| Foreign Policy Challenges Face the Next President |
|
|
|
| by Wes Riddle | Wed, Oct 8, 2008, 05:39 PM |
|
The biggest thing in the news and on people’s minds lately, and understandably, has been the credit crunch and implicitly the extent to which it threatens financial institutions and poses a threat to economic wellbeing in the country and indeed around the world. Boys and girls on Wall Street screwed up, and their mistakes trickle down a lot quicker than the obscene profits do. Effects could be stagflation, unemployment, not to mention declining value of stock, which affects so many savings and investment vehicles like mutual funds or retirement accounts. Wall Street is tied to Main Street in other words. Bad bank loans might mean someone misses payroll and someone else gets laid off. The Treasury Secretary and Fed Chairman used the last ounce of credibility left to this administration and sounded an alarm the sky was falling. They looked visibly rattled during testimony, so much so the Congress actually moved to do something. Amazing. Wise, unwise or indifferent Congress acted to rescue private interests with public money and to socialize the economy further. Government is convinced now it can repeal the business cycle and prevent ever having another recession, at least a deep one (Government does everything else so well. Why worry). Precisely. The next president, whomever he is, is going to have unprecedented problems to manage, economically speaking. Ditto in terms of foreign policy. Moreover, the linkage between the economy and foreign affairs has perhaps never been as star-crossed. It takes money backed by more than debt to run an empire, hold enemies at bay and help out friends. That’s in a good year. Whether or not you are embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan, or faced with a subversive adversary like Iran or an outwardly resurgent hegemonic hopeful like Russia. Risk is better played on board games than on banks and battlefields. The list of problems facing the next president will be large. Moreover, the country is moving from one policy phase to another. The situation in Iraq has turned around since 2006 and is all but won, if by winning we mean sufficiently stabilized. Soon U.S. concerns and foreign policy debate won’t be all about Iraq, but rather on how best to responsibly downsize forces in Iraq to face mounting challenges elsewhere, including in Afghanistan, with resources that are admittedly stretched thin. If we are smart we’ll invest some slack in a strategic reserve of forces, i.e., not to commit all our troops but to give ourselves flexibility, just in case things go south in Pakistan or we’re faced with events in the former Soviet Union like the recent conflict in Georgia (to say nothing of domestic hurricanes). The next president will confront difficult situations with Iran, as well as with Russia. The two are not equal, however, as the threat Russia poses far exceeds anything Iran can do. One very important strategic challenge involves keeping Russia from successfully reaching out to Iran and Iran from accepting strategic accommodation and/or cooperation with Russia. We ought to work hard to achieve a more stable understanding with Iran if possible. We need Iran to stop hurting our interest in Iraq and start helping it in Afghanistan; after all, there’s no love lost between Iran and the Taliban, any more than with Saddam Hussein. Both Iraq and Afghanistan border Iran too, which given U.S. troop presence in those countries, should give pause to consider a perception of threat posed by us—particularly if we believe they are part of an ‘axis of evil.’ Even if by hard work and bargaining we win Iranian cooperation, we won’t win the war in Afghanistan without closing down sanctuary and supply lines entering in from Pakistan, which constitute the Vietnam equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The president also needs to close the book on Al Qaeda and stop exploiting that threat for political purposes and for concentrating power in Washington. It is as easy and as hard as declaring victory and moving to other foreign policy challenges. The fact is that Al Qaeda is decimated and hasn’t been successful in attacks in the United States since 2001 or in Europe since 2005. That doesn’t mean Islamist terrorism won’t be around for a long time, but it does mean the war on terrorism is down to swatting fleas and watching for larvae to grow. There are successful models to employ moreover, which do not involve wholesale occupation of foreign countries. We need Turkey’s cooperation more vis-à-vis a resurgent Russia (Georgia borders on Turkey), than we need stoke worries over Iraqi ‘Kurdistan’ (which also borders Turkey). Talk about change. Americans want change. This is a so-called change election. Both Republicans and Democrats spout about change, and it’s a campaign slogan for at least one major party candidate. But change in foreign affairs as the term indicates, follows events that aren’t altogether in domestic hands. Many of the most important issues from 2009 to 2013 can’t even be imagined today any more than 9/11 was foreseen during the election of 2000. Any more than Truman knew Korea would dominate his second term or JFK expected the Cuban Missile Crisis to happen or knew it would define his presidency. In 1976 Carter didn’t imagine his presidency would or could be wrecked by an Iranian revolution deposing the Shah and American hostages being taken. George H.W. Bush didn’t expect to preside over the collapse of communism either. The point is that it isn’t all about the economy stupid. Ultimately voters will judge which of the candidates has the character and competence needed to lead and to make right decisions in a very challenging, geopolitical landscape. Clearly soldiers on the front have their duties. Public servants also have theirs, from the postman to the fireman to the policeman to the teacher. We don’t think of it nearly enough, but while the freeman, freewoman and citizen have arguably few of what are termed duties per se, the one that stands out in peace and in war, in boom or in bust is the duty to vote. It is the duty as it were, to determine who takes the helm and steers a course through known and choppy water and perhaps through a few spans uncharted.
Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he ran for U.S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary. This article loosely based on reports by George Friedman, Chief Intelligence Officer of Strategic Forecasting (STRATFOR) in September 2008. Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (7)
![]()
...
written by Boo , October 09, 2008 That was a whole lot of words to state that we can't foresee what will happen in the next four years.
...
written by ElHombre , October 10, 2008 Shorter Wes Riddle: The next President will have to start fixing all the problems created by the current one (which I won't mention I've been supporting until it became too obvious that doing so made me look like a total tool).
...
written by Wes , October 10, 2008 ElHombre, Thank you for the synopsis! You only left out that I haven't exactly been a cheerleader for the Bush administration, starting with the first term. I've been highly critical during virtually all of the second. Principled conservatives, whether traditional, constitutional or libertarian are beside themselves.... Foreign policy of preemptive and perpetual wars without formal declarations, the misleading use of intelligence, public disinformation campaigns; and domestic policy, particularly the loss of civil rights, and out of control spending; as well as sheer incompetence (e.g., Katrina, border insecurity). Obama is not my choice, but no incumbent party has ever worked as hard to lose an election.
...
written by Boo , October 11, 2008 Was: I just wanted to stop by to say thanks for posting. I haven't been posting on this blog for long (perhaps two months tops?), and you are the first contributor I've seen who has cared to wade into the fray with the rest of us. Thanks for posting man. It's good to see a contributor stating his case beyond the initial posting.
...
written by Steve Heath , October 11, 2008 Scott- "Iraq all but won"" If so, its a phyrhic victory at best. Over 4,000 deaths, tens of thousands of wounded, a trillion dollars to have a established a Shiite corridor under iranian influence in the Middle east? We'll see if we 'won" after we are forced to leave due to our own economic crisis which apparently is not going to get better any time soon. What other costs? How about America suffering a cataclysmic economic collapse, in part due to the costs of this trillion dollar war which sold to us on lies, one of which is that it would be a cakewalk and cost only $50 billion. How about the loss of prestige and influence among the world, including the populations of our most trusted allies? If that's a victory, I'd hate to think what could have happened if we lost. Russia is not our enemy. Georgia forces were trained and possibly controlled by the U.S. and israel. Georgia started that war. We chose to try to cut off Russia from access to oil reserves in the Caucuses. We chose to invade and destroy the their pseudo ally and large trading partner -iraq. We chose to make continuous threats to invade Iran - another country on Russia's border. We chose to violate agreements made to Gorbachev by meddling in their backyard, recruiting their former Soviet allies and provinces like Georgia and the Ukraine to join NATO -an alliance which hardly needed to exist at the end of the Cold War. Maybe Putin's reigning in, running off or imprisoning the Oligarchs had something to do with why the Neocons have such a virulent hatred of Russia.I beleive Khororovsky was on the verge of selling Yukos oil to Exxon on the eve he was slapped into prison by Putin. The oligarchs enslaved and impoverished the Russian people. We need to get over this. many conservatives believe there is no reason to restart the Cold war by making Russia into an enemy. I never hear anyone (other than pat Buchanan and a few good conservatives) mention that perhaps there is another side to this story. There is -but we never hear it from our politicians and our mainstream media. I think a good foreign policy for our next president would be to try to peacefully co-exist with Russia and establish trade and joint economic development. They're sitting on an ocean of natural gas and oil reserves, as well as dollars. I don't think the Chinese and others will be too willing to fund another foreign war for America -especially with Russia.
...
written by Wes , October 12, 2008 Steve, No problem. We do need to avoid precipitating another Cold War with Russia if at all possible. Would like to help them foster reform, but Putin isn't interested at least for now, and I don't think we've been smart or played the honest broker dealing with Russia. You're right, Cold War II would help satisfy deep longings for perpetual conflict that Neocons share, in order to enhance the state. Also agree it isn't all clear cut about Georgia...these areas may have legitimate aspirations for self-determination and even choose to align with Russia. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Write comment
|
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|



























