By Daniel L. Davis
Thursday, November 03, 2016
For the past few decades, there have been two dominant
schools of thought on foreign policy: the liberal interventionist camp, and the
neoconservative interventionist group. The intellectual foundation for these two
schools of thought was always thin, but both have failed to create positive
outcomes for U.S. global interests. If America’s vital national interests are
to be safeguarded, we need new ways of thinking and acting international
stage—ways that accurately reflect the evolving and sometimes chaotic world of
2016.
It’s time to jettison the old ways of thinking for a new
school of thought that takes the world as it exists—some of which is violent,
anarchic, and threatening, and other of which is peaceful, stable, and
friendly—and form an American foreign policy that firmly defends the security
and freedom of American citizens while fostering, to the extent possible, a
stable international environment.
This new thinking would be willing to push the envelope
in seeking the most stable world possible, guaranteeing the security of our
country, and providing the greatest economic opportunity possible.
Neocons and
Liberal Interventionists Embrace the Same Militaristic Approach
Neoconservatism has held that to secure America, the U.S.
needs to go abroad militarily to shape the internal affairs of other countries,
even if that means preemptively striking hostile powers and actors. The liberal
interventionist school of thought has generally focused on using military power
to resolve humanitarian concerns abroad, support for international law, and
likewise spread democracy to other nations.
Unfortunately for the neoconservatives, it has become
painfully clear over the past decade that relying on the military to solve the
majority of international problems has produced a worsening of the very
conditions it sought to solve. Liberal interventionists have had a heart for
those on the wrong side of inequality globally, but have believed that using or
threatening to use force was an effective way to solve problems.
Both schools of thought have it wrong. This fact has made
them operationally indistinguishable. This is why neoconservatives or military
primacists, like Lindsey Graham, often recommend similar military actions to liberal
interventionists, like John Kerry. There is now effectively one bipartisan
school of thought in foreign policy. Some scholars have called it “liberal
hegemonialism” or “primacy.”
When Republicans are in charge of the White House or
Congress, the fused hybrid most often manifests itself by deploying lethal
military power to select global hotspots, trying to coerce or destroy opponents
in an attempt to bend them to U.S. will.
When Democrats have the power, they almost reflexively
use military power to compel states to adopt American-approved democracy, or
behave in ways they believe others ought to behave, whether others agree or
not.
But the difference between the actions taken by the GOP
and Democratic parties is more a nuance than a distinction. The Republicans
can’t seem to accept that the Cold War no longer exists. And Democrats appear
unwilling to recognize that some violent actors are irredeemable. Both have
failed America, and today’s new reality demands a new school of foreign policy
thought.
We Need a New
Theory of Foreign Policy
Any new theory of foreign policy must have a rational
basis for operating in today’s complex, hostile, friendly, violent, peaceful,
pessimistic, and challenging world. The character and culture of the United
States must form the basis for international policies within this often
unstable environment. It must protect American citizens, safeguard the
Constitution and the freedoms it enumerates, and foster the most effective
trade relations possible. It must also:
• Be supported
by a powerful, world-class military, yet be restrained and prudent in its
application abroad.
• Use this
dominant power abroad when the security of the United States is either attacked
or credible evidence shows an attack is genuinely imminent—yet use these
measures only when thorough diplomatic efforts have been exhausted, truly as a
last resort.
• Seek win-win
negotiations with other states in diplomatic and economic matters.
• Accept the
demonstrated will of the people in other nations in choosing how they want to
be governed, even if it is not a system we would choose or prefer.
• Respect other
countries—their various, rich, and complex cultures—accept they represent many
ideologies and ways of thinking, often different than that of the United
States, even if we wish they might follow our liberal democratic example.
• Promote
considerable diplomatic engagement, working towards ever-improving relations
with the nations of the world, and—to the extent it is possible—be at peace
with all.
• Aggressively
engage the world in international trade, seeking new markets for U.S. goods
while solidifying those that already exist.
• Seek to help
other peoples with humanitarian assistance of various types when requested, and
when doing so, not compromise U.S. national security or interests.
• Advocate for
diplomatic relations with other nations in cases where there is any chance of
fostering peace or global stability.
• Recognize that
states will at times be in opposition to the U.S. When this situation occurs,
appropriate counteractions will be taken to safeguard American citizens.
• Recognize
there are limits to power and that, however desirable a favored outcome, the
U.S. cannot always force it into being.
• Seek to
promote freedom, respect, and democracy abroad—but primarily believe this is
most effectively done when we model it such that others desire, on their own
and in their own way, to adopt them.
• Reserve the
freedom to take any action that proves necessary to safeguard American security
however a threat may manifest itself.
This new school of thought would not:
• Hold select
nations to be permanent enemies or permanent friends.
• Seek to use
lethal military power as a policy option of first choice.
• Believe that
the United States has either the obligation or the authority to impose its
culture or form of government on others abroad.
If America Doesn’t
Fight Every War, That’s Okay
There is a thinking that quietly undergirds the beliefs
of sizable numbers of Americans across the political spectrum regarding the use
of force abroad. Namely, they believe that if the U.S. military doesn’t “lead”
by fighting extremism or stopping civil wars like those raging in Syria, Iraq,
and Afghanistan, then other forces will “fill the vacuum” to our detriment.
This is a commonly held fear, but one that is not supported by the historical
record.
In the 1950s and 60s, there was great fear that if
Vietnam fell to Communism, other nations would fall under its domination like
dominos falling on one another. Yet after a decade of war and the deaths of
over 50,000 Americans, Vietnam did fall to the Communists. No harm to the
United States resulted, and no other nations followed their example.
It is inescapable that some peoples in the world have
not, do not, and may never like America. It is equally true that this dislike
does not necessarily translate into a professed desire or (more importantly) a
military ability to kill us. We needn’t automatically confront, contain, or
attack them militarily.
When dislike turns to hostility and it’s possible that
others may seek to harm American citizens or allies, then other measures become
necessary. Further, since it is impossible to know when, why, or how hostile
forces may seek to harm America, it is appropriate and necessary to maintain a
strong military that can immediately and powerfully respond to a range of
threats. We should engage the world more, not less, but in productive ways.
Let us dismiss worn-out theories of foreign policy. They
may have had utility in the past but are now obsolete. It is time to adopt
updated guiding principles. In short, it’s time to move forward with a foreign
policy that works.
No comments:
Post a Comment