillary Clinton his Secretary of State and with the exception of Gen. Jones kept realists out of his foreign policy circle.
So How Has Obama done on his stated goals. Lets look at the first one:
Honorable Withdrawl from Iraq.
Here the President has done quite well, though it has succeeded in large part due to the surge strategy that Gen. Petreaus implemented under President Bush that Sen. Obama opposed as a candidate. Still the peace has held and our timetable should be on schedule even though some violence and electoral fraud continues. A-
Victory in Afghanistan?
Under Clinton the State Department has advocated for a strategy in Afghanistan that, to quote its own internal blueprint for success will 'ensure that medieval social policies that deprive the Afghan people of gender and social equality will not be implemented by a Taliban resurgence'. It goes on to say 'we will not negotiate with the Taliban, no power sharing government with the Taliban is legitimate'. President Obama to this day claims our mission is solely to eradicate Al Qaeda, a mission General McChrystal claims is already complete, and not to nation build. Yet his own Secretary of State has a radically different vision where we alter the basic patriarchy and tribal nature of Afghan society using US troops. Candidate Obama boldly risked alienating some voters when he said we will negotiate with our adversaries from Iran to Venezuela. Yet President Obama and his Secretary of State have ruled this sensible diplomatic strategy out calling the Taliban a group we cannot negotiate with. One is reminded of the Bush mantra that 'we do not negotiate with terrorists' and 'you are either with us or against us' in these statements.
If Al Qaeda is eradicated what national security interest does the US have in Afghanistan? Americans are leery of fighting other people's civil wars for them from Vietnam through to Iraq. Afghanistan is similar in that regard. While Western women might feel that their peers in Afghanistan are living horrible lives we must also admit that their culture is ancient and much different than ours and we must respect their cultural freedom and leave their people to determine the course of their nation. So long as they no longer harbor terrorists that have killed or are planning to kill Americans, and so far there is no longer any evidence of a current Al Qaeda-Taliban connection, what business do we have determining their future? Moreover is such a mission even one the US can complete successfully without suffering mass casualties?
We have eradicated Al Qaeda but the current mission is uncertain and likely unwinnable. D+
Fighting for Free Trade
The Obama administration has also failed at its other stated goal of fighting for free trade. President Obama recently approved of incredibly stringent tariffs on Chinese tires, a move the press from the liberal New York Times to the conservative Wall Street Journal roundly condemned as an opening salvo in a trade war that will be detrimental to both countries. One can only go back to the last depression in 1929 for an example of how protective tariffs, while they might delay unemployment in the short term by artificially propping up American labor, in the long term engender a worldwide freeze on economic activities. if everyone closes their markets who can they sell to? After passing Smott-Hawley in 1931 the depression became a global one, the only export being the misery of the American economy worldwide. Starting a trade war with China, one of our largest partners and one of the best markets for our own products from movies to cars, would be devastating. President Obama should reverse his stand quickly. F
Promoting Democracy Abroad
On the issue of fighting for democratic governments the Obama administration has failed to advance the cause of democracy in Iran by refusing to assist the protesters and reformers there in any capacity less it endanger his negotiations over Iran's nukes or Iran's terror sponsorship. Such a position is counter productive, if anything assisting that population either through UN action, keeping internet and cable channels open, or covert financing will not only help democratize the country (without US bloodshed) but also help the negotiations since it will force the Iranian leadership to back peddle on its external belligerence to keep its internal state controlled. They will be much more likely to fold on nukes and Israel if they have a significant thorn in their side we can help them remove. Moreover we have failed to support democracy in Afghanistan by accepting the preliminary results of an election everyone else in the world says was rigged. The President is essentially saying do as I say not as I do when it comes to democracy. Lastly, in the most egregious example, the US has backed the claims of the Honduran kelptocrat that was ousted by his nation's military in a routine and constitutionally valid impeachment proceeding, not the coup d'etat the President and others maintain. President Zela was accused of embezzling funds and illegally tried to get a third term. Not only is the US actively intervening to subvert another countries internal government, but it is doing so to prop up a leader that has an alliance with Hugo Chavez and is clearly anti-American. I see no reason why we are doing this. F
