By Tom Rogan
Friday, February 12, 2016
Today’s world is a toxic blend of nationalist emotions
and divergent interests. The spillover from the Syrian civil war is making
conflict between NATO member Turkey and Russia increasingly likely. ISIS poses
an existential threat — in Paris, Jakarta, and Beirut — to civil society.
Advancing a strategy of confrontation, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has
spent the past few days testing ballistic missiles, executing his army chief,
and cutting links with South Korea. As former Defense secretary Robert Gates
recently remarked, “My worry about Kim Jong Un is not just that he’s dangerous,
but that he might not be very smart.” The risk of conflict is significant.
Remember, in 2010, at the height of President Obama’s deterrent credibility,
Kim sank a South Korean navy vessel and shelled a South Korean island. Since
then, Syria has been choked, Europe has been invaded, and Iran has dominated
the Middle East.
In short, America’s deliberate impotence has depleted our
credibility and facilitated looming disasters. To stop the rot, we need to
return to old-school realism: resolute action pursuing practical objectives.
Take Syria. The civil-war-afflicted nation offers a prime example of the costs
of absent realism and the potentials of active realism. At present, Putin’s
ambition and his confident application of power have secured him the political
initiative. While Russia and its allies obliterate Aleppo, reconsolidate
Assad’s power, and thus strengthen the sectarian currents fueling ISIS and
Iran, President Obama is begging U.S.-backed rebels to bow to Assad. To make
matters worse, the Sunni monarchies are drifting out of the sphere of U.S.
influence and retreating into sectarianism.
There’s a realist alternative: First, the U.S. could
pressure Turkey into backing away from its aggression towards Kurdish rebels in
return for tougher U.S. action against Kurdish PKK terrorists — and greater
U.S. support for anti-Assad rebels. Turkey and the vast majority of Kurdish
political groups want positive relations with the United States, and despise
Assad. That affords us influence. Second, the U.S. could pressure Russia — via
increased sanctions and lethal support to Syrian rebel forces associated with
the Free Syrian Army – to accept Assad’s removal. In return, we could assure Russia
that it will retain influence in Syria and military access to the Mediterranean
Sea. This path would balance unpleasant concessions (Putin’s Mediterranean
access) with strategic imperatives (Assad’s departure, followed by a transition
process that makes a Sunni buy-in to a durable cease-fire — or even a new
governing coalition — possible).
For another example, consider what a realist U.S.
president could accomplish in Asia. Were the U.S. to seriously challenge
China’s cyber-aggression and its imperialism — with retaliatory cyber-attacks
(instead of President Obama’s ludicrous agreements with China to disavow
cyber-attacks) and a bolstered military presence proximate to China’s
artificial islands — China would have an incentive to pressure North Korea back
into its box. Yes, this a simplistic interpretation of a complex issue.
Nevertheless, it illustrates how realism would allow the U.S. to exert
calculated pressure in one area (cyber vs. China) in order to extract
concessions elsewhere (North Korea). At present, China ignores U.S. concerns
because it believes President Obama has no policy to address those concerns.
It’s true, 21st-century realism will require more than
cutting deals. It will also require tangible support from allies. Donald Trump
offers an interesting example here. After all, while Trump’s foreign-policy
doctrine has as much credibility as his hair has style, his willingness to make
demands is one that we should copy. Take the current U.S. relationship with our
European allies. Writing at Politico
about the Munich security conference that began today, former Swedish prime
minister Carl Bildt argued for expensive new U.S. commitments to European
security. Notably, however, Bildt omitted calling for European Union sanctions
on Russian finance and front companies, or for a sizeable increase in EU
defense spending. This reflects a truth I’ve repeatedly emphasized — namely,
that because President Obama has proven himself unwilling to seriously
challenge Russian aggression, he has been unable to persuade U.S. allies to
make hard choices to invest in the West’s mutual security.
Of course, realism isn’t easy. It requires articulated
priorities, bold policy, and, yes, occasional concessions. But in the long
term, realism offers a global balancing of power that defers to America’s
unique moral and physical power. The currently employed alternative – President
Obama’s rudderless delusion — is facilitating overlapping global disasters.
No comments:
Post a Comment