Following up in the same vein as my last past, in a piece at National Interest Daniel L. Davis minces no words about our present foreign policy:
Whether Donald Trump wins a second term on November 3 or Joe Biden is voted into office, it will be crucial that the Administration make a clean break with past failures. Trump can’t continue with the status quo of the past four years and Biden can’t merely reprise his eight years under Obama.
America needs a new foreign policy construct that is aligned with a realistic and sober recognition of the world as it is, warts and all, and uses the full range of American power—in intelligent and creative ways—to produce outcomes beneficial to our country. If, however, the next Administration continues the establishment foreign policy status quo that has drifted unchecked for decades, we risk international obsolescence at best—or we’ll fumble our way into an entirely unnecessary and pointless war at worst.
As I noted previously, it’s a bipartisan fiasco:
Bush should have then acknowledged the objectives had been attained and withdrawn our military force, transitioning our Afghan mission to a State Department-led humanitarian and diplomatic enterprise. Instead, he refused to take the win and expanded the conflict in ways that still haunt us today.
Since Bush refused to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2002, every Administration since has tried various strategies, varying troop levels from as low as 8,600 to as many as 100,000 yet never succeeded in winning the war or ending the conflict. In October we began the twentieth consecutive year of war in Afghanistan where we remain, mired in a forever-war with no identifiable objective and no means of ever winning.
Moreover, continuing several bad precedents Bush had set, Obama committed U.S. combat or support troops to operations in Syria, Yemen, and Libya. None of the Obama uses of force accomplished their stated objectives: our troops are still in Syria, the Yemen civil war continues without resolution, and nine years after intervention, Libya remains a festering wound of a civil war.
He wants the U. S. to re-embrace realism in its foreign policy. I think he’s whistling in the dark. Whether Republican neoconservatives or Democratic liberal interventionalists foreign policy idealists dominate in foreign policy circles. The hallmark, indeed, the definition of foreign policy interests is the recognition that countries have interests. Denial that any country other than the U. S. could possibly have legitimate interests and mistrusting our own interests have been key aspects of our foreign policy for longer than most of us have been alive. When you add that fortunes have been made under the status quo, there are powerful headwinds opposing change. That the change is necessary to avoid foreign wars or even civil war does not seem to make a difference.
You know. I know everyone hates the style, but Trump has been notably restrained in his foreign policy and achieved some policy goals.
This section from the debate about North Korea is a representation.
“When I met with Barack Obama, we sat in the White House, right at the beginning had a great conversation, was supposed to be 15 minutes and it was well over an hour. He said the biggest problem we have is North Korea. He indicated we will be in a war with North Korea. Guess what, it would be a nuclear war, and he does have plenty of nuclear capability. In the meantime, I have a very good relationship with him, different kind of a guy but he probably thinks the same thing about me. We have a different kind of relationship. We have a very good relationship, and there’s no war. And you know, about two months ago, he broke into a certain area. They said, ‘oh there’s going to be trouble.’ I said, ‘No, they’re not. Because he’s not going to do that.’ And I was right. :ook, instead of being in a war where millions of people — Seoul, you know, is 25 miles away, millions and millions, 32 million people in Seoul — millions of people would be dead right now. We don’t have a war, and I have a good relationship’
North Korea isn’t solved, but it is true that tensions have been kept on an even heel; and Trump has a rather realistic assessment about the situation. Trump basically admitted he thinks a meeting with Kim in return for an even keel with the North Koreans is okay; which is fine by me.
There is a real question whether a successor can be continue the balancing act that Trump does…. Not every President can afford to sound crazy and piss off the establishment 90% of the time.
Mostly agree though I would amend it to foreign policy interventionists instead of idealists.
Steve
As I recall, Trump’s stated goal was the denuclearization of North Korea. He helped escalate tensions then de-escalate them. The end result is that North Korea now has more nukes and they now have missiles capable of delivering nukes to the US that they developed during the Trump presidency. Was this Trump’s goal all along? Pose for some nice pictures while N Korea finishes its nuclear capability development? That is a success?
Steve
Good grief! Don’t we have enough evidence that Presidents do not control foreign policy, from Kennedy to Trump? Does Vindman’s testimony that the Deep State, not Trump, not only does control foreign policy, but that it has a right to do so, not register? Trump says, “We’re out of Syria,†and the Pentagon says, “Shut up and sit down,†which Trump does.
Biden is a Deep State creature, so he is likely to do what they tell him. A reversal on Afghanistan, a major escalation in Ukraine, an invasion of Venezuela…, just about anything is possible with Biden. With Trump, who knows? The current ongoing mutiny would likely continue, but no new war would happen. Hopefully. If one did, it would probably require that the CIA do the Kennedy thing again.
This country, we, are deeply screwed.
Steve, The failure of the Trump/Kim agreement proves my point. Trump and Kim agreed to a staged process where sanctions were traded for nuclear disarmament. Eventually the Peninsular would be denuclearized, and NK would be part of the WTO and a normal country. Russia and China sweetened the deal with membership in OBOR.
The Deep State agents Bolton and Pompeo overruled Trump and cancelled the agreement. Why Trump submitted to an actual coup is a mystery. I believe the Deep State threatened to kill him and his family.