Repairing our Alliances
Lastly President Obama has abandoned our allies in two key areas: Israel and Eastern Europe. On the Israeli front the Obama administration is pushing for an end to Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank without supporting key concessions from neighboring Arab governments or the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas. While it is refreshing to have a President that is not a lap dog of the Israeli right as President Bush was, it is still counter productive to force the Israeli's to make concessions without getting something in return. Not only does this policy fail Diplomacy and Negotiations 101, it also does so at the expense of one of America's most treasured interstate relationships, next only to Britain in terms of its closeness to the US. F
On the Eastern European front the Obama administration scrapped plans for a national missile defense system in Eastern Europe. It's reasons stated for doing so were incredibly stupid, and they came from one of the smartest members of either the Obama or the Bush administrations, Defense Secretary Gates. He stated in a NY Times Op-Ed that removing the missiles would be crucial in getting concessions from the Iranian government on the nuclear disarmament question while also securing Russian cooperation on that same question. Just as unilaterally invading a country is incredibly stupid, unilaterally retreating is just as dumb. Apparently nobody in the Obama administration actually talked to either Iran or Russia to see if this move would in fact get their cooperation. Apparently they have believed in this 'hope' stuff too much and are simply hoping this appeasement will work. At least Chamberlain secured an agreement from Hitler before he appeased him, it was a bogus agreement but an agreement all the same. We have given up something in return for nothing.
And that something was quite important. These missiles acted as both a deterrent to the Iranian nuclear program (rendering it impotent before its even deployed) and also brought Poland, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic under the NATO umbrella with actual systems to integrate them into the alliance. These new NATO members have always felt like they were second-class compared to Western Europe because while the US still has an advanced missile system and 100 thousand troops in Germany, Poland has nothing. Moreover Poland is much closer to Russia which recently scared off the potential NATO membership of Georgia by invading it, and in doing so scared W. Europe from approving Ukraine's membership. This missile system while it would have been impotent against Russia would have at least let the Poles know we cared about them and that we would not abandon them if the Big Bear attacked. Instead we took away the missile system we carefully had prepared for them (I actually played a small role in those negotiations last summer, albeit as the intern that moved the power point along). To add insult to injury the day the system was canceled was the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. They really know diplomacy over at the Obama White House! F
So why doesn't President Obama if he is failing on all these fronts get an F? Well he has still helped repair our crucial alliances with Western Europe, he is starting to understand that Afghanistan needs to be wrapped up as our allies get restless fighting it, and there is the stupendous job in Iraq albeit by adopting the late Bush administrations strategy. Gauntanamo will soon be closed and we are getting a lot closer to an international climate change agreement. And I still like the guy and hope he learns from these rookie mistakes, but he better do it fast.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Afghanistan: The Good War Gone Bad
Andrew Bacevich, a former army colonel and a prominent self described 'catholic conservative' has also been one of the most prominent critics of American foreign policy since 9/11. His essential argument is that we should have spent all the money and resources we wasted on foreign wars and occupations instead on a reasonably functional Homeland Security Department and better border and port security which would have been just as effective if not more so at deterring and preventing terrorist attacks on US shores. In this provocative article, Bacevich argues that the US should reduce its contingency of troops to a few hundred special forces soldiers and military advisers that will work with local tribal leaders to contain Al Qaeda and the Taliban, hunt down Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and operate a forward area where aircraft and unmanned drones could be used to assist the military in this task.
The article makes a strong case for this action and also that there is a historical precedence of Afghanistan literally being a 'graveyard of empires' citing failures of Alexander the Great, the Persians, Rome, Mughal India, the various Russian empires, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union all as great powers that had significant technological and military advantage that were ultimately unable to achieve their strategic goals in the region.
