By David French
Monday, May 15, 2017
What do Americans on both sides of the aisle mean when
they call the U.S. the “indispensable nation”? It’s simply this: that without
America maintaining its post–World War II role as the ultimate guarantor of the
safety and security of the Free World, the world is more likely than not to
revert to the historical mean of regional and perhaps even global conflict.
Acknowledging that the U.S. is “indispensable” does not
mean that we’re the world’s hegemon, controlling all the Earth’s peoples from
Washington, D.C. It does not mean that different administrations at different
times haven’t chosen to retreat from this or that peripheral commitment. It
does depend, however, on the understanding that American retreat necessarily
means — in key strategic areas — the advance of powers hostile to American
interests and hostile to international peace and security more broadly.
Writing in The New
Republic, Jeet Heer thinks that Donald Trump is well on his way to
destroying America’s status as the world’s indispensable nation — after just
four months in office. And Heer is not alone. He cites multiple foreign-policy
thinkers who are not only proclaiming America’s strategic demise; they’re
already anointing international substitutes, such as China and Germany. Even worse,
Heer is celebrating the new international landscape — believing it’s high time
that the U.S. take a lesser role in world affairs. He thinks it’s time for
other regional powers to fill the vacuum.
Heer’s analysis is fundamentally flawed on both counts.
First, it’s simply wrong that Trump has fundamentally changed anything about
America’s strategic approach abroad. For all Trump’s tweets and worrisome
campaign rhetoric, since he’s been in office, his administration has reaffirmed
its commitment to NATO, accelerated the fight against ISIS and other Islamic
jihadists, enforced Obama’s “red line” against the use of chemical weapons in
Syria, rushed missile-defense batteries to South Korea, and announced its
intention to expand and modernize a military that was already the most powerful
in the world. While all these decisions may dismay some of President Trump’s
more isolationist supporters, in real-world terms, they mean exerting more American power abroad, not less.
Second, Heer glosses over the Obama administration’s beta
test for American withdrawal. Remember “leading from behind”? Remember the Iraq
retreat? In many ways, Barack Obama came into office with a worldview that
echoed Heer’s. Obama believed that American power was in many ways responsible for the world’s ills, and
that less American influence could well lead to less strife and conflict. Yet
in every strategically important arena where America stepped back, our nation’s
rivals stepped forward. From the genocidal nightmare in Syria and Iraq to
China’s aggressive moves in Southeast Asia to Russia’s military aggression in
Ukraine and Syria, American retreat or hesitation emboldened enemies, not
friends.
By the end of his second term, Obama had become a
miniature George W. Bush, launching combat operations in Libya, Somalia, Syria,
Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. He’d sent troops forward in Poland and
Estonia. Obama had finally learned the enduring, eternal lesson of foreign
affairs. The operative word in the phrase “great power” is “power,” and absent
that power the greatness or morality of a nation is of little count in
international affairs.
In reality, Heer and others are engaging little more than
a fantasy-land intellectual exercise without bothering to realistically explore
the alternatives to American engagement. What happens to international trade
and stability if America yanked the U.S. Navy off the high seas — leaving
Western democracies with minimal ability to respond to regional instability and
ceding the balance of power to those countries with the largest land armies? No
nation can project power like the United States, and even if Britain, France,
and Japan decided to reassert their historic international roles, it would take
well over a decade of emergency efforts to design, build, and deploy naval
forces even a fraction of our size.
Let’s put this another way. The international order can
stand even if any given friendly regional power fails. It cannot stand if the
U.S. abdicates. Germany can fail to meet its defense obligations, yet NATO can
still deter Russia. The South Korean military could melt away, yet the U.S.
could defeat North Korea. But if the United States retreats from these key
strategic regions, can any allied regional
power (or coalition) truly step up and guarantee stability?
What happens to international stability if America
reneged on its commitments to NATO, South Korea, or Japan? What if the U.S.
decides to leave the Middle East? Does Heer legitimately believe that the
immediate beneficiaries would be anyone other than Russia, China, Iran, and the
barbaric North Korean regime? Yes, Germany has economic power, but it is
utterly unable to take effective action beyond even its immediate borders, and
without allied help its own army can’t even protect its own nation. There are
certain military realities, and absent resort to their nuclear deterrent,
nations such France and Britain are less equipped to defend, say, Poland than
they were in 1939.
During the campaign, intelligent critics of Trump’s
proposed, more isolationist, foreign policy asked a consistent question: If
America retreats, who advances? There are strategic backwaters (such as
post–Cold War Latin America — left more benign after Cuba and the Soviet Union
were neutered) where that question is less relevant, but in every strategically
vital region in the world, the answer to that question in the short and medium
term is quite simple: Our enemies. They’re the only nations with the will and the power to take advantage of
American weakness.
Like it or not, America is indispensable to the preservation of an international order that
has not only kept the world broadly at peace (certainly it has avoided
catastrophes such as World War II, World War I, or even devastating conflicts
such as the Napoleonic Wars), it actively defeated an aspiring hegemonic power
in the Soviet Union without a military cataclysm. Anyone — whether he be named
Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, or Jeet Heer — who thinks that the United States
can meaningfully change its international commitments without incurring an
unacceptable level of risk not just to international peace and stability but to
the prosperity and well-being of our own citizens is not living in the real
world.
It’s true that President Trump has made statements that
have made our allies unnecessarily nervous about American plans and intentions.
It’s true that Trump is erratic. But he hasn’t diminished American power, and
he certainly hasn’t changed the reality of international dependency on American
power. America is the indispensable
power, and not even Donald Trump can change that fundamental strategic fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment