US Foreign Policy - new directions?

[Michael]

For Obama, the question is whether he can successfully keep the focus on new ideas, and avoid the old routine of Democratic defensiveness. For McCain, the question is whether he can come across as understanding the ways in which the world has changed.

NewYorker Article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/13/081013fa_fact_lemann)

This is actually a rather interesting (and long) article on the various foreign policy options and foreign policy approaches that one might expect from an Obama or McCain Administration.

Not much new here other than an explication of the kind of thinking that has been animating the Obama circle for the last year or two.

There is much here on the kind of policy that Samantha Powers has become known for (and the kind of policy approach that I've always opposed). It seems as if the Obama camp (the leftwing of the Democratic party) believes that the old Clinton Administration was no better than the Bush Administration on foreign policy issues and seeks to re-invent the wheel here.

I don't like any of it.

For McCain's foreign policy views, suffice it to say that he is Bush v2.0 and thus, quite unlikely to actually ride down Pennsylvannia Avenue on January 30th, 2009, so that's pretty much a moot point now.

The big issue of concern here is Obama's foreign policy planning. The choice of senior appointments and staffers around Obama tells the tale. Obama's foreign policy 'experts' are all known for opposing the Clinton 'realist' approach.

Now I'm not going to say that Bill Clinton was USA's greatest foreign policy President, because he wasn't. And the kind of 'realism' practiced in Washington foreign policy circles isn't my kind of 'foreign policy realism', but I will certainly state that Clinton's foreign policy approach was a reasonably good one, all things considered. To think that the next Democratic Administration might abandon that line of approach has me very worried. I don't like this new 'warm and fuzzy idealist' approach to foreign policy and I'm definitely no fan of "humanitarianism" being the centerpiece. That's a can of worms.

Anyone have any (realistic) thoughts on what US foreign policy ought to look like under a new Democratic administration?

[The Sister]

Anyone have any (realistic) thoughts on what US foreign policy ought to look like under a new Democratic administration?

Given Condi's pronouncement that the Middle East won't be solved by Bush by the end of the year as promised :lol:

Perhaps Colin Powell should be tasked to solve it by the end of the first administration?

I don't think either Obama or Powell can resist working together and putting him there would send a very strong message of intent.

[Michael]

No matter how one tries to look at US foreign policy, one thing is clear - it is a big fucking mess.

1. Iraq - here Obama has the challenge of fulfilling his election promise of withdrawing US forces from Iraq within the next 18 month. While this may be achievable, one has to wonder what Iraq will turn into once 150,000 US occupation troops are out and they are the masters of thier own house? Most indications are that the 'pro-US' faction in Iraq is tiny minority at best. A sovereign and independent Iraq just might not be very respectful of US political interests.

2. Afghanistan - here Obama faces an extraordinarily difficult issue. US ally Karzi (President of Afghanistan) has turned out to be a major failure. His 'low-profile' (and wildly corrupt) government appears to becoming even less significant by the day. The Afghan government cannot even claim to control the one tiny piece of Afghanistan that it actually rules over (Kabul only). The porous border with Pakistan makes the Taliban problem doubly difficult to deal with. Just pouring in a extra 10,000 or 20,000 US troops is not really much of a solution here, as in Iraq, the problem is political, not a military one. And to make this issue doubly difficult, any US action in Afghanistan must directly involve the existing NATO operation there and that means potential political issues with several US-NATO allies who are losing interest in a losing prospect.

3. Iran - here Obama is wedged in by an existing bellicose relationship between US and Iran, and one to which Obama has adopted a 'hawkish' pose, and the most relevant NIE report on Iranian nukes suggesting that Iran doesn't have an existing nuclear weapons program. This is "Iraq WMD's" all over again. The NIE says one thing, but both the outgoing and apparently the incoming Administration are convinced otherwise.

