Topic: Foreign Policy and National Security

Are Sinjars like Streetcars?

“Pleikus are like streetcars.” That’s how McGeorge Bundy, President Johnson’s national security advisor, explained what the escalation of U.S. bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965 to had to do with the administration’s justification for it, which was a Vietcong attack on U.S. bases near Pleiku. Johnson had already decided to increase bombing, but he wanted a pretext that would make it seem defensive. Bundy meant that, absent the Pleiku attack, another incident would have come along shortly to justify additional bombing. A similar bait-and-switch is occurring today in U.S. Iraq policy.

On August 7, President Obama explained that we were bombing Iraq again to defend U.S. personnel in Erbil and rescue ten of thousands of Yazidi civilians stranded on Mount Sinjar (really mountains) and surrounded by murderous militiamen of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Now, it turns out there were far fewer Yazidis on the mountain than the administration claimed; they are mostly out of harm’s way, and the threat to Erbil has ebbed.

With the two goals he set for bombing achieved, the President quickly offered a third. In the letter sent to Congress on Sunday (pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, which he flouts when it’s inconvenient) the President argued that U.S. bombing would help “Iraqi forces” retake the Mosul dam. Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi Special Forces have now done that. 

Monday, the President again broadened the bombing’s objectives. The airstrikes against ISIS still protect U.S. personnel and serve humanitarian purposes, he said, but now, it seems, those are general goals that ongoing bombing serves. The President also suggested that ISIS is a security threat to the United States. Not for the first time, he said that once the new Iraqi government forms, we will “build up” Iraqi military power against ISIS. 

Will Republicans Offer Alternative to Neoconservative Hillary Clinton in 2016?

U.S. foreign policy is a bipartisan fiasco.  George W. Bush gave the American people Iraq, the gift that keeps on giving.  Barack Obama is a slightly more reluctant warrior, but he is taking the country back into Iraq.

Hillary Clinton, the unannounced Democratic front-runner for 2016, supported her husband’s misbegotten attempt at nation-building in Kosovo and led the drive for war in Libya, which is violently unraveling.  Most of Clinton’s potential GOP opponents share Washington’s bomb, invade, and occupy consensus. 

The only exception is Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.  He stands alone advocating a foreign policy which reflects the bitter, bloody lessons of recent years.

The Islamic State of Syria and the Levant is the latest result of Washington’s incessant and counterproductive meddling in the Middle East.  But the usual suspects are calling for more intervention, more war.  This time, they promise, everything will go well. 

This is the Obama administration’s position in Iraq and Syria.  However, Hillary Clinton has begun maneuvering for 2016 by running to Obama’s right.  While she mocked the president’s mantra of “Don’t do stupid stuff,” she spent her career doing just that.

Instead of offering an alternative leading Republicans are all in for war, more war, forever war.  Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, naturally have been advocating that America intervene more in both Syria and Iraq. 

Most plausible Republican candidates are running toward the interventionist sideline.  They blame Obama for Iraq even though it was George W. Bush who invaded that nation and failed to win Iraqi approval for a permanent U.S. garrison. 

New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie has ostentatiously joined the most hawkish GOP elements.  Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee accused President Obama of guessing wrong in Egypt, Iran, Libya, and Syria, even though the president acted on the traditional Republican script in all four cases.

Florida’s Marco Rubio advocated military action against ISIL, after supporting the usual plethora of interventionist disasters:  war in Libya, more involvement in Syria, and now combat in Iraq.  Texas Sen. Ted Cruz also pushes a strongly hawkish agenda, though he at least opposed bombing Syrian government forces. 

Last month Texas Gov. Rick Perry attacked Paul as an isolationist and advocating that the U.S. go back to war in Iraq.  Michael Goldfarb approvingly said of Perry “you have to assume he’d shoot first and ask questions later.” 

Dramatically misguided was the latter’s contention that “isolationism”—in contrast to the promiscuous interventionism of the last three decades which has spawned so many vicious attacks—threatened to increase terrorism. 

Underlying the torrent of Republican criticism of Paul is fear.  The American people are tired of incessant war-mongering by the Washington elite.  Paul rightly noted that “The country is moving in my direction.”  That’s scary if your political future is tied to policies that have failed so flagrantly and frequently. 

Paul is more cautious than his father, former Rep. Ron Paul.  Nevertheless, Paul fils recently noted that “The let’s-intervene-and-consider-the-consequences-later crowd left us with more than 4,000 Americans dead, over two million refugees and trillions of dollars in debt.”

In citing President Ronald Reagan’s maxim of “peace through strength,” Paul noted some Republicans “have forgotten the first part of the sentence:  That peace should be our goal even as we build our strength.” As I note in my latest Forbes online column, people are tired of young Americans “being treated as gambit pawns in an endless series of global chess games, to be sacrificed whenever folks in Washington dream up a grand new crusade.”