There are a few telling quotes from the full article in Commonweal magazine (http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2609 ) that merit highlighting.
The first is a useful historical comparison to the domino theory and the failed containment strategy that got the US mired in another nation building quagmire in Vietnam
"What is it about Afghanistan, possessing next to nothing that the United States requires, that justifies such lavish attention? In Washington, this question goes not only unanswered but unasked. Among Democrats and Republicans alike, with few exceptions, Afghanistan’s importance is simply assumed—much the way fifty years ago otherwise intelligent people simply assumed that the United States had a vital interest in ensuring the survival of South Vietnam. As then, so today, the assumption does not stand up to even casual scrutiny."
The second posits a very useful hypothetical interchanging Mexico with Afghanistan
"any politician calling for the commitment of sixty thousand U.S. troops to Mexico to secure those interests or acquit those moral obligations would be laughed out of Washington—and rightly so. Any pundit proposing that the United States assume responsibility for eliminating the corruption that is endemic in Mexican politics while establishing in Mexico City effective mechanisms of governance would have his license to pontificate revoked. Anyone suggesting that the United States possesses the wisdom and the wherewithal to solve the problem of Mexican drug trafficking, to endow Mexico with competent security forces, and to reform the Mexican school system (while protecting the rights of Mexican women) would be dismissed as a lunatic. Meanwhile, those who promote such programs for Afghanistan, ignoring questions of cost and ignoring as well the corruption and ineffectiveness that pervade our own institutions, are treated like sages."
Indeed why is President Obama so fixated on listening to military and civil leaders from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, to General McIernan when all of these policy makers have yet to specifically denounce the very ideology of Wilsonian nation building that got us into Iraq? Why is his entire foreign policy team with the exception of National Sec. Advisor Jim Jones, who incidentally most observers say feels isolated from the White House, composed of these liberal neocon's that still believe in the almighty transformative power of the US to nation build in spite of its failures in places ranging from Iraq to the Balkans and earlier to Vietnam all the way back to the Philippines?
Candidate Obama was supported by stark realists like Bill Richardson, Anthony Lake, Igbinew Brzewinski, Brent Scowcroft, General Shinseki, and Bacevich himself. Where are they now? Only Shinsheki is in the cabinet and there occupying the largely ceremonial backwater of the Veterans Affairs Department.
I find it incredibly disturbing that President Obama insists on applying the successful tactics of the surge that worked in Iraq to the failed state of Afghanistan where they will ultimately fail. How can an urban counter insurgency operation succeed in a largely mountainous country with arid terrain? I think the fact that casualties in Afghanistan are starting to dramatically outpace those in Iraq is proof that this strategy is foolhardy. With the nearly seven year quagmire of Iraq largely coming to a close as America's longest and financially most costly war with none of the original goals or objectives being met and with only the hope of stability when we're gone as the sole victory metric, why is the President choosing to continue the grave mistakes of his predecessor when it comes to Afghanistan?
The article makes a strong case for this action and also that there is a historical precedence of Afghanistan literally being a 'graveyard of empires' citing failures of Alexander the Great, the Persians, Rome, Mughal India, the various Russian empires, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union all as great powers that had significant technological and military advantage that were ultimately unable to achieve their strategic goals in the region.
There are a few telling quotes from the full article in Commonweal magazine (http://www.commonwealmagaz
The first is a useful historical comparison to the domino theory and the failed containment strategy that got the US mired in another nation building quagmire in Vietnam
"What is it about Afghanistan, possessing next to nothing that the United States requires, that justifies such lavish attention? In Washington, this question goes not only unanswered but unasked. Among Democrats and Republicans alike, with few exceptions, Afghanistan’s importance is simply assumed—much the way fifty years ago otherwise intelligent people simply assumed that the United States had a vital interest in ensuring the survival of South Vietnam. As then, so today, the assumption does not stand up to even casual scrutiny."
