Populism and Foreign Policy
I tell ya, this Obama guy really has the potential to be the populist candidate who I've argued will turn a 2008 Democratic victory into a landslide:
"Look, one thing I'm very confident about is my judgment in foreign policy is, I believe, better than anyone else in this race, Republican or Democrat."And I don't base that simply on the fact that I was right on the war in Iraq. But if you look at how I approached the problem. What I was drawing on was a set of experiences that come from a life of living overseas, having family overseas, being able to see the world through the eyes of people outside our borders.
"The notion that somehow from Washington you get this vast foreign policy experience is illusory."
One can disagree about Obama's belief that his experience living overseas gives him unique insight into foreign policy. I certainly think having that experience disinclines one to view bombs as the best foreign policy option, but its not everything. And as I emphasized, what interests me most about this statement is his view on Washington. At first glance this could be viewed as the tired tactic of running against Washington to get into Washington (AKA the Reagan Doctrine, to twist Krauthammer's coinage). But Obama is applying it to foreign policy thinking, which I think is novel compared to the domestic approach. Obama is suggesting that Washington not only corrupts (that's the domestic pitch) but that it reinforces itself and echoes itself, which leads to bad decisions. I couldn't agree more.
One should assume that there are excellent foreign policy analysts living and working in DC. But certainly their voice is drowned out by the, shall we say, generally hawkish foreign policy elites who have lent weight to such noble endeavors as the "Axis of Evil." Unseating the notion that preemptive war is the best foreign policy option is fundamental to reversing the damage done since 9/11. And part of that task is ignoring the pundits and so-called experts in DC whose influence is unbelievably wide given how much a failure their policies have been. If Obama is telling these people to shove it, then he is on the fast track to what I hope will be a wise foreign policy.
There's quite a bit more to say about this "wise foreign policy," much more than I'm inclined to write now. But I will offer a couple points. It first of all needs to be realistic, which is not an embrace of realpolitik but rather an honest assessment of military capability. The United States, for historical reasons, has become accustomed to the notion that we are invincible, militarily. Even the trauma of Vietnam was not enough to kill this idea. We are not invincible, and further our armed forces are designed to do one thing very, very well: annihilate other large armies on several fronts. That era of warfare ended in 1945. Whether it comes back in the future is also another topic, but the point is that our military is simply not designed for the things neoconservatives and liberal hawks desire. It is designed for destruction, not peacekeeping. Understanding that allows policymakers to set priorities such as reconfiguring our armed forces to accommodate the realities of the so-called unipolar world.
This isn't the same as Rumsfeld's "reforms." Superior technology is meaningless when fighting an insurgency. But Rumsfeld didn't prepare to fight an insurgency, or even prepare for an occupation. The army Rumsfeld presided over upon entering Iraq was designed to kick another army's ass decisively, which it did. Military planning and an assessment of capability were ignored because the notion of invincibility precluded neocons like Rumsfeld from seeing beyond military first strike. Unfortunately, Washington at large also believes that our military can be used benevolently, which really is an absurd notion. Military liberation is when you, say, depose the Vichy Regime and return the French the government they had before Hitler invaded. What we did in Iraq was liquidate the government and then artificially create a framework for popular elections. Democracy, such as it is, develops organically. To ignore the tribal relations of Iraq that only coexisted beforehand under dictatorship is folly. A wise foreign policy would have looked at Iraq and determined that removing the dictator would lead to chaos. Its not like the Bush administration couldn't find any Iraq experts; they chose instead to simply ignore expertise.
All of this is to say that foreign policy is much more than military. But in Washington it is considered virtually treason to even talk to our enemies. That has to change. Iran is talked about exclusively in terms of how and when we can bomb them. Such talk rests on macho insecurity and moral hubris. The United States is strong enough and secure enough to have diplomatic talks with hostile regimes. Cowardice is to call hostile regimes evil and bomb them. That's not confrontation, that's avoidance of confrontation. These people don't--can't--look in the eyes of their enemy before they stick the bayonet in them. That is cowardice. Ironic given these people talk exclusively in terms of strength, courage and will. In reality they want unchecked power to play a real game of Risk. A wise foreign policy has the courage to look danger in the eye and solve the damn problem. Only when we are directly provoked does it make sense to look at military options.
The final point I'd raise is that our current foreign policy depends heavily on the uncertainty of state actors. Our enemies are not only evil, but they are madmen, which is to say they're unpredictable. Which is why we can't let them have nukes, which is why we must preemptively strike them, etc. The madman theory needs to be retired. Because at the end of the day, if all our enemies are madmen, then what can we really do to prevent them from attacking us? If our enemies are incapable of making rational choices and are determined to destroy us, then of course the only option is to nuke 'em all. But that is simply not the case. I can't definitively determine whether the leadership of hostile states are mad or not, but I would wager that if they were willing to accept the cost of using their own nukes against their enemies, they would have done so by now. The fact that they haven't--or can't because they don't have nukes--tells me that they can be bargained with. And if you're not willing to bargain with people you consider evil, then you really have no business being in foreign policy. There is a lot of misery and suffering in the world and oodles of brutality at the behest of evil and powerful men. We could, on principle, eradicate the bad men of the world, but we lack that capability, assuming we're not willing to eradicate the victims of the bad men of the world as well. So clearly the only choice is to use the weight of the United States to push these regimes towards reform. Barring the advent of world government, there is scarce little use for idealism in international relations other than as a goal. And for the record, I think liberal democracy ought to be the goal for all countries on Earth. But I know that can't just happen overnight so I support efforts to push regimes in that direction over time. Ideologues confuse what ought to be with what should be. And that, more than anything, needs to be pushed aside in order to have a wise foreign policy.