I have a multi-part question.
- How would you assess the Obama Administration’s foreign policy?
- How would you assess the Trump Administration’s foreign policy?
- How would a hypothetical Biden Administration’s foreign policy differ from that of the Obama Administration? From that of a second Trump term?
My assessment of the Obama Administration is that its foreign policy was pretty good on the aesthetics and atmospherics and absolutely awful in is accomplishments. The Trump Administration’s foreign policy aesthetics and atmospherics have been absolutely awful but its accomplishments have not been too bad.
I have no idea what a Biden Administration’s foreign policy would be. At this point I don’t even know who would be calling the shots. Would it be restorationist or has the caravan moved on?
“The Trump Administration’s foreign policy aesthetics and atmospherics have been absolutely awful but its accomplishments have not been too bad.”
That pretty much sums up the entire tenure on all fronts. Those who can only look at aesthetics are just blubbering partisans. Obama was the quintessential corporate pretty boy empty suit, with a dishonest, bordering on Clintonesque, stench.
Those who can recognize Trumps obvious faults but focus on results are pragmatists. I rarely go to OTB anymore. I think I was kicked off. But I read Taylor’s miserable piece (or a whole host of others) on the “troubling rot” in the Trump Administration……………………….in the face of profound abuse by Obama of the legal arms of the US government…..gone uncommented on. How can anyone reason with such blindness?
Whatever you think about the merits of yesterday’s deal, the lack of media coverage and Pelosi’s politically dismissive “diversion” language identifies media and Pelosi as unserious and truly execrable institutions/people.
Unfortunate times.
I couldn’t find a Corona post to insert this into. But just go to the deaths per million graphic and then listen to the commentary. So different, and sober, from the medical community tripe you hear here and elsewhere.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/were-lockdowns-mistake-spoiler-alert-yes
The critical question, as noted in my post, is what difference, other than in aesthetics and atmospherics, a Biden Administration will bring? Will it even be able to change course? Will they want to “mend fences” with China? I think that ship has sailed. If we are not aware that we need supply chains that don’t run through China at all, we are simply being self-destructive.
Will they want to start a new war in the Middle East? Renegotiate with Iran? Do we have anything to offer Iran any more? I read lots of stuff about rebuilding relationships with European allies but what I see from them is more an utter lack of followership than absent U. S. leadership.
I think the Europeans like us as long as we’re bearing the weight and pursuing their foreign policy goals, particularly when we’re pursuing them at the expense of our own. I don’t think that’s what we should be doing.
Fair enough.
I can’t imagine that members of a former Administration who looked the other way at China’s buying influence, planting spies, stealing technology, or duping us on trade – not to mention having some icky personal dealings – will discharge foreign/trade policy in a fair manner or in US interests. Shorter: the die is cast; Biden is their bitch.
Renegotiate with Iran? Well, maybe we have a plane or two lying around with pallets of cash in them. then they surely will behave.
Europe? Heavens, we wouldn’t want them to, ahem, “pay their fair share,” now would we? I’m tired of de facto paying for their welfare state for the benefit of their politicians, our defense contractors and generals with a gleam in their eyes and too much time on their hands.
Trump may have faults; Biden is no answer.
I have argued it will be restorationist. On a previous post I commented staff is policy; and AFAIK, all the foreign policy hands Biden is relying on now and in a potential Presidency (including Biden himself) all served from the Obama administration.
I repeat another point then — Nixon famously wrote an article in 1967 which advocated a rapprochement with mainland China, an explicit repudiation of the Eisenhower administration isolation policy (where Nixon was Vice-President). I have never seen such an article or speech from Biden so the default assumption is the desire to continue the same policies.
WRT to China, I saw someone comment Biden was “making the minimum bid” and I think that is right. Biden does not need to directly “mend fences” for things to go back to the pre-Trump era, it can be done by other means that provide plausible deniability. For example, the WTO has just ruled the existing tariffs on China are against WTO rules, but they are not illegal because the appellate body to give effect to rulings is in abeyance due to the US vetoing all appointments to the body. There is a lot of pressure for the US to drop the veto; and its guaranteed Biden would drop the veto for cosmetic changes, and then the WTO can give legal effects to the rulings, and Biden would be “forced” to drop the tariffs.
