Current Foreign Policy Snapshot

The international community is in turmoil.  The Middle East is being threatened by Muslim ideological thugs, the Pacific theatre is caught up with arbitrary territorial disputes between the Asian hegemonies, and Eastern Europe is under Russian siege.  The question is, what role does America play in these conflicts?   Do we act alone or bank on coalitions and treaty obligations?  Do we take action singularly and hope that our allies follow suit?  These are all very important questions being pondered by world leaders, policy think tank personnel, and average Americans alike.  With so much going on at the same time, how do we prioritize each conflict?  They all have their own idiosyncrasies in which an argument can be made that they are the most important and pose the greatest threat to our National Security.  But truth be told, we can’t just pick one of these threats.  We must be engaged in all of them, and evaluate these combined threats holistically.

Currently our foreign policy initiatives are a tad confused.  We are leading based on humanitarian initiatives instead of what is best for American national security.  For instance, our airstrikes in Iraq to vanquish ISIL control of the Mosul Dam.  The argument made by the administration was that we did so to save a handful of innocent Iraqi Christians on a mountain from genocide.  This was definitely a caveat to the plan, although it wasn’t the main objective.  Anyone with a brain understands the threat ISIL poses to us and the Middle East.  Would the genocidal threat on that mountain constitute a humanitarian crisis?  Absolutely, but the national security objectives of an Iraq intervention can’t be understated.  An ISIL controlled Iraq threatens not just stability in Iraq, but poses a threat to Jordan and Israel, key American Allies.

The United States is tired of war right now, and the populous is not looking for another long drawn out war in the Middle East.  But public opinion is public opinion.  We can’t govern based on that, nor can we predicate our justification for intervention on public opinion.  The American people are smart enough, and prideful enough, to fully comprehend the threat ISIL poses.  It may currently be abroad, but sooner rather later domestic attacks will take place.  Never underestimate the will of an individual who has no qualms with death, they will do whatever is necessary to advance their cause.  So if that is the mindset of our enemy, then we must match their intensity and take the fight to them.  Clearly this is a national security issue first and foremost, but with serious humanitarian considerations.  President Obama’s speech on Wednesday highlighted his plan for action against these people.  I believe his plan is a good start, but with our other foreign policy challenges, I would argue that his plan is too slow and will take focus away from the greater threats to the United States. 

A coalition of Sunni nations to fight against the ISIL caliphate is most definitely important.  Although can we really bank on Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the UAE to take action and commit ground forces?  They are in the business of protecting the homeland, not fighting abroad.  If the State Department pushes them in the direction of a foreign affair, they will be hesitant.  The hesitancy will be apparent on the battlefield and when facing a ruthless opponent, it is a recipe for disaster.  This is already apparent in the Sunni coalition only committing to limited airstrikes in Iraq.  I believe America’s role in this conflict is too squash the ISIL threat, restore stability to the region, and then allow a coalition of Arab states to maintain that stability.  We can predicate future economic support for the coalition to their ability to maintain stability in Iraq.   The United States leads with force, and then Iraq’s brothers and sisters in the region can maintain the peace.  This is a much more palatable and effective solution.  This would of course entail ground troops.  Risking American lives is a dangerous and tragic part of foreign policy, but sometimes it can’t be avoided.  I have studied Henry Kissinger’s work fairly substantially and one key aspect to his foreign policy outlook is that you need to align your military objectives with your political objectives.  He demonstrates this with our failure to do so in Vietnam.  The military and political objectives of that war were completely incongruous.  We fought and measured our success on the battlefield by body count.  We never sought to control territory.  We would take a hill, or a field, or an enemy base and then leave.  The enemy would shortly after retake that territory and use it to mount similar attacks as it did before.  Never did we feel it was necessary to take North Vietnam militarily.  Yet our justification for intervention was to stop the spread of communism.  How were we to do that if we couldn’t face the communist threat on its own soil?  This was a true tragedy, and 58k fallen Americans can attest to this. 

So how do we align our military and political objectives with ISIL?  And what are the military and political objectives?  Our military objective is to of course subdue the threat that the fundamentalist group plays in the region i.e. to completely eradicate them from existence.  Our political objective is for the new Iraqi government and a broad Arab coalition to have the tools to defend their country from future threats.  So it seems obvious that with the deployment of ground troops we also need to teach, arm, and involve the Iraqi military in all battles.  Our mistake in the 2003 Iraq war was our abandonment of the Iraqi military once we invaded.  This time we need to embrace them. 

Current estimates for ISIL fighters are around 3000, so a commitment of 5000 American ground troops will be necessary for an immediate, effective, and fatal blow to the ISIL movement. 

One conflict has been addressed, but where do we stand on the conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Pacific?  The order of engagement in these two affairs is crucial.  Geographically speaking Russia is susceptible to a two front war from Europe and Asia.  Europe we know is in our corner, but where does Asia stand?  Historically China and Russia have been enemies regardless of the similarity in their political ideologies.  China wants to be autonomous and viewed as a super power.  Economically speaking they have already achieved that.  In the 1970’s Richard Nixon extended his hand to the Chinese to show them that we are a more suitable partner than the Soviets.  Single handedly one of the smartest foreign policy decisions in the 20^th century.  Without that the Cold War could have ended dramatically differently. 