4. Pakistan - this longtime US ally is becoming increasingly unstable. The civilian leadership in Pakistan is weak and corrupt at the best of times - and this is not a good time at all. In my opinion, Pakistan seems 'miffed' by the US nuclear Treaty with Pakistan's arch-enemy India - taking this as some type of mortal insult from the USA and part of the reason I suspect that Musharef fell from grace in Pakistan (notwithstanding his other domestic failings). The Pakistani-Indian relationship is as tricky as the Pakistani-Afghanistan ethnic & religious connections, or the ethnic & religious connections between Iraq & Iran.

5. Palestine - Westbank and Gaza. This long smoldering fire is the kernal at the root of all Middle East political issues. So long as this dispute festers, there can never be peace in the Middle East. The time is long overdue for actual application of the 'two-state' solution.

6. Russia - the Russians have been working hard to restore a level of 'influence' in world affairs that they formerly had under the late Soviet Empire. The Russians have lots of natural resources, gas and oil, so we can expect that they will continue to use these adroitly for foriegn policy leverage.

7. Africa - there is always a half-dozen wars going on in Africa at any given moment. Darfur and Somali anarchy seems to be the most notable at this time as potentially calling for a foreign policy response of some kind.

Thankfully the N.Koreans seemed to have 'calmed down' somewhat lately, so that's not a pressing issue.

That looks like a full plate for any Administration. I can't imagine that Obama could possibly hope to approach any more than one or two of these issues with any hope of success (and even that seems too much). And even that means playing 'hold/delay/ignore' games on the other issues. Tough call which is which. Iraq certainly seems doable. The rest are all dangerously tricky.

And just to make things especially fun for Obama, there is the whole budget mess, not the least of which is the fact that Iraq/Afghan wars have been carried 'off the books' in special supplementary funding bills. Full budgetary accounts of these enterprises, and the increasing unfunded cost of replacement of lost equipment and the cost of veteran care is going to put upwards pressure on the Defense budget.

Because of the US financial crisis, the US could have a trillion dollar deficit next year - even without one penny of new spending programs or the cost of any fiscal stimulus. The US is already running a moderately high fiscal deficit (3% of GDP) so this ugly and projected to go higher soon. With any rise in interest rates, the cost of financing the deficit will also rise as well. Not much room in the budget for big fat checks to bribe for peace here either...

[Michael]

U.S. Presses NATO on Georgia and Ukraine

BERLIN — The United States has started an unexpected diplomatic initiative in Europe, urging NATO allies to offer Georgia and Ukraine membership in the alliance without going through a lengthy process and fulfilling a long list of requirements, NATO diplomats said.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/europe/26nato.html?_r=1)

This is just comedy. NATO rejected offering Georgia and Ukraine membership barely six months ago. The decision wasn't even close (probably because Georgia and Ukraine couldn't possibly meet NATO requirements).

Now the US is trying again - this time suggesting that the 'requirements' ought to be ignored.

This episode demonstrates two things very clearly: 1) US foreign policy is just drifting under the Bush Administration. They have no actual strategy, no real plans, no coherence and no one takes it seriously. 2) Condi Rice has to go down in the history books as the most irrelevant Secretary of State in US history. Anyone remember Condi's Middleast Conference from last year? Enough said.

Sure would be nice to see some actual adults in charge for a change.

[Americano]

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/europe/26nato.html?_r=1)

This is just comedy. NATO rejected offering Georgia and Ukraine membership barely six months ago. The decision wasn't even close (probably because Georgia and Ukraine couldn't possibly meet NATO requirements).

Now the US is trying again - this time suggesting that the 'requirements' ought to be ignored.

This episode demonstrates two things very clearly: 1) US foreign policy is just drifting under the Bush Administration. They have no actual strategy, no real plans, no coherence and no one takes it seriously. 2) Condi Rice has to go down in the history books as the most irrelevant Secretary of State in US history. Anyone remember Condi's Middleast Conference from last year? Enough said.

Sure would be nice to see some actual adults in charge for a change.

The US doesn't carry much weight in NATO after sucking them into Afghanistan and then deserting it for Iraq. Every request the US has made to NATO to up its commitment to Afghanistan has been rejected.