In the Wall Street Journal historian Walter Russell Mead curtly summarizes the state of American foreign policy:
North Korea threatens to take America hostage. The Middle East burns. Venezuela descends into chaos. Jihadist groups develop new capacities. A failing Russia lashes out. The European Union risks breaking apart. China presses toward regional hegemony. Trade liberalization grinds to a halt. Turkey turns away from democracy. And the U.S. still lacks a strong consensus on what its foreign policy should be.
Washington’s foreign policy needs more than grudging acquiescence from the American people if it is to succeed. How to build broad support? First, the Trump administration should embrace a new national strategy that is more realistic than the end-of-history fantasies that came at the Cold War’s conclusion. The case for international engagement should be grounded in the actual priorities of American citizens. Second, Mr. Trump and other political leaders must make the case for strategic global engagement to a rightfully skeptical public.
It might be helpful if those who advocate an assertive, activist, interventionist foreign policy for the United States actually had some skin in the game. As long as bearing the financial costs of that policy is somebody else’s responsibility and somebody else’s children are the ones who’ll be sent to war, it’s hard to see how the case for “strategic global engagement” will be made.
“Somebody else’s children” are those who stand to gain the most from all that we’ve built and defended.
Article is paywalled and so couldn’t read it all.
As to the skin problem, hmmm, passport surcharges, airline ticket surcharge for 1st and business class passengers going overseas, might help, lets throw in full TSA/Customs shake down/search too, can never be too careful. Since most of the pundits don’t have military age children, not much to be gained there.
As to how to get the American people involved might help if the news paid more attention to foreign events. Locally a newspaper serving about 50-70K readers used the middle two pages of each edition for wire stories about events here and there with commentary on the opinion side, so it can be done.
How about all wars and foreign interventions must be financed by the top 0.1%? Mostly for their benefit anyway. No way they let their kids go so that is the best we can do.
Steve