Walter Russell Mead’s WSJ op-ed on President Obama’s “failed Mideast policy” is getting quite a bit of comment, in the blogosphere and beyond. James Joyner has a nice post on it. Much of the blogospheric commentary has taken the form of ad hominems, the rhetorical equivalent of “Oh, yeah?”
Dr. Mead jumbles strategy and grand strategy a bit in the op-ed. As I read the op-ed he sees the president’s grand strategy was to make the Middle East more democratic using the strategy of working with moderate Islamist groups. That’s the same grand strategy as President Bush had; the difference is in strategy rather than grand strategy.
Every American grand strategy that has been attempted with a top-down approach has foundered. In President Obama’s case it’s because the strategy was a contradiction in terms. President Bush’s strategy had that problem and more—not only did it have internal contradictions (not everyone aspires to democracy) but it lacked the support of substantial portions of the American people.
In the United States grand strategy is an emergent phenomenon. As much as our elites wish they were 19th century British aristocrats, they aren’t. Any successful American grand strategy will come from the bottom up rather than the top down.
What is the American grand strategy for the Middle East? Do we have one? Should we?
“What is the American grand strategy for the Middle East? Do we have one? Should we?”
Can we (have a successful one)?
I heard a commentator yesterday describe Obama’s foreign policy used to be a ‘lead-from-behind’ one. But now it was a more dangerous one of ‘leaving it alone to work itself out.,
We don’t have a grand strategy for the ME or anything else. We’re continuing to muddle-along, drifting from then end of the Cold War, our last grand strategy.
BTW, here is another good critique of the President’s foreign policy:
http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3869/the-absence-of-ambition
Thanks, Andy. The comments on Krepon’s post are particularly interesting. My own view is that ambition, the subject of Krepon’s post, is completely irrelevant to the president’s policies. They are seen solely through the prism of domestic electoral politics.
“President Obama’s foreign and national security policies lack ambition. No wonder he is making little progress on the security challenges facing the United States. The less ambition an administration has, the harder achieving anything becomes.”
Well, I for one am heartily sick of ambitious foreign policy. Fuck those people, Andy. I’m deadly serious. Fuck em all. They are incapable of ruling themselves, incapable of solving their own goddamned problems. Let them destroy themselves. Just exactly what has our expenditure of blood and treasure over the last 50 or so years gotten us? What have the instances of ambitious foreign policy, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, achieved beyond thousands of dead Americans and wastage of American wealth? Nothing. Nothing at all. Except enmity. Time to thrown the star down into the dust and walk away. Let them save themselves if they can.
Sam,
I think you’re misreading the post. Take a look at Krepon’s biography. This is not a man who is supportive of military adventurism.
I wasn’t criticizing Krepon himself for advocating muscularity in foreign policy, only the idea of an “ambitious foreign policy”. I think it is naive to suppose that an ambitious foreign policy can be crafted that does not, sooner or later, entail to use of American military force to achieve its objectives.
Sam,
On the contrary, one of Krepon’s recommendations is negotiations with Iran. There is a new opportunity there for rapprochement and where is the administration? There are also a number of arms control initiatives (which is Krepon’s area of expertise.). There is also the bigger picture of reevaluating America’s role in the world with respect to our Cold War alliances, etc. There is a lot of opportunity out there….
In short, the criticism the President “lacks ambition” in foreign policy is a criticism that the President has little in terms of goals or interests that he’s willing to spend significant political capital on. Do you think that’s an accurate assessment?
Also, I think a couple of Zen’s posts are relevant here:
Is Grand Strategy Democratic?
zenpundit.com » Blog Archive » Syria, Iran and the Risks of Tactical Geopolitics
You are missing my point. I’ll repeat it: I want us to get the hell out of the global superpower cum world-wide 911 number business. I don’t want us to have an ambitious foreign policy. I don’t want our ambitions to extend to the possibility — eventuality, if history is any judge in the middle east — of American military intervention in any part of the world. We’ve done enough. We’ve died enough. We’ve spent enough. Let the rest of them assume the responsibility for their own security.
“one of Krepon’s recommendations is negotiations with Iran”
And that begs the question I’m asking: Why should we care if the Iranians get a nuke? Or the North Koreans, for that matter? What is the direct threat to our security – not Israel’s, not South Korea’s, not Japan’s, but our’s? None that I can see.
And you’re missing my point. “Get the hell out of the global superpower” business is an ambitious foreign policy. Ambitious in terms of the status quo, which is how Krepon uses the term.
Maybe we shouldn’t. If we made that our policy that would be an ambitious policy.
Krepon’s point is that we’re not doing much of anything one way or another. Opportunities come up and there is little effort to take advantage of them. There is little effort to create new opportunities either, hence there is a lack of ambition with respect to foreign policy. It’s all about the crisis du jour.
” It’s all about the crisis du jour.”
If you’re not involved, there is no crisis du jour.
sam, whatever your or my preferences might be the American people simply won’t allow us to be uninvolved. At any given time between 3 and 6 million Americans live and/or work overseas. They constitute an interest that can’t be ignored.
Being uninvolved would mean closing our border in both directions as tight as a drum. Complete isolation. I can’t imagine that happening.
Don’t make the mistake that so many do: thinking that military intervention is the only intervention we do that counts. Not only do we engage in military intervention and economic intervention into the affairs of other countries but there are who knows how many Americans working for NGOs who are intervening in the societies of other countries. Providing healthcare and education (not to mention missionary activity) can be as disruptive as dropping bombs. Maybe more so.
I dont know what you mean by a grand strategy coming from the bottom up.
Steve
Sometimes, when you wait so long to take action on a problem, the options regarding the span of viable options shrinks.