Hillary Clinton represents today’s foreign policy consensus—of constant intervention and war.  Nominating someone who advocates the same failed policy would seem to be the best way for Republicans to lose in 2016.  Will anyone join Rand Paul in charting a different course?

Maliki Turns the Page in Iraq

It is good news that Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has decided to step down as Iraq’s prime minister. This means that, for the first time in Iraq’s modern history, there is the prospect of a peaceful transition of power, based on democratic principles and without the heavy hand of the U.S. military seeming to tip the scales to one party or group.

But don’t pop the champagne just yet. As the New York Times notes today, the new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi—like Maliki, a Shiite and member of the Dawa Party—will likely face many of the same challenges that Maliki did. Abadi will need to find a way to form an inclusive coalition government, one that protects the rights of Sunnis and appeases the Kurds’ desire for autonomy, while maintaining support from Iraqi Shiites.

This is a tall order. Many in the Shiite community that was terrorized for so long by the Sunni minority harbor deep resentment toward their former oppressors. Meanwhile, the Sunnis who held power want desperately to get it back, or at least to be able to protect themselves from reprisals. Some Sunnis are so distrustful of the central government that they’ve thrown their lot with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), whose barabarism seems almost limitless. It is not clear how Abadi will bridge this trust gap.

Americans should wish Iraq’s new leader well, but policymakers should resist the urge to try to micromanage political events in Iraq. Even the appearance of U.S. influence over Abadi will undermine his legitimacy and thus could be counterproductive. Besides, it isn’t obvious that U.S. action—and only U.S. action—is essential to turning things around in Iraq. One suspects that the most vocal critics of President Obama’s Iraq policy have broader concerns. As I explain in today’s Orange County Register:

[W]hen the hawks screech that Obama isn’t doing enough, what they really worry about is that others might actually be able to do without us, or with only minimal assistance. A newly energized Kurdish militia already appears to have reversed some of ISIS’s recent gains. Syria’s Bashar al-Assad might begin rolling back ISIS fighters there. And a new government in Baghdad might finally be able to fashion a credible military force. At a minimum, even modest political reforms—or the prospect of them—could convince more Sunni Iraqis to fight against ISIS instead of for them.

Has Freedom Finally Arrived? No, We’ll Have to Bring It!

The New York Times wonders if the libertarian moment has arrived. Unfortunately, there’ve been false starts before. 

Ronald Reagan’s election seemed the harbinger of a new freedom wave. His rhetoric was great, but actual accomplishments lagged far behind. 

So, too, with the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress.  Alas, the GOP in office behaved little different than many Democrats. 

Since then there’s been even less to celebrate—in America, at least. George W. Bush was an avid proponent of “compassionate,” big-government conservatism. Federa outlays rose faster than under his Democratic predecessor. Barack Obama has continued Uncle Sam’s bailout tradition, promoting corporate welfare, pushing through a massive “stimulus” bill for the bank accounts of federal contractors, and seizing control of what remained private in the health care system.

Over the last half century, members of both parties took a welfare state that was of modest size despite the excesses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and put it on a fiscally unsustainable basis as part of the misnamed “Great Society.” Economist Lawrence Kotlikoff figures government’s total unfunded liability at around $220 trillion. 

The national government has done no better with international issues. Trillions went for misnamed “foreign aid” that subsidized collectivism and autocracy. Trade liberalization faces determined resistance and often is blocked by countries that would gain great benefits from global commerce.

Even worse has been foreign policy. The joy people felt from the collapse of the Berlin Wall a quarter century ago has been forgotten. 

China and the U.S.: Similar Frustrations, Different Policies toward North Korea

SHENYANG, CHINA—China-Korean relations are in a state of flux.  The People’s Republic of China and South Korea have exchanged presidential visits.  Trade statistics suggest that the PRC did not ship any oil to the North during the first quarter of the year.  Chinese academics openly speak of Beijing’s irritation with its long-time ally.

The cold feelings are reciprocated.  Last year North Korea’s Kim Jong-un sent an envoy to the PRC to unsuccessfully request an invitation to visit.  In December Kim had his uncle, Jang Song-taek, the North’s most intimate interlocutor with China, executed.

These circumstances suggest the possibility of a significant foreign policy shift in Beijing away from the North and toward the Republic of Korea.  Washington hopes for greater Chinese willingness to apply economic pressure on Pyongyang.  However, the PRC remains unwilling to risk instability by undermining the Kim dynasty. 

I recently visited China and held scholarly meetings amid excursions to long-missed tourist sites (such as Mao’s Mausoleum!).  I also made it to Shenyang, where relations with the North are of great interest because the city is about a two hour drive from the Yalu River.

I met one senior scholar who indicated that there was no doubt that Beijing-Pyongyang relations had changed since Kim came to power.  The two nations “have a different relationship now and it is becoming colder than ever before.” 

