Topic: Foreign Policy and National Security

Marco Rubio’s Breathtaking Myopia

Sen. Marco Rubio might fancy himself as a new type of leader for a new era, but his speech yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations was trapped in the past. Invoking John F. Kennedy’s final speech as president, more than 50 years ago, was bad enough. But Rubio’s overarching message – the Rubio Doctrine – amounts to warmed over Cold War dogma, sprinkled with the language of benevolent global hegemony favored by so many Washington elites, but disdained by most Americans beyond the Beltway. It is difficult to understand the depths of his political and strategic myopia.

Rubio misperceives the American public’s willingness to sustain the current model indefinitely, and therefore fails to appreciate the need for a genuinely new approach to U.S. global affairs. He minimizes the costs and risks of our current foreign policies, and oversells the benefits. He ignores the way in which U.S. security assurances to a host of some-of-the-time allies have discouraged these countries from taking reasonable steps to defend themselves and their interests. And he fails to see any reasonable alternative to a world in which the United States acts – forever, it seems – as the sole guarantor of global security. Specifically, Rubio pledged: “As president, I will use American power to oppose any violations of international waters, airspace, cyberspace, or outer space.” (Any? Whew!) 

To be sure, many people around the world may be happy to allow U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to attempt such an ambitious undertaking, and to have American taxpayers pick up the tab. It is reasonable to guess that most foreign leaders are anxious to preserve the current order – so long as the U.S. government provides for their defense, they are free to spend their money on other things. But the fact that foreigners like this arrangment doesn’t explain why most Americans would. When Rubio calls for huge increases in the Pentagon’s budget, he is telling Americans that they should be content to accept higher taxes, more debt, and less money to spend here at home, so that U.S. allies elsewhere can neglect their defenses, and feed their bloated welfare states.

U.S. Should Avoid Ukraine Fight

The ceasefire in eastern Ukraine is under strain as Kiev presses the West for more financial and military aid. Americans’ sympathies should go to both Ukrainians and Russians suffering in Vladimir Putin’s deadly geopolitical games, but Washington should stay out of the battle.

Putin obviously bears immediate responsibility for the conflict. However, Washington and Brussels consistently disregarded Russian security interests.

That still didn’t justify Putin’s actions and the results have been a horror for many Ukrainians, though Kiev’s military and nationalist militias have contributed to the unnecessary carnage. However, Moscow views the war less about expanding Russia’s “empire” than about protecting Russia from America’s expanding “empire.”

The U.S. should not intervene and treat Moscow as an adversary. To the contrary, Washington should stay out of the conflict and maintain a passable relationship with Russia.

Sinking the Lusitania: Lying America into War, Again

The British luxury passenger liner RMS Lusitania was torpedoed a century ago. The sinking was deemed an atrocity of war and encouraged American intervention in World War I.

But the ship was carrying munitions through a war zone and left unprotected by the Royal Navy. The “Great War” was a thoroughly modern conflict, enshrouded in government lies. We see similar deceptions today.

World War I was a mindless imperial slugfest triggered by an act of state terrorism by Serbian authorities. Contending alliances acted as transmission belts of war. Nearly 20 million died in the resulting military avalanche.

America’s Woodrow Wilson initially declared neutrality, though he in fact leaned sharply toward the motley “Entente.” The German-led Central Powers were no prize. However, the British grouping included a terrorist state, an anti-Semitic despotism, a ruthless imperial power, and a militaristic colonial republic.

Britain was the best of a bad lot, but it ruled much of the globe without the consent of those “governed.” This clash of empires was no “war for democracy” as often characterized.

New Defense Guidelines with Japan Threaten U.S. Confrontation with China

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s trip to Washington demonstrated that Japan remains America’s number one Asian ally. Unfortunately, the relationship increases the likelihood of a confrontation between the United States and China.

Japan’s international role has been sharply limited since World War II. During Prime Minister Abe’s visit, the two governments released new “Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation.” The document clearly sets America against China.

First, the rewrite targets China. Japan’s greatest security concern is the ongoing Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute and Tokyo had pushed hard for an explicit U.S. guarantee for the unpopulated rocks. Second, Japan’s promise to do more means little; the document stated that it created no “legal rights or obligations.” Tokyo will remain reluctant to act outside of core Japanese interests.

Third, though the new rules remove geographical limits from Japanese operations, most of Japan’s new international responsibilities appeared to be what Prime Minister Abe called “human security.” In his speech to Congress, the prime minister mostly cited humanitarian and peacekeeping operations as examples of his nation’s new duties.

Moreover, the guidelines indicate that the SDF’s military involvement will be “from the rear and not on offensive operations,” noted analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Defense Minister Gen Nakatani cited “ship inspection” as an example of helping America’s defense.

Tokyo’s New Military Guidelines Leave U.S. Defending Japan

When Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited Washington he brought plans for a more expansive international role for his country. But the military burden of defending Japan will continue to fall disproportionately on America.

As occupying power, the U.S. imposed the “peace constitution” on Tokyo, with Article Nine banning possession of a military. As the Cold War developed, however, Washington recognized that a rearmed Japan could play an important security role.

However, Japan’s governments hid between the amendment to cap military outlays and limit the Self-Defense Forces’ role, ensuring American protection. That approach also suited Tokyo’s neighbors, which had suffered under Imperial Japan’s brutal occupation.

In recent years Japanese sentiment has shifted toward a more vigorous role out of fear of North Korea and China. This changing environment generated new bilateral defense “guidelines.”

