Foreign policy has been relegated to the back-burner in the primaries of both parties. We need to press the candidates on their vision for the role of the U.S. in the world. Barack Obama shared his vision for a more restrained and thoughtful foreign policy. Obama has shown a spine of steel sticking to this vision during an incredibly turbulent period, despite what people are saying today about yesterday’s announcement of a handful of trainers on the ground in Syria. (Would that we had listened to Joe Biden on the region.)
Liberal interventionism is part of the great American post-World War II optimism about the spread of real democracy around the world, ranging from the training of judges to other peaceful means of engagement such as the Peace Corps. As Americans, we need to stay engaged.
We Democrats must not let the disastrous decisions and bluster of George W. Bush haunt us into an isolationist closet.
It has been inspiring to hear Bernie Sanders boldly explain the need to wage a political fight to value, protect, and expand Social Security and other facets of American social democracy in plain language. But when it comes to foreign policy, he rarely volunteers a word unless coaxed, other than to criticize ‘dumb war’ blunders.
Will the U.S. abandon those around the world who look to the democratic states to pay attention to violations of their political rights? China is on the ascendancy around the developing world – not just as an economic model, but also as a model for governance.
Neither Sanders nor Secretary Clinton has yet explained how they would replace the void in their foreign policies created by their opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Foreign policy is more than trade. A recent article in the Nation https://www.thenation.com/article/barack-obama-is-a-foreign-policy-grandmaster/ outlined Obama’s strategic brilliance and the critical importance of this agreement as part of the long-term Obama strategy to create a future where the largely democratic states of the TPP can counter the relentless economic muscle-flexing of China.
Clinton surely understands this broader strategic imperative. After all, she had a hand in crafting the deal itself. So far, by contrast, there have been signs that Sanders may lead the U.S. into a new isolationism of the left. Isolationism would be very dangerous for both us and the world, and could ironically lead back to a ‘dumb’ war – this time not of our choosing. If this is not true, Sanders should say what his vision is for our forward engagement with the world.
Terry McGinty
I too have had concerns that the progressive wing of the party is creeping toward isolationism. I for one am more-or-less Wilsonian and believe intervention is at least worth considering for humanitarian reasons, though prefer to build coalitions rather than act unilaterally.
The conduct of foreign policy has been Barack Obama’s greatest disappointment for me. He was so incredibly inspirational during the campaign, especially during his 2008 European tour.
Sadly, perhaps inevitably, his performance as President did not even come close to the expectations he set as candidate.
I will always believe that Barack Obama’s decision to ignore the war crimes of his predecessor, to keep GITMO open during his entire administration, and his apparent embrace of the wholesale shredding of our privacy rights destroyed any chance of his leading a renewal of international respect, affection, and admiration of America. Those decisions made it painfully clear that the inspiring speeches of candidate Barack Obama in 2008 were artful creations whose sole purpose was to win an election.
America was once, in my lifetime, THE bulwark of the free world against tyranny, torture, and oppression. Even more poignantly, America was once THE place in the world where men and women knew that they could speak, read, write and converse in the safe expectation of actual and real privacy. Americans reacted with horror and thank-god-it-doesn’t-happen-here revulsion to the spying of the KGB and Stasi on their own citizenry.
Candidate Barack Obama promised to restore that position in the world. President Barack Obama betrayed that promise.
…can more rightly be blamed on Congress.
We’re talking about foreign policy. The world doesn’t care why Barack Obama couldn’t or didn’t get the job done.
On another thread, I talked about effectiveness. This is an example of what I mean. Talking about closing GITMO is easy. Actually getting it closed proved to be too difficult for Barack Obama, at least so far.
America will not be a leader of today’s free world while GITMO is open — the reasons why it stays open are irrelevant.
The Times has a good rundown on this issue today. Congress, including far too many Democrats, tied his hands behind his back and made it illegal to move the prisoners, and Lindsey Graham has kept them from being tried as civilians. Obama couldn’t veto NDAA in an election year, he did veto it this year precisely since he wants the authority restored. He could move them via executive order but it may be illegal and his counsel are split on it, giving this Congress impeachment fodder during an election year
might not be a wise move. He’s freed those he can, improved the conditions on the ground, and hopefully can make a change so he or his successor can free them.
I get that Congress stopped Barack Obama from closing GITMO. That is an excuse, rather than a solution. In my view, a more effective President would have somehow gotten the job done.
Had Mr. Obama been more proactive about investigating and prosecuting the probable war crimes of the previous administration, the excuses about GITMO might have sounded less hollow. I appreciate the apparent toughening of his stance more recently — in my view, it reflects growth based on his experience in office.
Nevertheless, Barack Obama took office in 2008 with a Democratic House and Senate and after a convincing win. In my view, a more effective President could have done far more to fulfill rather than betray the expectations he created as a candidate.
grow up?