Don’t forget the Paris accords; they are very important to Biden / Democrats. To maintain or implement a further deal, an agreement with the Chinese would be necessary, and the CCP knows it and would use it for leverage.
As for Middle East; from what I can tell, Obama just could not say no to his staff / experts to involvement in the conflicts. Can Biden do it?
Remember, the neo-conservatives AND liberal interventionists are both supporting Biden in this election.
Historically, Biden has long been on the heterodox end when it comes to foreign policy. It’s one of the reasons why Robert Gates (SECDEF under Bush and Obama) claimed he was wrong on every major foreign policy issue. But I think the Gates’ record speaks for itself. Gates said that because Biden was always skeptical of the Afghanistan “Surge” as well as the intervention in Libya and deposing the Ghadaffi government as well as several other issues and actions. It’s clear that Biden was correct on both of those and Gates was wrong.
Biden was a contrarian on other FP issues during the Obama term but was consistently overruled – Obama generally always took the side of Clinton, Gates and the NSC advisor.
Earlier he had a lot more nuanced and realist take on Iraq and recognized that it would be a de facto three-faction state and that attempts by the US to develop democratic governance that joined those factions into some kine of unity government would be difficult at best. Again, history proved him correct in that judgment despite people like Gates and the other establishment types laughing at him at the time.
So I don’t think Biden’s record indicates that he would have have a return to the status quo. But…Biden is not a young man anymore and, to put it charitably, is not as mentally astute as he once was. He may end up having to delegate a lot of issues and FP may be one of them. So I agree with Curious that staffing will likely be a big factor.
As for Trump:
“The Trump Administration’s foreign policy aesthetics and atmospherics have been absolutely awful but its accomplishments have not been too bad.”
I don’t think he’s had many accomplishments at all. The main plus of Trump is that he hasn’t invaded or overthrown any other countries, the first time that’s happened since the first Bush administration. This is balanced a bity by noting he did attack the Syrian government and assassinated one of the most important leaders in Iran, two things driven by the pro-Israel faction of the FP establishment. His love of the pro-Israel faction of American FP is only tempered by his skepticism of additional foreign interventions. That skepticism is a really good thing IMO, but his deficits and inability to see beyond the appearance of winning tactical “deals” really limited his effectiveness.
I think his unilateral withdrawal from the Iran deal was stupid, especially after we’d already paid in a significant ante. Another bone for the Israel lobby that we’ve received nothing for in return.
I think he deserves credit for his skepticism on China, but he hasn’t really accomplished anything there except, perhaps, changing the narrative over the long term. On the other hand, he basically ignores stuff like Hong Kong and the Uighers.
His supposed hard-ball at NATO burden-sharing hasn’t been any more effective than the soft-ball previous administrations have tried. If anything it’s been counterproductive for the long-term. What have we gotten for it? He seems to think that bullying, threats and talking tough will get European parliaments to invest more in defense – it hasn’t and won’t work.
The new NAFTA and other renegotiated trade deals don’t appear to be substantially different than what they replaced.
His tolerance an admiration for authoritarian leaders is a dumb own-goal, as is the fact that he openly and brazenly uses his office to extract personal political benefits from foreign leaders. I don’t agree with Democrats the Putin is the antichrist, but Trump should not be slobbering over him either. Same with the Saudi Royal family, Erogan in Turkey and others. He appears to let his fealty for strongmen-type leaders to dominate what little strategic judgment he actually has.
And ending wars and interventions has been and empty promise.
Outside of confronting China and not invading any new countries, there is not much there there.
I haven’t been happy with US foreign policy for most of the last 30 years. I expect to continue to be disappointed regardless of who is elected.
That characterizes my views pretty well (other than that my period of dissatisfaction goes back more than 50 years).
Let’s not gloss over Biden’s foreign policy record.
Biden supported granting China “Most Favored Nation Status” and its entry into the WTO
Biden supported the Iraq War
Biden sponsored a motion to authorize air strikes over Kosovo
Regretting your previous decisions after they were proven wrong is better than not regretting them at all. But it is pretty poor compared to making the right decision is the first place.