We have key allies in the Pacific Japan, the Philippines, and a myriad of small nations.  All of which are looking to us for leadership throughout this turmoil.  This is a very tricky situation, because we obviously need to support our allies yet at the same time, an allegiance with China would be a game changer for Russian aggression.  In fact, an allegiance with China is essential to stop Russian aggression and supersedes any short term qualms our allies have with China’s territorial proclamations in the South China Sea.  If we do not have an alliance with China, we can expect that Russia will seek that alliance.  They will hold China, and by default North Korea, in their sphere of influence, three potentially aggressive nuclear states working in harmony for global domination.  This is simply not an option.  We need to take a realpolitik stance on this and make decisions based on the National Security of the United States and our Allies by communicating our strength.  Making decisions based on this sometimes means you have to ignore minor disputes.  But in this scenario the ends justify the means, or rather the potential result of us not taking this approach far surpasses the immediate trepidations our allies have in the region with China exerting force on unoccupied territories.  If we can satisfy our needs in the Pacific, if and only if, then we can focus our efforts on Eastern Europe and an expansionist Russia. 

Vladimir Putin came up during the cold war and has serious resentments towards the west for our alleged negative influence on his country.  I would argue that it isn’t so much a negative influence, but indeed a flawed system in Russia that can explain their perpetual historical plight.  Russia has been expanding its sphere for years now.  They have strong ties in the Middle East and provide military and technological support to Iran and Syria.  Russian oligarchs and corporations have integrated European banks into their day to day financing to exert a level of leverage over their governments (downside of capitalism and the free market).  Russian energy, particularly natural gas, makes up more than 30% of Europe’s energy needs.  Russian exports of energy account for 75% of their GDP, which is something I will touch on in a moment.  All things considered, it is quite clear that Vladimir Putin has used the global economy to his benefit.  He has set up his economy to a point where major global powers would be hesitant to act against him, because of the economic significance Russia has to their respective economies. 

Russia has pivoted towards a very aggressive military campaign to expand their borders.  This of course is directly related to the comingling of economic interests Russia has with the West, in fact this has led to the calculated risk of annexing Crimea and staging military campaigns in Eastern Ukraine with Russian national forces.  Putin is not a dumb man, he understands his foes.  He understands what the EU and US hegemony will do if he takes action against a sovereign nation.  It was a calculated risk.  This is what frightens me the most.  That calculated risk may have included a 15% chance of EU and US military intervention against Russia because of the annexation of Crimea and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  Yet Putin still did it.  He was willing to take that risk.  Which leads you to believe, that what else is he willing to risk?  If the US and EU military intervention is calculated at 40-50% for the invasion of the Baltic states, will he still pull the trigger?  It’s an ominous question that will remain unanswered.

The only way we can stop this Russian aggression, without a full out war, is to surround Russia with allies who support us and NATO and are ready to act against a bordering aggressive Russian state.  China is a must in this equation.  We have to court them appropriately to ensure they are in our camp.  It is not an option for China to fall under the Russian sphere.  Putin understands spheres of influence, hence his interest in Ukraine.  Ukraine was going to accept a multibillion dollar economic aid package to repair its economy which was predicated on its inclusion into the EU.  Putin was not about to stand for a European ally right on his doorstep.  Ukraine was not strong enough, and is still not strong enough, to fight off the Russian aggressors.  China is though, hence why we need them to be publicly with us in our campaign to stop this expansion.

A very unique aspect of this Russian event, is that Europe is still heavily reliant on Russian energy.  Even with all of the sanctions, not one sanction limits the natural gas Russia provides the EU states.  Rarely has the United States been in such an advantageous position.  With our shale drilling and extraction of natural gas, we have a plethora of capacity that can be used to backfill Russian exports.  This may be more significant than anything else we could do, even a US-China alliance.  The calculated risk that Putin would have to take, knowing that now Europe is no longer energy dependent on him, would be much more grave and dangerous.  If he loses 75% of his economic output, Russia becomes insolvent.   In fact it would be dangerous enough to sway public opinion to the point where he loses his mandate to govern.  Right now his perception to his people is as a liberator who stands up to the West.  Only a few things need to go wrong before that perception changes to a war monger advancing his own agenda for his own legacy asymmetrical to the interests of his people.

With so much going on in the global arena, it’s easy to become trigger happy and allow whatever conflict gets the most media time to also receive the most foreign policy and military intervention.  But we must handle these conflicts in proper order.  Quick destruction of ISIL, US involvement in Pacific disputes leading to a Chinese-US alliance, a geographical great wall against Russia, and lastly a US backfilling of natural gas capacity to Europe.  If we can execute on these items, American dominance will be restored.  A foreign policy based on our national security and not humanitarian interest will become the status quo for our State department and future administrations.  Lastly we will have reminded the world that we can overcome obstacles, multiple obstacles, to restore peace and stability to our friends and allies.  Now is the time we leverage our global dominance for the long term goal of global peace and stability.