30 Years of Foreign Policy Failure

I presume that Stephen Walt’s piece at Foreign Policy in which his thesis is that the foreign policy blunders of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations are directly responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves and, indeed, the rise of Trump:

There is no question that Trump places little value in democracy, human rights, the rule of law, or other classic liberal values, and he seems to have a particular disregard for America’s democratic partners and a soft spot for autocrats. But it is a mistake to see him as the sole—or even the most important—cause of the travails now convulsing the U.S.-led order. Indeed, the seeds of our present troubles were sown long before Trump entered the political arena, and are in good part due to foreign-policy decisions made by the administrations of former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.

Think back a quarter century, to the beginning of the “unipolar moment.” Having triumphed over the Soviet Union, the United States could have given itself a high-five, taken a victory lap, and adopted a grand strategy better suited to a world without a superpower rival. Rejecting isolationism, Washington could nonetheless have gradually disengaged from those areas that no longer needed significant American protection and reduced its global military footprint, while remaining ready to act in a few key areas should it become absolutely necessary. These moves would have forced our wealthiest allies to take on greater responsibility for local problems while the United States addressed pressing domestic needs. Making the “American dream” more real here at home would also have shown other nations why the values of liberty, democracy, open markets, and the rule of law were worth emulating.

will be like waving a red flag in front of a bull to many but I think he’s right. Rather than restating his piece let me give four suggestions of my own for the biggest blunders of those four successive presidents (I include George H. W. Bush).

  1. We should never have placed troops in Saudi Arabia and, if we did, we should have removed them when the emergency was over.
  2. We should never have expanded NATO.
  3. We should have integrated China into the global economy much more slowly and only as a consequence of proven reforms on the part of the Chinese authorities including political reforms.
  4. We should have conformed rigorously to the rule of law including all of our international obligations. That means no bombing of Serbia, no invasion of Iraq, no torturing of prisoners, no drone war, no bombing of the Libyan government, the list is practically endless.
3 comments… add one
  • Gray Shambler Link

    On the other hand, hindsight is always 20-20. Knowing what we now know about the deployment of the atom bomb, was Iwo Jima even necessary? wouldn’t a blockade have done as well?
    1. I agree. We could buy oil from Saddam until he met his natural end.
    2. Since we DID, we should have included Russia.
    3.Now that we do know better, we have every right to adjust.
    4.Might does not make right. Very true.

  • I don’t consider it hindsight so much as “I told you so”. I opposed the first two and advocated the second two at the time.

  • Guarneri Link

    Actions that hold forth the prospect of projection of military power, commercial gain or achievement of domestic political power (always, of course, in the name of good intentions) is an almost irresistible force.

    We are witnessing how incumbents react when those prospects are threatened.

Leave a Comment