Biden also was the Obama administrations “point man” for Ukraine. By any objective measure, Ukraine is now a mess. And a source of scandal due to the shady dealings involving Biden’s son.
Oh and here is another one that shows Biden restorationist tendencies. He wants to sign up for the TPP — after some “renegotiation” (probably cosmetic). TPP includes Vietnam, a communist nation of 100 million with no rule of law. The fact he doesn’t perceive granting “free trade” to export oriented authoritarian governments is an issue tells you his thinking on trade.
Trump foreign policy can be overstated and understated. Should I credit Iran or Trump for what’s happening in the Middle East, because it looks a lot is happening under the logic “an enemy of my enemy is…”. But not invading new countries is hard. Every President since Reagan initiated or escalated a “hot” conflict until Trump.
To that I would add that my recollection of Biden’s views on Iraq are a bit different from Andy’s:
My recollection is he supported more than a “de facto three-faction state”. He actually wanted to divide Iraq into Arab Shi’ite, Arab Sunni, and Kurdish states. That was
a. overwhelming opposed by nearly all Iraqis and
b. opposed by Iraq’s neighbors
I wasn’t attempting to gloss over Biden’s record and he certainly has supported some bad policies, including while in the Obama administration.
But neither should anyone make the assumption that he’s solidly in the establishment FP activist camp like the Clintons, the neocons or the R2P crowd. Over the period of the past 20 years they have pretty consistently criticized and overuled Biden for positions that history has shown he had the better or more realistic view. It’s not for nothing that the FP establishment has been so critical of him.
That’s why I’m skeptical of the argument that his Presidency is certain to bring back the interventionist, activist, and military-focused foreign policy that characterized the bulk of post Cold-War US foreign policy.
“He actually wanted to divide Iraq into Arab Shi’ite, Arab Sunni, and Kurdish states.”
That may be true, I’m working from memory. The point is that is essentially what we’ve ended up with despite our ignorant desires and those of others in the region. We spilled a lot of blood and treasure in a vain attempt to realize something which could not be realized. I think Biden deserves credit for understanding that before almost anyone else in Washington.
And just to reiterate the last part of my original comment:
“I haven’t been happy with US foreign policy for most of the last 30 years. I expect to continue to be disappointed regardless of who is elected.”
I’m not looking forward to a Biden Presidency and I know I will have a lot of disagreements with his administration on foreign policy. But, for the reasons I’ve given, I don’t think he’ll be an interventionist warmonger like Clinton, Bush and Obama were.
I admit I could be proven wrong about that. After all, I voted for Bush in 2000 primarily on his pledge of a more “humble” foreign policy and look at how that turned out.
Andy summed up my thoughts pretty well. To it I would add that Trump has been very good at making big announcements about big accomplishments, but we dont have much to show for it. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is worse as we now cover for them on everything as long as they agree to buy weapons. We have now become more Israel’s client state than the other way around. Our trade deficit has grown, one of his signature issues. The Mexico trade deal was little different than what owed have been in TPP.
On Biden I think that noting Gates thought Biden was wrong about everything is a plus, not a minus.
Steve
Let’s not forget the one undeniable FP achievement of Obama’s presidency.
Biden opposed the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.
“I haven’t been happy with US foreign policy for most of the last 30 years. I expect to continue to be disappointed regardless of who is elected.”
So. One is left with a) permanent suffering in silence, b) asking oneself while looking in the mirror – “is the problem actually me?”, or 3) impotently bitching, or 4) “here’s what I’m going to do.”
And just before the Northern Alliance toppled the Taliban with the aid of air strikes and Special Forces Biden advocated sending in ground troops to go ‘mano-e-mano’ with the Taliban.
Of course we ended up doing that anyway. But the fact that he advocated it at all that early is telling.
Harris’ foreign policy IMO won’t just go back to the status ante Trump. It will go even further, including active hostility to any regime currently friendly to the US that Xi and Putin, Khameinei, and the Woke hate.
I largely agree with Andy, but Biden’s three-state solution was introduced in 2006, probably in preparation for his presidential campaign. That is at least my recollection and I’ve linked to a 2008 George Packer piece at the bottom that traces Biden’s three-state solution to a 2006 NY Times article written with Leslie Gelb, who advocated the position in 2003.