The second posits a very useful hypothetical interchanging Mexico with Afghanistan
"any politician calling for the commitment of sixty thousand U.S. troops to Mexico to secure those interests or acquit those moral obligations would be laughed out of Washington—and rightly so. Any pundit proposing that the United States assume responsibility for eliminating the corruption that is endemic in Mexican politics while establishing in Mexico City effective mechanisms of governance would have his license to pontificate revoked. Anyone suggesting that the United States possesses the wisdom and the wherewithal to solve the problem of Mexican drug trafficking, to endow Mexico with competent security forces, and to reform the Mexican school system (while protecting the rights of Mexican women) would be dismissed as a lunatic. Meanwhile, those who promote such programs for Afghanistan, ignoring questions of cost and ignoring as well the corruption and ineffectiveness that pervade our own institutions, are treated like sages."
Indeed why is President Obama so fixated on listening to military and civil leaders from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, to General McIernan when all of these policy makers have yet to specifically denounce the very ideology of Wilsonian nation building that got us into Iraq? Why is his entire foreign policy team with the exception of National Sec. Advisor Jim Jones, who incidentally most observers say feels isolated from the White House, composed of these liberal neocon's that still believe in the almighty transformative power of the US to nation build in spite of its failures in places ranging from Iraq to the Balkans and earlier to Vietnam all the way back to the Philippines?
Candidate Obama was supported by stark realists like Bill Richardson, Anthony Lake, Igbinew Brzewinski, Brent Scowcroft, General Shinseki, and Bacevich himself. Where are they now? Only Shinsheki is in the cabinet and there occupying the largely ceremonial backwater of the Veterans Affairs Department.
I find it incredibly disturbing that President Obama insists on applying the successful tactics of the surge that worked in Iraq to the failed state of Afghanistan where they will ultimately fail. How can an urban counter insurgency operation succeed in a largely mountainous country with arid terrain? I think the fact that casualties in Afghanistan are starting to dramatically outpace those in Iraq is proof that this strategy is foolhardy. With the nearly seven year quagmire of Iraq largely coming to a close as America's longest and financially most costly war with none of the original goals or objectives being met and with only the hope of stability when we're gone as the sole victory metric, why is the President choosing to continue the grave mistakes of his predecessor when it comes to Afghanistan?
Interesting Article on the Decline of the Mainline
There is an interesting article on the First Things blog (a great magazine for those unfamiliar on politics, orthodoxy within the Judeo-Christian traditions, law, bioethics, and many other topics) which discusses the dilemma facing mainline Protestantism (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/09/the-agony-of-mainline-protestantism) and the author proposes two novel solutions. The first is to flee to the safety and comfort of the 'Mother Church' as he put it, an undertaking that many people I personally know have taken to either the Roman or Orthodox Church's. An undertaking I myself have followed having drifted out of the Catholichism of my youth into evangelical Christianity and United Methodism for a time only to find myself back in the church of my birth and baptism (possibly because of the Holy Spirit). Though the other solution is also an interesting one, one that many, including the author, finds flaws in but one that examines some merit.
The article begins by asking a question that could apply to any member of the Protestant mainline from an Episcopalian, to a Methodist, to a Lutheran (the article focuses on them) to a Congregationalist, etc. Any mainline denomination that is fracturing amidst calls for blessing homosexual unions within the realm of the church. "What is the vocation of the faithful amidst a great deal of confusion and some outright false teaching?"
The article answers that it puts faithful Lutherans into a particular bind, Scripture commands us to listen to the wisdom and advice of our elders, particularly Church elders, but what happens when that command contradicts more basic tenants of the faith? What happens when those same 'wise' leaders begin to undermine the moral teachings and authority that form the foundation of the Church? The article goes on to propose both the 'Roman' solution, a solution I favored, returning to a Church that will constantly be a bedrock of sense, tradition, authority, and Truth (Oh yeah with a capital T!) against the insanity of modernity. Or the 'orthodox soldier' solution, or essentially to be a soldier of Christ and the Word of God first and a 'good lutheran' second. While 'good Lutherans' should listen to their pastors and bishops 'orthodox soldiers' should instead chastise them as Paul chastised the leaders of the Corinthian church when they stray from the teaching of the Gospel.
