Luck as America’s Foreign Policy America’s leaders — of both parties — bounce from one impulse to another instead of formulating a coherent foreign policy.
The United States is in another war for the purpose of changing another regime. Those who deny this are kidding themselves. President Obama has repeatedly said that Qaddafi has to go. In addition, military force was used against him only when it appeared the rebellion might be defeated without it; the war is part of an international campaign to force Qaddafi out; and the success or failure of the war will be judged largely by whether Qaddafi manages to stay in power.
Of course, Washington is debating whether this new war is a mistake. That question is impossible to answer with any accuracy because no one has supplied the strategic context that makes the question meaningful.
Advertisement
This is a point I have made before. The last four American presidents have failed to do what only they could have done: define America’s strategic mission in the post–Cold War world by identifying the national interests the United States will seek to advance and the means by which it will advance them.
In the absence of strategic clarity, foreign policy becomes a series of impulses, expressed through often contradictory decisions, in reaction to events that no one managed until they grew into crises that were not anticipated.
The United States military is one tool of American foreign policy. When there is strategic confusion, the military fights in some places but not others, based on distinctions that are at worst irrational and at best unclear.
Some examples include America’s fighting to stop cruelty to civilians in Bosnia and Libya, but not in Sudan or the Ivory Coast. America does not engage in “nation building” — except in Iraq and Afghanistan, and before that in Bosnia, and before that in Japan, Korea, and Germany. Weapons of mass destruction, particularly in the hands of terrorists, pose the greatest danger to America. Yet America, now engaged in removing a Libyan regime that ended its WMD program seven years ago, is taking no military action against an Iranian dictatorship that is every bit as brutal as Qaddafi’s, is busy building nuclear weapons, and is the chief sponsor of international terrorism.
None of these decisions was necessarily wrong. But they all were the products of impulse rather than policy, or at best they were based on assumptions not articulated and not formed into a coherent strategy. That makes it difficult to weigh the costs against the benefits, since both can be calculated only with reference to broader objectives, and, over the last four administrations, no one has formulated such objectives.
There is another problem with strategic confusion: When the government doesn’t know which objectives are important, it tends to neglect the capabilities by which all objectives are achieved.
Since the end of the Cold War, America’s military has operated at a far higher operational tempo than during the Cold War years. But while the military has been busier than ever, its size and strength have been declining. The Air Force is smaller, and its planes are older, than at any time since the inception of the service in 1947. The Navy has fewer ships than at any time since 1916. All three of the services are 30 to 40 percent smaller than they were during Desert Storm, which is the reason why the Guard and Reserves have been constantly mobilized, and why a number of Army units are on their fifth or sixth deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The situation is so bad that an independent review panel headed by former secretary of defense Bill Perry recently declared that “a train wreck is coming” for America’s military unless it is strengthened and modernized.
Yet the percentage of the federal budget being spent on sustaining the military is at an historic low. The Obama administration has been busy cutting modernization programs for the last two years. Not to be outdone, Congress is passing spending bills that cut the administration’s proposed defense budget even further.
President Obama is not exactly a hawk on military issues. One would think that Congress would be reluctant to cut his defense budget, at least while Americans are dying in Afghanistan. But considerations like that seem to have no impact in Washington these days.
One gets the sense that the leaders in both parties — with a few notable exceptions — have simply given up on foreign policy. They can’t figure out how it all fits together or which parts of it really matter. So they act as if none of it matters. Their “policy” is to wait for the biggest headline or the most pressing demand, and then to react. That reaction usually takes the form of sending American troops to do more and more with less and less, for reasons that even the leaders understand are pretexts.
Unfortunately, the United States does have vital interests abroad, and the threats to those interests are growing. The Libyan campaign, however it ends, shows again that America is sailing with uncertain masters in troubled waters, trusting to luck, and neither anticipating nor prepared for the gathering storm.
— A former member of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Jim Talent is a distinguished fellow specializing in defense studies at the Heritage Foundation.
For all the reasons listed in this column, perhaps it's time this country take a breather from being the worlds moderator and accept the fact that we can't afford it, and it is a thankless task to boot. We've tried to remake the world in our image.
We've failed.
it simply isn't possible to transfer our values on the world at large.
In the light of the clueless leadership we have had for the last decade and a half, I think it makes sense to let others at least grasp a share of the burden and get our house in order.
We're squashing cockroaches while the barbarians are getting closer to the gate.
It's time to regroup and instead of keeping the powder dry, start mass producing more.
The most difficult of the leadership disciplines is the formulation of strategy. It is even difficult in a business context when one would think that ideology and objectives are shared by the organization's leaders.
Formulating effective strategy is virtually impossible at the federal government level for several reasons:
1. There are conflicting political ideologies.
2. It is impossible to agree on strategic objectives that will last beyond the next shift in political power.
3. It takes time and thoughtful planning which does not fit naturally in a political environment that is constantly plotting strategy for the next election.