The dates are important to me, in 2003 much more was possible than after a government had been created with whom we were supporting counter-insurgency efforts. In 2006, he would be opposing the wishes of the Iraqi government, which he hand-waives with better diplomacy. YMMV, but I don’t it was a good plan, many of its problems were problems with the existing plan, its just a different form of nation-building exercise.
I’m sure Biden isn’t coming into office seeking to remake the world through military deployments; generally the lesson has been that events happen and the blob is either there with a ready-made plan and writing op-eds and being interviewed about how the U.S. leadership role is being diminished.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/george-packer/biden-ahead-of-his-time
“Let’s not forget the one undeniable FP achievement of Obama’s presidency.
Biden opposed the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.”
It was primarily a domestic political achievement. It turned out to be strategically irrelevant.
Again, working from memory, Biden’s opposition was about getting better confirmation that UBL was actually there before launching an operation rather than a deeper philosophical or policy opposition. If that’s not the case, then I’ll stand corrected. I really don’t want to waste my time fact-checking this.
Regardless, the raid was a huge risk and I think Obama deserves credit for the gamble. It almost went completely sideways with the helicopter crash and could easily have been a shit-show. Had that happened, Biden’s caution would be seen very differently.
I think the UBL raid is actually one of those rare cases where there were good arguments on both sides regarding the costs, risks and benefits. Unlike something like Libya or the Afghan surge where it was clear to knowledgable people what the ultimate result would be.
“So. One is left with a) permanent suffering in silence, b) asking oneself while looking in the mirror – “is the problem actually me?â€, or 3) impotently bitching, or 4) “here’s what I’m going to do.—
Well, I spent much of that 30 years as a tool of foreign policy doing my best to do good where I could and to put a shine on that turd where I couldn’t. It’s probably more personal for me than it is for you since I know people – friends, colleagues and acquantenances, who are dead, maimed or psychological damaged by stupid foreign policy decisions. Your boy Trump is no exception.
That both parties are perenially unable to nominate candidates that align with my preferences probably does say something about me – I certainly got much criticism from your friends at OTB for not aligning with a tribe. But I think it also says quite a bit about the two parties, such as they are, and their inability to nominate candidates that adequately represent the range of views of the broad American public.
At the end of the day we can choose to vote for the turd sandwich or the giant douche, vote for some third-party candidate, or not vote at all. All things considered, I’ve tentatively made the decision that the turd sandwich is the least-sucky choice this time around. I’m not particularly happy about it and I don’t begrudge others for analyzing the situation differently and choosing another option.
So in the end this what we can tell.
When in Congress, Biden supported policies that colossal errors, and proclaimed they were mistakes once it became an electoral liability.
When Vice President, sources say he had the right instincts but was consistently ignored.
When given an area of actual responsibility (Ukraine), Biden left the place super messed up.
It leaves the question, between virtuous personality traits (retrospection, wisdom over time) and actual results — which one is more important?
Trump raises a different question. His amoral personality traits is both his strength and his weakness. It allows him to see and deal with problems that others would not; like bullying neighbors to get a new NAFTA deal, or “abandoning” the Kurds, but it also makes it impossible to implement many objectives (like leaving Afghanistan).
With Trump, it is how amoral should American foreign policy be? And has Trump gone way beyond the optimum point for that?
As far as Biden not owning his errors, I don’t really consider him to be any worse than a typical politician. And compared to Trump….
“When given an area of actual responsibility (Ukraine), Biden left the place super messed up.”
Biden was the VP of the United States, not the Viceroy in Ukraine. Ukraine’s many problems are the result of it’s history and are not problems than any American can solve. The fact that Ukraine is an unstable, internally divided mess has nothing to do with Biden.
But I think that does nibble at the edge of one of my major FP problems with Biden, which is his consistent support of NATO expansion, which I’ve long thought was a mistake. Biden is very much in line with the bipartisan FP establishment on that.
Trump, while he talks a good game, has done nothing to stop NATO expansion and he promoted the ascension of the rump state of North Macedonia just last year. So I’d call this one a tie.
“It leaves the question, between virtuous personality traits (retrospection, wisdom over time) and actual results — which one is more important?”
Results are more important in my view.
“Trump raises a different question. His amoral personality traits is both his strength and his weakness. It allows him to see and deal with problems that others would not; like bullying neighbors to get a new NAFTA deal, or “abandoning†the Kurds, but it also makes it impossible to implement many objectives (like leaving Afghanistan).”
I agree with that broad outline. My problem with Trump isn’t so much his lack of virtue, morals, or his caustic personality, it’s that those defects haven’t helped him effectively govern the country. It doesn’t help that his lack of consistency is actually very consistent – he does what he thinks is best for him personally.
If his goals were actually primarily about the interests of the US and not his own ego, I would not have any objection to his caustic behavior if that behavior actually produced results. In many ways the way he acts has been counterproductive. He also approaches every problem using basically the same methods.
But these issues aren’t just a Trump problem. Trump obviously likes troll opponents but his opponents never fail to rise to the bait, leaving their reason behind for the peformative moral panic du jour, which is quickly forgotten once the next Trump-induced moral panic appears.
So Trump is the king of trolling, but what, at the end of the day, does that actually accomplish?
“With Trump, it is how amoral should American foreign policy be? And has Trump gone way beyond the optimum point for that?”
If you cut through his rhetorical BS, Trump talks a good game: Reciprocity with China, skepticism of NATO, free trade & military interventions. He hasn’t invaded anyone, but that is a low bar and events haven’t really given him a case where an argument for intervention could be made (something like Libya). He’s been lucky that he hasn’t faced a real FP crisis where the usual suspects would call for an intervention. Still, I give him a lot of credit for resisting the likes of Bolton to find dragons to slay.
We’re still supporting the Saudi’s in Yemen, we’re still doing more direct actions in Somalia than when I was there in 2014. We’re still in Afghanistan, trying in vain to arrange a face-saving political settlement. Drone strikes in Pakistan had already dwindled to almost nothing by the time he took office. We’re still in Iraq and basically told them to go eff themselves by assassinating a foreign leader at their capital’s main airport (and Trump was lucky the Iranians chose not to target Americans in their retaliation). We’re still in Syria despite the fact the no one talks about ISIS anymore. We’re still doing the same reconnaissance flights, presence patrols and freedom-of-navigation ops that piss off the Russians and Chinese. The number of US military personnel permanently stationed outside of the US has stayed basically the same since he took office (about 220k – I looked up the numbers). I haven’t been able to find reliable numbers for forces deployed for contingency operations, but they still seem to be around the 60k when he took office.
You peel way and ignore the rhetoric, promises and Trump’s caustic personality and look at the facts on the ground and it seems to me that not a lot has changed.
“like bullying neighbors to get a new NAFTA deal”
That was not much different than the TPP deal we could have had earlier. So his amoral approach doesnt gain us very much and we end up catering to Saudi Arabia and Israel certainly not helping much in the ME.
“When given an area of actual responsibility (Ukraine), Biden left the place super messed up.”
My perception is that Ukraine is lousy place with consistently poor governance. It was that way before the Obama (Biden) government and is still that way with Trump in office. (If you think Ukraine is a lot better now with Trump in charge would like to hear that case.) Neither party seems to want to acknowledge that Ukraine is in Russia’s immediate sphere of influence and we gain nothing, probably a net loss, from interactions with them. Ukraine will remain a poor and poorly run country with Biden or Trump in office. We will try too hard to involve ourselves with either in charge. We probably wont have Biden offering them missiles in return for helping with an election.
Steve
I just disagree with the idea that staying out of fights is easy for Presidents. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama couldn’t do it. From the Post-War II Presidents, you can include Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, i.e. the vast majority of Presidents initiate or escalate wars. There were plenty of times when the experts tried to get Trump involved in the Mideast — there was Syria, Iran, Kurds.
On Ukraine, you can literally search “Biden pointman Ukraine” between 2012, 2016 and it returns newspaper articles like Joe Biden is at the center of US diplomacy in Ukraine.
Let’s put it this way, Burisma offered a job to Hunter Biden because Biden was the center of US policy on the Ukraine.
