For decades our foreign policy has largely benefited a fairly small segment of the U. S. population. In a piece at the Carnegie Endowment on how a foreign policy that works for more Americans might be crafted I found this paragraph both the most likely and the saddest:
For decades, U.S. foreign policy has operated in a relatively isolated sphere. National security strategists and foreign policy planners have articulated national interests and set the direction of U.S. policy largely through the prism of security and geopolitical competition. That remains a critical perspective, especially at a time when geopolitical competition with China, Russia, and other regional powers is on the rise. But with so many Americans now struggling to sustain a middle-class standard of living, threats to the nation’s long-term prosperity and to middle-class security demand a wider prism—informed by a deeper understanding of domestic economic and social issues and their complex interaction with foreign policy decisions. That is not an easy shift to make. It will take better interagency coordination, interdisciplinary expertise, and some policy imagination. It will also require the contributions of a new generation of foreign policy professionals who break free of the mold cast during the Cold War and its immediate aftermath.
I think it would also help if those crafting our foreign policy had fewer conflicts of interest. It’s darned hard to benefit most of us when the main objectives of foreign policy become maintaining the wealth and status of those doing the crafting. Keep in mind that, whatever the Constitution or other laws say, U. S. foreign policy is an emergent phenomenon, created from the actions of thousands of diplomats, scholars, and business leaders.
I don’t know if it is possible to get a foreign policy that benefits most Americans. Lt. Col. Vindman testified that he does not believe the President has the authority to change or redirect foreign policies. Any such authority lies in the foreign policy bureaucracy. This extraordinary public testimony went unremarked upon by the press, but coming from a senior commissioned Army officer, it borders on outright mutiny. It is even more striking that he served as Director for European Affairs on the National Security Council.
Despite his testimony, and despite being removed from the NSC because of it, the Army bureaucrats proceeded with plans to promote him to full Colonel. Instead Trump vetoed that promotion, which forced Vindman’s retirement. Yet another demonstration of just how deep and widespread the rot and insubordination go in every department of the federal government.
It would appear that the CIA, NSA, DoD, DoJ, White House staff, and the President all have independent foreign policies and struggle among themselves to implement their personal favorites.
As Hunter Biden has repeatedly demonstrated, there is real money to be made from foreigners. Just how many members of the Deep State/Ruling Class have been suborned to twist our foreign adventures to the benefit of foreign powers.
Until those problems have been addressed (if that is even possible), the American people in general will be victims of US foreign policy and the prey of the Deep State/Ruling Class.
That was a consequence of the “heroes and villains” narrative the media are intent on with Trump as the villain. Not only do I not think that Vindman was a hero in that story, I am deeply distrustful of Ukrainian nationals forming U. S. foreign policy WRT Ukraine in principle. Just as I am deeply distrustful of Poles forming our foreign policy WRT Russia. I remain unconvinced they are solely motivated by our best interests.
I remember when you used to be concerned that a president would just ignore a bill passed byCongress and do whatever he wanted. You dont have to invoke heroes and villains to note that Trump ignored what Congress passed and instead used that money/aid for his own ends.
Steve
I thought there used to be a policy to prevent that; appointing bureaucrats to positions where ancestry would dominate decision making.
Such a policy has obviously been observed in the breach if there was one for decades now; but it seems to have been thrown out the door now.
Such a policy is also strikes at an American hubris; that ancestral feuds are forgotten because you came to the US.
Benefit more Americans:
Four more years!
A foreign policy that focused more on Americans would prioritize economic considerations instead of global policing. We still need to protect the global commons, but a return to a FP that is much more focused on trade and economics is overdue IMO.
“I think it would also help if those crafting our foreign policy had fewer conflicts of interest. ”
Conflicts of interest? You mean like Joe Biden?