Restrained and Intelligent Foreign Policy

In keeping with a recent tradition of writing an entire post just to announce I'm adding another link to the sidebar on a blog that very few people actually read (ahh! self-deprecation is nice!), I'm announcing that I'm adding a new link to the sidebar and I strongly suggest you click on this one.  The link is to a blog on the website Foreign Policy by Stephen M. Walt.  If you're interests range outside of domestic politics at all, and they really should, then Walt's blog is a must read, in my opinion.

In response to the odious Bill Kristol's recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which uses fear-mongering to lobby for continuing the current insane level of funding for our bloated military-industrial complex, Walt gives several reasons why cutting "defense" spending is necessary but unlikely.  He concludes with this:

Which brings me to my main point. Although it is mind-boggling to realize that five percent of the world's population (the United States) now spends more on defense than the other 95 percent put together, this situation is hard to avoid when you see threats emerging virtually everywhere and when you think all of them are best met by an ambitious and highly interventionst foreign policy. If Americans want to be able to go anywhere and do anything, then they are going to have keep spending lots of money, even if all that activity merely reinforces anti-American extremism and makes more people want to come after us. (And for more on that latter point, read this book).

If you want to cut defense spending significantly, in short, you have to make some non-trivial adjustments in U.S. grand strategy. As some of you know, I think the United States would be both more prosperous and safer if we had a more restrained grand strategy and a more intelligent foreign policy. Until that happens, however, reducing defense spending itself is going to be an uphill fight, and our defense expenditures will be closer to the views of Kristol et al than to mine. Unfortunately.

By a more restrained and intelligent foreign policy, he means this, from another recent post of his:

The solution is not to retreat into isolationism and cede the initiative to others. Rather, the solution is to remind ourselves what American power is good for, and avoid taking on tasks for which it is ill-suited. The United States is very good at deterring large-scale aggression, and thus good at ensuring stability in key regions. (That assumes, of course, that we aren't using that same power to destabilize certain regions on purpose). We are sometimes good at brokering peace deals -- as in Northern Ireland and the Balkans -- when we use our power judiciously and fairly. And we've often done a pretty fair job -- in concert with others -- at encouraging intelligent liberalization of the world economy. The United States is not very good at governing foreign societies, especially when the local inhabitants don't want us there and when we have little understanding of how they work. And if we keep trying to do this sort of thing, we're likely to look inept far more often than we look effective.

In short, regaining an aura of competence isn't just about trying harder, or restoring the work ethic and "can do" attitude that we associate (rightly or wrongly) with earlier eras. It also entails picking the right goals and not squandering time, money and lives on fool's errands.

What a refreshing look at American foreign policy, and way more in line with my sense of Christian peacemaking.  Instead of destabilizing regions and starting wars and occupying foreign societies, all of which make us less safe, we should focus our resources on deterring large-scale aggression, brokering peace, and spreading democracy through peaceful means, all of which would make us more safe.

This idea of restrained foreign policy also ties in nicely with the idea that we, as members of the church, should espouse practices and ideas that lead us to more moderation.  We are taught to exercise restraint in everything from consumption to debt to ideology.  But as Americans, we are taught to believe that the world is our playground, that we have a right to create a world, by force if necessary, where Americans are free to go anywhere they want with no restrictions at all, that everyone should love us and laud our positive influence in every region.  The reality is that we simply aren't going to make friends with everyone, there will be places Americans can't go, and we can only improve those conditions through peaceful and patient means.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are disasters.  They have cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.  They will end up costing in the trillions of dollars.  They have no objective end point and there is no hope of meaningful victory.  They have increased terrorism and hatred towards our country.  Our foreign policy is in the hands of people who will not likely learn from these disasters and continue to bluster about military force against Iran, Yemen, and other unfriendly countries.  We are not a country that practices a Christian foreign policy, but it isn't too late to change.

A Culture of War

Glenn Greenwald has documented the increased desire of America to bomb Yemen.  Jeffrey Goldberg has documented the increased American desire to bomb Iran.  President Obama has committed to escalating the unwinnable war in Afghanistan.  Even though we are told that the combat mission in Iraq is coming to a close, there are still 50,000 troops there and combat will likely continue for a long time.  Meanwhile, experts are warning America that our reaction against the inaccurately-named "ground zero mosque" is fueling extremists.

We are caught in a self-defeating cycle.  Some Islamic extremists hate America and want to hurt us.  So America takes military action against Muslims.  So more Muslims hate America and want to harm us.  So America does something else against Muslims.  So they are more enraged and hate us more.  So we react again.  And so on.  If one didn't know any better one might be inclined to think that we are purposefully created conditions that would justify our ongoing military presence in the Middle East.  But that would be silly.

In any case, we can either let this go on indefinitely until we have an all-out world war on our hands or we can step back and try to regain our sanity and perspective by trying out the role of peacemaker for a while.  We can either be a country that is more and more reliant on a massive military-industrial complex or we can choose to disentangle ourselves from foreign intrigue as George Washington presciently advised.