Yet the focus is Japanese, not American security. In essence, the new standards affirm what should have been obvious all along—Japan will help America defend Japan. In contrast, there is nothing about Tokyo supporting U.S. defense other than as part of “cooperation for regional and global peace and security.”

This approach was evident in the Prime Minister Abe’s speech to Congress, when he emphasized that Tokyo’s responsibility is to “fortify the U.S.-Japan alliance.” He said Japan would “take yet more responsibility for the peace and stability in the world,” but as examples mostly cited humanitarian and peace-keeping operations.

Worse, Japan’s military outlays were essentially flat over the last decade while Washington, and more ominously for Japan, the People’s Republic of China, dramatically increased military expenditures. The U.S. is expected to fill the widening gap.

Obviously Tokyo sees its job is non-combat, relatively costless and riskless social work which will enhance Tokyo’s international reputation. Even Tokyo’s potential new “security” duties appear designed to avoid combat—cyber warfare, reconnaissance, mine-sweeping, logistics.

As I point out in Forbes, “Washington’s job is to do anything bloody or messy. That is, deter and fight wars with other militaries, a task which the prime minister ignored. Indeed, the U.S. is expected to do even more to defend Japan, deploying new military equipment, for instance.”

While America has an obvious interest in Japan’s continued independence, no one imagines a Chinese attempt to conquer Tokyo. Rather, the most likely trigger for conflict today is the Senkaku Islands, a half dozen valueless pieces of rock. Abe so far has preferred confrontation to compromise—a stance reinforced by Washington’s guarantee.

Abe’s historical revisionism further inflames regional tensions. Abe addressed the historical controversy in his speech to Congress but more remains to be done.

U.S. officials appear to have forgotten the purpose of alliances. Abe was eloquent in stating why Japan enjoyed being allied with America. It isn’t evident what the U.S. receives in return.

After World War II the U.S. sensibly shielded allied states from totalitarian assault as they recovered. That policy succeeded decades ago. Now Washington should cede responsibility for defending its populous and prosperous allies.

America should remain a watchful and wary friend, prepared to act from afar against potentially hostile hegemonic threats. In the meantime Washington should let other states manage day-to-day disputes and controversies.

The U.S. should not tell Tokyo what to do. Rather, Washington should explain what it will not do. No promise of war on Japan’s behalf, no forward military deployment, no guarantee for Japanese commerce at sea, no Pentagon backing for contested territorial claims.

This would force the Japanese people to debate their security needs, set priorities, and pay the cost. Moreover, Tokyo would have added incentive to improve its relationships with neighboring states.

After 70 years the U.S. should stop playing globocop, especially in regions where powerful, democratic friends such as Japan can do so much more to defend themselves and their neighborhoods. This would be the best way to enhance security and stability not only of the Asia-Pacific but also of America, which is Washington’s highest responsibility.

For Ronald Reagan Peace through Strength Did Not Mean War at Any Price

Alzheimer’s robbed Ronald Reagan of his memory. Now Republican neocons are trying to steal his foreign policy legacy. Reagan likely would have been appalled by the aggressive posturing of most of the Republicans currently seeking the White House.

Ronald Reagan’s mantra was “peace through strength.” Peace was the end, strength the means. He focused on the Soviet Union and its advanced outposts, especially in the Western Hemisphere.

Restraining the hegemonic threat posed by an aggressive, ideological Soviet Union led to Reagan’s tough policy. Still, Reagan avoided military confrontation with Moscow. Indeed, he routinely employed what neocons today deride as “appeasement.”

For instance, Reagan dropped the Carter grain embargo against Moscow. Reagan said he desired to encourage “meaningful and constructive dialogue.”

Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement were a global inspiration but the Polish military, fearing Soviet intervention, imposed martial law in 1981. No American bombers flew, no invasion threatened, no soldiers marched. Reagan waited for the Evil Empire to further deteriorate from within.

However, Reagan wanted to negotiate—from a position of strength, but he still wanted to negotiate.

Saudi Arabia Rents U.S. Military to Help Kill Yemenis

The Obama administration is part of Saudi Arabia’s 10-member “coalition” fighting against Houthi rebels and in support of the now-deposed Yemeni government that is in exile in Riyadh. This was recently underscored by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who said of the Saudis, “We’re not going to step away from our alliances and our friendships.”

Alas, the entire Yemen campaign is built on a lie. Contrary to Riyadh’s claims, the Houthis are not directed by, and seem only barely supported by, Iran, whose supposed involvement is the ostensible reason for U.S. involvement. Instead, the rebels have been fighting against the former Yemeni government for years.

America’s one-time ally, then-Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh, battled the Houthis a decade ago. But after Saleh was ousted in 2012, he allied with the Houthis against his successor, President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi. The newly empowered rebels, supported by the official security forces who remained loyal to Saleh, ousted Hadi last fall.

Those familiar with Yemeni politics agree that none of this had anything to do with Iran or Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government claims that it wants to restore Hadi to power. But his followers largely abandoned him after he fled into exile and endorsed Saudi airstrikes on his fellow citizens.

As I point out in American Spectator online: “Yemen’s political turbulence is largely irrelevant to the U.S. America’s only serious security concern is the al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). But AQAP has gained from Saudi Arabia’s attacks.”

By any normal measure Riyadh is far more inimical to American interests than Iran. Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian theocratic gerontocracy.

In contrast to Kuwait and even Iran, there are no elections, political opposition, or dissenting viewpoints in Saudi Arabia. Anyone who voices criticism is treated as if he was in the Soviet Union.