1) I get a little tired of this “Trump cannot fail he can only be failed” schtick. At some point a POTUS ought to be responsible for the one area in which they constitutionally have real authority.
2) I followed the Korea stuff fairly closely and i dont remember Kim agreeing to denuclearization that was anything like what I would think of ie he was not going to give up his nukes.
Steve
I think the subject was last commented 3 years ago; but I never viewed denuclearization as a realistic goal; no matter what diplomats say.
Just look at the regional map; and the two facts that Kim’s priority is the survival of his family, nuclear weapons are his guarantee to that priority; and while North Korea is supported by the Chinese, Kim does not trust the Chinese either.
The most ambitious deal achievable is an verifiable agreement to scrap long range ballistic missiles. Short of that is an agreement to not cause trouble; which is what we have now.
“I get a little tired of this “Trump cannot fail he can only be failedâ€
Letting politics become personal.
I prefer jaw-jaw- to war- war myself. Even if that makes Trump look good and get Nobel nominations.
What agreement do we have to not cause trouble? Link goes to missile launchings. They accelerated while Trump has been president. After a pause for a while they went back to launching missiles again. The only real difference I see is that we now just ignore them. This is Trump’s biggest accomplishment which makes him look good? God, you guys really are a cult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_Korean_missile_tests
In the last 3 years, North Korea have not tested a nuclear weapon. And they have not tested their long range ballistic missile — which is close to a red line for US strategic interests.
Could not say that from 2012 – 2016.
launching missiles again. The only real difference I see is that we now just ignore them.
Do you suggest retaliation?
Ending all communication and diplomacy?
Korean War redux?
The problem with North Korea policy isn’t due to Trump, the so-called “Deep State” or Obama, or any particular administration. The fundamental problem is that our strategic goals are fundamentally in conflict with those of North Korea.
For a variety of reasons, North Korea believes nuclear weapons (and, by extension, a reliable nuclear delivery system) is essential for its survival as a nation. It’s not going to trade them away, particularly not for what the US is willing to offer. This is the case regardless of which President happens to be in office.
That’s why I think the US should tie North Korean actions to China since the Chinese have aided and abetted North Korea’s programs both through active measures and by sitting on their hands. US policy should, therefore, not seek some kind of independent deal with North Korea (which is not possible in the current strategic conditions), it should directly tie North Korean actions and intransigence to China even to the extent that we should clearly state that any North Korean attack on South Korea or the United States will be viewed as an attack by China. China likes to play both sides when it comes to North Korea – it benefits from the DPRK being a thorn for the region and has often actively encouraged that, but China also shrugs its shoulders as if it has little influence. It’s time to stop letting China play that two-faced game.
Now my view is quite heterodox and it’s not something that either Trump or Biden would do. Biden seems to want the establishment status quo while Trump doesn’t care about results and only cares about how it affects his image.
“In the last 3 years,”
He has been president for 4 years. The first year saw an increase in missile launchings including the successful launch of an ICBM that could reach the US East coast. In the last year we have seen another acceleration of short range launches. Those would be important if there actually was any conflict. So what Trump really accomplished was an acceleration of N Korea activity in his first year including successful ICBM launches and since then we have just decided to ignore shorter range launches. They still have their nukes. If this is success then every other president has been successful.
“Do you suggest retaliation?
Ending all communication and diplomacy?
Korean War redux?”
Reading comprehension FTW! Nowhere have i suggested anything like that. What i have said is that I have a hard time seeing Trump’s policy being declared a success. By his own stated standard, denuclearization, it is a failure. By COs standard, they arent causing trouble, we are just ignoring what they do. As to how we should handle it I largely agree with Andy but we need a more comprehensive policy towards China. Our current policies have been stupid, but then they haven’t ever been that good.
Steve
As part of that foreign policy with China trade is important, but our trade war has not reduced our trade deficits or lead to more manufacturing jobs. Link takes a shot at explaining why. Kind of interesting to hear someone like Krugman admit that tariffs could work, if done correctly.
https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/LISCenter/pkrugman/tradewarfail.pdf
I agree that we should be negotiating with China WRT North Korea. In the past I’ve written that when your neighbor’s dog is keeping you up at night you don’t negotiate with the dog but with the neighbor.
However, we might differ in the nature of the negotiations. I think we should make it clear that we don’t really care how much saber-rattling the North Koreans do but if they act against us or our interests China should be prepared for an enormous rush of Koreans across their borders, fleeing the damage.
WRT tariffs I have long argued that we should impose a Pigouvian tariff against the Chinese, equal in value to the costs of the environmental damage they’re doing plus the cost of the labor laws they either don’t have or aren’t enforcing plus the cost of their cyberwarfare against us. Most calculations put those at a multiple of their total U. S. trade.
As I think you know, I would prefer policies internal to the US so that we arent dependent upon what other countries do. Trying to force other countries to what we want means they obfuscate or use other issues against us. China says eg that we arent working with you on No Korean security if you force us to change trade rules. Make it so that China has to want our corporations to go there and they are willing to offer stuff in return, like security cooperation.
Maybe tariffs could be part of that approach, but it looks like if you let special interests dominate choosing tariffs, they dont work. There has been a lot of emphasis on tariffs for intermediate products which could be the least effective. Have to assume that was a political choice.
Steve