Frankly, though, I find it slightly terrifying how many people in America support escalating our military presence in the Muslim world.  They are positively gleeful at the thought of bombing Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Iran, and Yemen, oh and Pakistan.  I don't want to live in a world where war is the preferred way to solve our difficult international problems, but that's where we're headed if we don't start actively opposing it.

Opposing Nuclear Weapons

In 1981 the First Presidency, in a statement opposing the storage of nuclear weapons in Utah and Nevada, made the following statement:

First, by way of general observation we repeat our warnings against the terrifying arms race in which the nations of the earth are presently engaged. We deplore in particular the building of vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry. We are advised that there is already enough such weaponry to destroy in large measure our civilization, with consequent suffering and misery of incalculable extent.

It is my feeling that nuclear weapons are evil, and that part of the responsibility of bearing the Gospel of Peace is speaking out against them.  I would love for members of the church to take the lead in opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and encouraging the nations of the world to disarm.  This goal can only be achieved through full international cooperation, and since the church is an international entity preaching peace we should have a strong and loud voice.

And there is a lot going on in the world of nuclear weapons these days.  President Obama recently signed a new START Treaty and Protocol with the Russians which will significantly reduce the number of weaponized nuclear warheads in both countries and increase monitoring of the progress of that reduction.

This is important for two reasons.  First, we want to live in a world with fewer nuclear weapons, not more.  We want to live in a world that values and engenders peaceful conflict resolution, not saber-rattling and faux macho-ism.  We want to live in a world where there is a lesser chance of nuclear weapons and materials falling into the hands of terrorists than a greater chance.  Since the United States and Russia possess more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, this treaty and those that will follow are crucial.

Second, it is necessary in our efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons in other parts of the world.  The United States and other signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are in the business not only of not proliferating themselves but of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to currently non-nuclear states.  We can only ask for the latter of other countries with a straight face if we are doing the former.  Non-nuclear states have no incentive not to pursue nuclear weapons if we are not offering to disarm ourselves.

On that note, the Obama Administration has called a nuclear security summit next week which will bring leaders from 46 nations to Washington to discuss how to protect and secure the world's nuclear material and punish those nations like Iran and North Korea that refuse to cooperate.  But, as the invaluable Foreign Policy Magazine points out, all 46 visiting nations have their own agendas and the issues are varied.  It is not as easy and just everyone agreeing to the reduction and securing of nuclear weapons, everyone wants something different in return for cooperation and it is almost unimaginable complex.

Which brings us to the appropriate foil in this whole nuclear story.  As part of the administrations emphasis on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, it recently released a new Nuclear Posture Review.  One of the very sensible things it does is, again in an effort to create a more peaceful world and gain the cooperation of non-nuclear nations, declare that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against conforming NPT nations.  It says the fundamental use for nukes is deterrence.

Our foil -- you guessed it, Sarah Palin -- had this to say in response:

It's unbelievable. Unbelievable. No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today. It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, "Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me."

It goes without saying that she got the facts wrong.  But more embarrassing, she has managed to reduce this entire complex and downright scary issue to a childishly simplistic playground fight analogy.  I don't think we can overstate how dangerous she could be to America, and let me say here that I am becoming absolutely convinced that Palin is the 2012 Republican frontrunner.  She gets the biggest crowds by far, she gets the most media attention by far, she is the preferred candidate among the vocal and energized TPN.  And her response to Pres. Obama trying to get the world to reduce and retard the number of nuclear weapons to a comparison of a couple kids fighting during recess.

I don't know if I'm mortified at the prospect of her leading the nation, not to mention a major political party, or giddy at the thought of an Obama-Palin matchup in 2012 which would likely end in a Reagan-esque 1984.  I guess both.

Because Iranians totally wish they were Republican

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Irandecision 2009 - Iranians Support the GOP
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

I read elsewhere some words of wisdom from Henry Kissinger, who said that Obama is right to not take sides in Iran's current election drama. Without going into it too much here, it's very rarely that I agree with Kissinger on anything. But, quite frankly, his brand of conservative is far more desirable than the current crop who have little to no clue about the intricacies of international relations. Kissinger knew how to dress his deceptions well, and even stumbled across a truth every now and again. Bellowing about Obama's refusal to back Mousavi, on the other hand, fails to take into account how doing so might harm future US-Iranian relations, even if (and especially if) Mousavi is the ultimate victor. In a country where the US is demonized almost as often as Israel, we do ourselves no favors by picking favorites in political disputes. Despite Obama's drastically better grasp of international relations, the image of the US abroad hasn't recovered to the point where we can do anything effective in this situation, other than voice our strong belief that the elections should be judged honestly, and that everyone should have an opportunity to freely speak their mind. It is sad that Kissinger's view on this subject is in the minority in the Republican party -- here's to hoping that won't always be the case.