There are probably other reasons but you get my point.
We reward people at the business and political level for short term results and solving crises. These are the most visible and "attention-grabbing" actions of our leaders. Strategy formulation is long term, difficult work that is less visible and therefore not worthy of the headlines required to reward business leaders and politicians.
We are crisis managers and that is typically more exciting and visible. When was the last time "Meet the Press" invited a guest to discuss their strategic plan for ______________. (You fill in the blank!)
So we bounce from crisis to crises solving problems and creating unintended consequences that possibly lead to other crises. Or we ask former high profile politicians to serve on a special commission to develop a strategy for __________. (Again, you fill in the blank!) That provides cover for awhile until the next one occurs. And on and on and on......
I agree kwatinhu. I don't understand why the United States needs to take part in almost every conflict. I mean, I understand why, I just cannot accept it. We cannot be around the globe acting like some kind of hero.
Mr. Talent capably addresses the practical fallout from non-existent or vacillating U.S. foreign policy, but he fails to acknowledge the deeper problem, which is procedural. We should NOT acknowledge authorization by the U.N. or any other international organization as above and beyond our own sovereign protocols when deciding to intervene in an international crisis. In concert with blowhard "global community" advocates Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, the Obama administration has committed us to the Libyan crisis with neither clear intent nor terminus point -- thumbing his nose at Congress in the process. By not following proper procedure (i.e., including Congressional participation), the opportunity for thoughtful debate and reasonable deliberation on this matter has been lost. This presumption to such "royal" privilege -- de facto if not de jure -- is not surprising (in view of Obama's posture on domestic policies), but it is nevertheless cause for further alarm.
We'd be much better off if we had more people in positions of power with military experience. (instead of legal experience or community organizer experience)
This problem is made worse by the ever shrinking military.
Remember when we had cogent foreign policy? Congress and, occasionaly, the Oval Office were occupied by military veterans. I fear those days will never return.
The writer is incorrect. He states that there has been no strategy formulated by the last 4 presidents. But there was. George W proposed and in fact implemented a very clear strategy and did so quite effectively, as far as its actual overseas consequences go.
But half the US political system attacked him precisely for doing so. They had no policy themselves, just a political calculation that Bush was vulnerable to attack precisely over the effort involved in having an international strategy and actually implementing it.
And so they attacked him over it, proposing as their own "policy" simply to "fade" whatever Bush did. This was and still is the substance of policy of all of his political opponents, including the neo isolationist on the populist right, as well as the entire left.
What we have now is the muddle created by the continuing impetus of Bush's coherent policy, which largely remains in place because it is the only coherent policy on offer, and its reluctant and half hearted implementation by men whose entire political careers consist in having campaigned against that policy. Or indeed against having one in the first place.
The author is not willing to call a spade a spade, because no current politician is willing to rehabilitate Bush or his policies. They regard it as political suicide to say he was right. But they have nothing else to offer, other than retreat or confusion.
Bush continues to rule the United States on autopilot. Because the current crowd are such non entities they can't think of anything else to do.
Obama did not wait until the last minute as if otherwise if he had waited longer it would have failed due to rebel loses. He went at the earliest opportunity to do so once Congress recessed, the very same day. He plotted for weeks, but waited until Congress left town to implement as to avoid having to deal with Congress for a week, he did so like he does everything else, by fiat.
How many people has he appointed while Congress was in recess? Everyone that had no chance to be confirmed.
We are intervening in Libya for the same reason we intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo: We have no vital interests there, but the Europeans do, and we are allied with the Europeans.
The theory that we should only commit forces where the United States has vital interests doesn't make any sense: We have 700 military bases in 130 countries, and a great many alliances which must be honored. This has brought us great benefits, extending U.S. power across the globe and bringing foreign resources to our side, for example, in Afghanistan.
We don't fight wars just for our own interests, it's been like that ever since WW2. It's the price of being a world power. Get over it.
We are intervening in Libya for the same reason we intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo: We have no vital interests there, but the Europeans do, and we are allied with the Europeans.
The theory we should only commit forces where we have vital interests makes no sense. We already have 700 bases in 130 countries, and a great many alliances that must be honored. This has brought us great benefits, extending U.S. power across the globe, but it comes with a price.
Ever since WW2, we have pursued our interests in foreign places though a series of alliances. We help them in Libya, they help us in Afghanistan. That's what it means to be a world power.
Count the front page crises and imagine we come out of this alive. That is all before you realize that we're in for more oil messes and nuclear nightmares. Now I've long been an optimist, but there comes a time when the overwhelming decline is well, overwhelming. If all that can be done is manipulate politically, it is over for sure.
The Pacific Ocean will be an alienation zone in less than a generation at the rate things are going. Happy Spring. This planet will not be saved. We've buried our heads for way too long. Exceptionalism is the road to hell.