In the 1950s, we engineered regime change in Iran and Guatemala. We also began our colossally misguided policy in Vietnam and its environs. In the 1960s, there was COINTELPRO actively spying on anyone the paranoid J. Edgar Hoover could think of. In the 1970s, we engineered the coup that brought Pinochet to Chile. We funded the Contras in Nicaragua. We destroyed Iraq and upset the balance of power between Shi’a and Sunnis. We blew whatever opportunity we had in Afghanistan.
I’m all for engagement in the world, but it matters what we do. We have a lousy record when it comes to spreading democracy. We haven’t won a war since World War II.
No nation is perfect. I mark Vietnam as the turning point from our post-warII leadership into our current cynical miasma.
I’m just observing that in my view we have essentially abandoned the leadership that we sought and gained during the 1950s. I’m acutely aware of the abuses of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI. Those were, however, bush-league in comparison to the wholesale embrace of a surveillance state that reigns today.
Mr. Hoover was a secret embarrassment, mostly hidden from the public and motivated by the petty self-interest of a single very unhappy man. Today, our surveillance is a matter of public policy pursued by both Republican and Democratic administrations with the formal consent of Congress.
This is not how I define “restraint”: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176048/tomgram%3A_nick_turse,_a_secret_war_in_135_countries/.
Obama has entrenched the amorphous, often unconstitutional, and endless “war on terror” started by Bush.
I find it incredibly troubling that you–like so many people–equate “engagement” with “military engagement.” There are so many ways that the US can play a positive role in the world, but it often doesn’t–and the military is not the form it could take. The US is often working to crush democratic forces in order to protect the profits of large corporations and investors (See the long history and present of US “engagement” in Latin America). The US also provides weapons and military training to violent and reactionary dictatorships (Egypt), imperialistic monarchies (Saudi Arabia, whose war crimes in Yemen have been committed on the US taxpayer’s dime), and apartheid states with near-genocidal goals (Israel).
There are many global problems that need global solutions (climate change one of many examples). Global cultural and academic exchange is desirable and mutually beneficial. And we need global redistribution in light of the still-stunning levels of poverty worldwide. And the far-reaching tentacles of the US military will not serve these ends and often directly counter them and make progress more difficult, if not impossible.
There are right and wrong reasons and ways to engage, even militarily. I too wish we wouldn’t overthrow democracies and prop up dictators (though that’s more Cold War than Obama era), but it is right to intervene for humanitarian or peacekeeping reasons.
of so many discussions on so-called progressive blog sites — the denigration of Israel with unsupported and inflammatory slogans. I know it’s been in vogue to term Israel an apartheid state, but the use of the term simply trivializes the true apartheid state that was South Africa, and does nothing to advance rational debate about the Middle East.
But your comment about Israel having “near genocidal goals” really takes the cake. This stands the reality of the Middle East on its head. If Israel has these goals, or “near goals,” whatever that is, where are they stated, and what Israeli in power has called for the genocide of the Palestinians?
Can we please have a debate about foreign policy without a pissing contest over Israel?
There are strong opinions on each side, those opinions have been aired countless times, and another flame-war about Israel isn’t going to change anybody’s mind.
The very fact that we cannot have a conversation about America’s foreign policy and about America’s role in the world without yet another stupid shouting match about Israel exemplifies why America is little more than a bully that the rest of the world keeps subdued in the corner as much as possible.
It appears to me that the two of you agree on nearly everything except Israel. Perhaps we might leave it at that.
are largely pointless because they become flame-wars. That’s the point of my comment. I’m not against rational criticism of Israel on this or any other site. I do reserve the right to respond to unsupported and inflammatory accusations that appear here.
Since there are none left in the presidential race. Webb and Chafee were realists in theory-both awful personalities for conveying that dying school of foreign policy needed now more than ever. Particularly Webb, who opposes he realist Iran deal. In many ways, this is a historically conservative foreign policy. My foreign policy heroes are Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Richard Lugar, Andrew Bacevich, and Anthony Lake-only the latter of whom is a Democrat. Walt and Mearsheimer are often right, but sometimes endorse or oppose actions I largely agree with and tend to underestimate how a two state solution is the only viable path on that issue.
Generally though, we know Hillary has been a bit of a Scoop Jackson liberal hawk, very Wilsonian but far more multilateral than the neocons. Obama has been a realist in his second term while largely vaccinating between Wilsonian and realist impulses in his first term. Having been in neither camp, he has made some errors he could’ve avoided.
Bernie is a bit too interventionist in some regards, endorsing the status quo on ISIL where I think our strategy has failed miserably, endorsing the Balkan intervention which had far more mixed results than is remembered and has required a near permanent American troop presence in that region to keep the peace. No discussion of Bob Gates’ end of term speech to end European rent seeking, no discussion of dealing with our true threats Russia and China, no discussion of how to solve these problems. The voters and the media don’t care, which is why I think we will be lurching towards inertia on these questions. In which case, continuing the Obama status quo is probably the lesser of two evils.