However, Jang’s execution had been “weighed too heavily by Western researchers,” he indicated.  In fact, economic relations had continued.  Jang’s fate was a matter of internal North Korea politics, “the result of the natural struggle for power.” 

This doesn’t mean Beijing was happy about Jang’s fate.  However, Jang’s ouster “is not the reason for the DPRK’s and China’s bad relations.” 

Rather, the principal barrier is the North’s continued development of nuclear weapons.  Kim Jong-un wants to visit China.  But it is “unimaginable for Chinese officials to invite him when he’s doing nuclear tests.  Impossible.”

In return, the North is unhappy over Beijing’s refusal to accommodate Kim as well as the end of oil shipments.  “Also, the DPRK is quite angry over the quick development of Chinese relations with South Korea.” 

This has made Pyongyang “eager to make contact with the U.S.,” an effort which so far has gone nowhere.  This is why the Kim regime “took American citizens as hostages” and invited Dennis Rodman to visit, but these tactics “are not working.” 

The North eventually “shifted the focal point of its foreign relations to Japan.”  For the same reason, though “less importantly the DPRK made contact with Russia.”

The PRC is quite interested in U.S.-DPRK relations and Washington’s view of Japan’s move toward Pyongyang.  “One of the uniform convictions for both the U.S. and China is no nuclear weapons in the DPRK,” he emphasized. 

However, in Beijing’s view the solution is not more sanctions which “everyone has been putting on the DPRK,” but revival of the Six-Party Talks.  This is where agreement between the U.S. and China breaks down. 

The PRC wants more negotiations, preceded by an American willingness to reduce tensions and Pyongyang’s perceived need for a nuclear arsenal.  The U.S. wants the North to make concessions beforehand lest the latest round fail like the many previous efforts.

This clash reflects an even deeper disagreement over competing end states.  Both Washington and Beijing oppose a nuclear North Korea.  However, the U.S., in contrast to China, would welcome a DPRK collapse, even if messy, and favor reunification with the South.

As I write in China-U.S. Focus, It isn’t impossible for American and Chinese policymakers to work through their differences.  However, it will require understanding the other party’s perspective and offering meaningful concessions to make the deal a positive for both parties.

Africa: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Last week, President Obama hosted the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington, D.C. He welcomed over 40 African heads of state and their outsized entourages to what was a festive affair. Indeed, even the Ebola virus in West Africa failed to dampen spirits in the nation’s capital. Perhaps it was the billions of dollars in African investment, announced by America’s great private companies, that was so uplifting.

Good cheer was also observed in the advertising departments of major newspapers. Yes, many of the guest countries paid for lengthy advertisements–page turners–in the newspapers of record. That said, the substantive coverage of this gathering was thin. Neither the good, the bad, nor the ugly, received much ink.

What about the good? Private business creates prosperity, and prosperity is literally good for your health. My friend, the late Peter T. Bauer, documented the benefits of private trade in his classic 1954 book West African Trade. In many subsequent studies, Lord Bauer refuted conventional wisdom with detailed case studies and sharp economic reasoning. He concluded that the only precondition for private trade and prosperity to flourish was individual freedom reinforced by security for person and property.

More recently, Ann Bernstein, a South African, makes clear that the establishment and operation of private businesses does a lot of economic good (see: The Case for Business in Developing Countries, 2010). Yes, businesses create jobs, supply goods and services, spread knowledge, pay taxes, and so forth. Alas, in the Leaders Summit reportage that covered the multi-billion dollar investments by the likes of Coca-Cola, General Electric, and Ford Motor Co., the benefits of the humdrum activity of business and trade were nowhere to be found. But, as they say, “that’s not the president’s thing.”

Let’s move from the good to the bad and the ugly, and focus on the profound misery in Sub-Saharan Africa. I measure misery with a misery index. It is the simple sum of inflation, unemployment, and the bank lending interest rate, minus year on year GDP per capita growth. Using this metric, the countries for Sub-Saharan Africa are ranked in the accompanying table for 2012.

President Obama Makes U.S. Participation Inevitable in Renewed Iraq War

On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson called for a Declaration of War against Germany. His unreasonable policies regarding submarine warfare had made America’s entry well-nigh inevitable.

When President Barack Obama first spoke to the nation about Iraq, he sounded reluctant to be the fourth straight president to intervene militarily.  However, the conditions he set on Washington’s participation guarantee a much broader and longer campaign.

President Wilson implemented a policy which ensured that war would result if Germany used the only maritime weapon it possessed capable of contesting London’s overwhelming naval advantage. Great Britain’s passenger liners carried munitions and were ordered to ram submarines which surfaced to inspect their cargoes. Germans started sinking passenger ships without notice. 

Wilson’s position was that Americans had an absolute right to book passage on belligerent vessels carrying munitions through a war zone. The position was ludicrous. In January 1917 Berlin decided to unleash unlimited submarine warfare against London and Wilson got his casus belli.

Pages