The author of this article, himself a Roman convert, still disfavors this as ultimately a futile fight that either leads to more church infighting and schism amongst the mainline branches, a process he condemns ironically using a quote of Luther's (prior to his Roman separation) "We, who are bearing the burdens and truly intolerable abominations of the Roman Curia-are we too fleeing and seceding on this account? Perish the thought! Perish the thought!”, or that leads ultimately to the 'orthodox soldier' being perpetually ashamed and dismissive of his own church leadership,
as he finds himself wiser than them. A process one could easily surmise as leading down a path that altogether removes the individual Christian from 'the church' as an active participant and member if he is so alienated from the leadership.
I have of course have my own opinions about this which I have debated with my Protestant girlfriend and a good friend of mine currently in a Methodist divinity school. It seems though that the tragedy of good Christians being alienated by leaders within their own churches who are abandoning the call and wisdom of Christ over a host of issues from the protection of the unborn to the preservation of traditional marriage (to be clear within the Church, we are not talking about state sanctioned same sex union which in my view do not effect the Christian) will continue as long as those churches are governed by those forces seeking conciliation with modernity instead of obedience to Christ. The hope is either that the 'orthodox soldiers' wrest control through the internal mechanisms of their own churches, or that the leadership will learn to become as wise as its laity.
The article begins by asking a question that could apply to any member of the Protestant mainline from an Episcopalian, to a Methodist, to a Lutheran (the article focuses on them) to a Congregationalist, etc. Any mainline denomination that is fracturing amidst calls for blessing homosexual unions within the realm of the church. "What is the vocation of the faithful amidst a great deal of confusion and some outright false teaching?"
The article answers that it puts faithful Lutherans into a particular bind, Scripture commands us to listen to the wisdom and advice of our elders, particularly Church elders, but what happens when that command contradicts more basic tenants of the faith? What happens when those same 'wise' leaders begin to undermine the moral teachings and authority that form the foundation of the Church? The article goes on to propose both the 'Roman' solution, a solution I favored, returning to a Church that will constantly be a bedrock of sense, tradition, authority, and Truth (Oh yeah with a capital T!) against the insanity of modernity. Or the 'orthodox soldier' solution, or essentially to be a soldier of Christ and the Word of God first and a 'good lutheran' second. While 'good Lutherans' should listen to their pastors and bishops 'orthodox soldiers' should instead chastise them as Paul chastised the leaders of the Corinthian church when they stray from the teaching of the Gospel.
The author of this article, himself a Roman convert, still disfavors this as ultimately a futile fight that either leads to more church infighting and schism amongst the mainline branches, a process he condemns ironically using a quote of Luther's (prior to his Roman separation) "We, who are bearing the burdens and truly intolerable abominations of the Roman Curia-are we too fleeing and seceding on this account? Perish the thought! Perish the thought!”, or that leads ultimately to the 'orthodox soldier' being perpetually ashamed and dismissive of his own church leadership,
as he finds himself wiser than them. A process one could easily surmise as leading down a path that altogether removes the individual Christian from 'the church' as an active participant and member if he is so alienated from the leadership.
I have of course have my own opinions about this which I have debated with my Protestant girlfriend and a good friend of mine currently in a Methodist divinity school. It seems though that the tragedy of good Christians being alienated by leaders within their own churches who are abandoning the call and wisdom of Christ over a host of issues from the protection of the unborn to the preservation of traditional marriage (to be clear within the Church, we are not talking about state sanctioned same sex union which in my view do not effect the Christian) will continue as long as those churches are governed by those forces seeking conciliation with modernity instead of obedience to Christ. The hope is either that the 'orthodox soldiers' wrest control through the internal mechanisms of their own churches, or that the leadership will learn to become as wise as its laity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