As for saying Ukraine was already a mess; during the Obama administration, the US managed to support the overthrow of a democratically elected President; then showed enough leg about Ukraine and NATO for Russia to take the Crimea and trigger an unresolved civil war.
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan were all messes when Bush / Obama became President, but they still get a failing grade for making things worse.
With Trump, his venality (he sees Ukraine only as a tool against Biden) may have disillusioned Ukrainians that the West will champion their cause. That disillusionment maybe why the Ukrainians are figuring out some sort of accommodation with Russia. I believe 2020 is quietest year on the Ukrainian civil war since it started in 2014. In a way, that could be Trump’s credit.
Ukraine was a mess before Obama was in office. It looks like you dont dispute that. Yes, the neocon faction helped urge on Ukraine, bu t it was mostly the doing of Ukraine itself. Countries do have agency. This may be the quietest year, but Trump did sell them weapons. This looks to me more like an effort by Ukraine unless there was specific activity by someone in the Trump admin of which you are aware. I am having a hard time figurine gout why selling Ukraine weapons and asking them for help with the election results in Trump getting credit. It looks more to me as though he did what everyone else has done, facilitate fighting, but Ukraine and Russia decided on their own to changer that.
Steve
Steve
There are several problems in discussing U. S. policy with respect to Ukraine intelligently. The first is that it’s barely a country or, perhaps, a country by courtesy. It’s like calling “the Midwest” or “the East Coast” a country. Khrushchev had Ukraine declared a country for the first time in its history in the 1950s. The second is that the Ukrainian governments that have succeeded the collapse of the Soviet Union in Ukraine have been incredibly corrupt. The third is that the Ukrainians who replaced the previous government were heavily supported by out and out fascists. There’s a strong current of that among Ukrainians.
My own view is that our policy WRT Ukraine has been far too much in the hands of ethnic Ukrainians in the U. S. We’re kidding ourselves if we don’t recognize that Ukraine is more important to the Russians than it is to us.
“I just disagree with the idea that staying out of fights is easy for Presidents. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama couldn’t do it. ”
On second thought I think you have a valid point here. And I do think Trump is genuinely more skeptical of interventions than his predecessors. But the extent of his skepticism remains to be seen and hasn’t been tested as it was with Clinton, Bush and Obama who all faced FP crises on a scale that Trump has not.
“On Ukraine, you can literally search “Biden pointman Ukraine†between 2012, 2016 and it returns newspaper articles like Joe Biden is at the center of US diplomacy in Ukraine.”
I’m not disputing Biden was the point person on Ukraine policy. I just don’t believe the evidence supports the contention that US policy had a material effect on Ukraine’s current back-asswardness.
“Let’s put it this way, Burisma offered a job to Hunter Biden because Biden was the center of US policy on the Ukraine.”
Yes, I think that is almost certainly the case. It’s not clear how much Biden the father had to do with that, however, or if Bursima received any actual tangible benefits from VP Biden directly or indirectly, or if it affect US policy more generally. At the very least it’s not a good look for Biden and it does at least have the stench of corruption.
However, the other side of that coin is Trump, who clearly and purposely utilized his office with the Ukrainian government for his own political gain. The corruption is naked and there for all to see.
“With Trump, his venality (he sees Ukraine only as a tool against Biden) may have disillusioned Ukrainians that the West will champion their cause. That disillusionment maybe why the Ukrainians are figuring out some sort of accommodation with Russia. I believe 2020 is quietest year on the Ukrainian civil war since it started in 2014. In a way, that could be Trump’s credit.”
I don’t see any evidence that any purposeful action by Trump resulted in a cooling of the conflict in the Donbass. Instead the relevant factors are the stalemate in the conflict and the election of Zelenskyy as Ukraine’s President. You’re right about Trump’s venality since his primary concern when Zelenskyy came into office was the attempt to extract domestic political favors (announcing an investigation of the Bidens), not doing anything about Ukraines’ problems or the Donbass insurrection. So yes, I suppose one could give Trump “credit” for thinking only of his own personal interests when it came to Ukraine FP – but that’s not a glowing endorsement.
And that’s really one of the major problems I have with Trump and FP – it’s not rooted in principle or pursuit of strategic goals, it’s mostly about what he perceives is best for him personally.