Obama has functionally crushed the Russia economy without firing a shot. It’s nearly Sicilian in its cold-blooded brilliance. Politically speaking, Putin is bleeding out.
The U.S. and China have no choice but to live with one another. As the world’s two largest economies we will be rivals and we will mess with one another, but we are also strategic partners.
Those are our only real rivals for power, and the only countries with the capability to hit the homeland in a devastating and direct way. I completely agree with you about Russia, which is why the media is so dumb when it comes to covering foreign policy as sabutai pointed out below.
That 60 Minutes response was great, Kroft might as well have asked “why do you let Putin make you look like a pussy?” and Obama said “two wars and a wrecked economy aren’t tough”, which could’ve been an 08′ campaign line too…
The buildup is real, the risk of direct conflict is low but they are looking like 1914 Germany and East Asia is as tense as the Balkans. I watch Filipino news channels my future in laws get and that’s all they seem to talk about. The Spratly Islands could be the Sarajevo of this century if we aren’t careful. It’s worth managing better, and Obama’s strategy of cooperation mixed with containment seems to be a prudent one.
All of the East Asian countries start listening to what China has to say rather than us.
Russia touches on so many countries and has fingers in the Middle East and could have greater influence than us. They could also keep things stirred up, which suits their aims (which include higher oil prices).
I think we need a long term strategy in both regions, and I don’t think we have it.
About the only good reason to support the TPP is as an economic counterweight to the financial zones Russia has set up in Central Asia and China is trying to set up in East Asia. Russia is getting hammered by sanctions, it has already experienced likely blowback for intervening in Syria, and will continue to be contained and bogged down by these conflicts and a joint response.
China is experienced significant economic contractions, a demographic time bomb, and has isolated itself from it’s regional partners. It’s obviously trading with everyone, even the government it still doesn’t recognize in Taiwan, but it is looking like it’s power projection will be trending downward rather than upward. And Obama deserves real credit for his Russian response and the Asian pivot, even if most Americans don’t understand why those things are actually tough actions.
Where I worry is how these states start to react, and if they miscalculate, on their way down the power pole. And it’s hard to argue we are anything if not overextended, knee deep in Middle Eastern morass of our own creation, and one we need to extricate ourselves from with a focus on restoring stability over democracy promotion.
When people wonder why we still have troops in Europe or the Far East and why those countries can’t defend themselves, it’s because if we weren’t there, they wouldn’t listen to us at all. We want to be there.
The US and the Philippines had a long history together and we had our base at Subic Bay. The Filipinos asked us to leave and they’ve been just another country ever since.
This isn’t about trade zones. China sees themselves as the greatest country on the planet. The natural extension of what they once were. It’s not far-fetched- we had that whole manifest destiny thing going for decades. They will act however they want, and only the US stands in their way. The Spratley’s are just a probe/test whatever you want to call it.
I just don’t think realistically we can keep it up.
Totally agreed on this point. Our military is designed to kill people. Even during the Clinton years, the primary goal of the U.S. Army was to make its soldiers the most lethal fighting force on the planet. If you want to drop some bodies, then by all means send the military.
However, if you want to engage the world with a foreign policy that accentuates rights for women, better treatment of minorities and more open societies, then you need to send diplomats and business people. An underappreciated part of the Iran nuclear was the carrot of loosening trade embargoes and putting more money in Iran’s pocket. We should want nothing more than Iran to develop of robust economy. Trade and distributed wealth breaks down monolithic societies. Ultimately what’s going to stop Iran from pulling the nuclear trigger won’t be the lack of technology and material, it will be Iran having too much to lose if it acts like a rogue nation.
What’s missing from our national foreign policy discussion is how do we get more people and nations to have a stake in a more peaceful world. We need to expand prosperity and partner in positive initiatives. If our definition of “engagement” continues to be synonymous with “death from above,” then we will find the world increasingly hostile towards us. The fundamental problem with the War on Terror is it positions us to have an almost endless list of enemies. If we pick that fight, eventually we lose it.
Because if so, call me isolationist. But being a UNREALISTIC PROGRESSIVE, I do think it can be just as effective – if not moreso – to engage without bombing innocent people.
Yes, foreign policy is on the back burner because our unofficial wars are distant with tolerable levels of American deaths for the media, and existential war is really the only thing that makes Americans notice the other countries of the world.
If the American polity could just get one idea together about foreign policy, I wish it would be — it’s hard. The media and politicians need to stop pretending we can “fix” Syria, Yemen, Somalia, etc., by bombing the ‘right people’. Even if we had the technology only to kill the ‘right people’, we have no idea who those people are, and we have no idea if the ‘right people’ today will be ‘wrong’ tomorrow (mujhadeen, Iraq). We can’t fix Syria. And for some reason, voters see the president as Mommy or Daddy who will fix everything, but we can’t fix it.