by Glenn N. Holliman
Two intriguing takes on the course USA foreign policy should be taking. Like it or not (and I do not) Mr. Trump is upending the world order that the United States and Western Europe has sought to offer the world since World War II. Both articles below are worth a good read over your morning coffee. -GNH
Judd Gregg: Has Trump wandered into a
foreign policy for this century? (from the Hill newsletter, March 6, 2018)
In the late nineteenth
century, there was a famous adage that “the sun never sets on the British
Empire.”
Today the claim could be
adjusted to say: “The sun never sets on American troops.”
Below, an over extended US Army, 1969 in Viet Nam, photo by the author with the 1st Infantry Division.
This is a legacy of the place
the United States found itself in at the end of the Second World War.
We
were then the only democracy capable of standing up to the threat of the Soviet
Union. We carried the flame of freedom for the world. We had the ability,
strength and wealth to do this.
The Soviet Union, of
course, no longer exists. It was run into the ground by the determination of
President Reagan, the resilience of our market economy, and the cause of
liberty.
We still assume the
burdens that arose out of our role as the only world power dedicated to
promoting peace, democracy and freedom, however.
It is an appropriate
cause. But the process and means of its execution need to be reconsidered.
Ironically, as with
some of his other basic impulses, President
Trump has wandered into this arena and suggested potentially
appropriate approaches.
Having America
soldiers in every corner of the globe may no longer be the best manner of
pursuing our purpose.
Trump has suggested,
for example, that we withdraw totally from Afghanistan. His national security
team seems to have tempered this policy.
The president’s
impulses here are right.
There is no question
but that in the wake of September 11, 2001, we needed to go into Afghanistan
and deliver, with significant force, an important message: that we would not
tolerate the Taliban allowing the country to be a sanctuary for terrorists.
But the time has come
to leave. The effort at nation-building in Afghanistan, just as earlier in
Iraq, has not worked well.
There are many reasons
for this. But it is a fact. We should admit it and not compound the failure by
staying there.
In departing, we
should leave behind a very clear message.
This message should
state bluntly to whoever takes over Afghanistan that if they allow it to become
a terrorist haven again, we will be back with devastating force — not to build
up the country, but to destroy those who allow terrorism to fester there.
In fact, this should
be the message that we send to all parts of the Middle East. Our focus should
not be nation-building, but rather lethal retaliation against those leaders
whose nations assist terrorist intent on harming us.
We do not need troops
stationed all over the world to execute this policy. We have the technical and tactical
ability to do it without such a commitment.
We should also
appreciate the fact that China is not inherently an expansive military power.
It wishes to have its sphere of influence, particularly in the South China Sea.
It intends to have a massive military capability to make the point that it is a
rising superpower.
China should be a
nation we work with at a variety of levels, recognizing that it is also our
most capable competitor in many arenas, especially trade.
This should not lead
to confrontation.
China is the only
power that can resolve the North Korean issue in a manner that does not involve
force. Our policies should be directed at encouraging Beijing to do so for its
own sake.
We should not allow
our concerns about China gaming our trade relations to dominate our
relationship in a manner that diminishes the chances of solving the North
Korean issue.
If China fails to act
on North Korea, then we need to make it clear we will turn to Japan for help.
This would involve
encouraging Japan to change its constitution — written largely by General
Douglas McArthur when he led the occupation — to allow Japan to rearm.
It seems probable that
if China needs to choose between having a rearmed Japan or a disarmed North
Korea, they will choose the latter — and take action to make it happen.
There is also the
major issue of how to manage the disastrous deterioration in the Middle East
caused by the collapse of Syria and underwritten by Iran.
If there is a lesson
from our engagement in Iraq, it is that massive use of American troops on the
ground does not necessarily improve things in the region.
Our strategic interest
there has been dramatically altered now that we are producing enough oil and
gas domestically to take care of our needs.
The endless religious
conflicts between Sunnis and Shiites, the Israelis and Palestinians, and
numerous other subgroups have been only marginally affected by U.S. engagement.
We should rethink our
purposes there.
The need to stifle the
growth of terrorists who threaten us should again be our main objective.
The score-settling by
nations such as Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran is not something that
requires our direct involvement.
The fear that Russia
will replace us as power in the region should hardly be the motivator that sets
our course. We should send Moscow our condolences and move on.
The fact remains that
we are not in a position to cure the causes of these conflicts or significantly
impact them.
Times have changed.
We need to change our
role in the world.
We need to recognize
the new reality of a competitive China and an intractable Middle East that is
no longer critical to our energy supply.
We need to understand
that there are limits on our ability to draw people of very different cultures
and experience into forms of government they do not accept.
Trump may be on to
something when he suggests that, essentially, we should carry a big stick to
enforce our rights to protect ourselves.
He may also be on to
something when he essentially suggests we should stop there.
Judd Gregg (R) is a
former governor and three-term senator from New Hampshire who served as
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and as ranking
member of the Senate Appropriations Foreign Operations subcommittee.
A Response to Senator Gregg by Terry Field, Englishman and Insightful Observer of the Human Race
An interesting
justification of a changed posture. Of course, the idea of using devastating,
previously unavailable military capacity to project force allows you to leave a
region - indeed all regions - and subsequently target an area infected with potentially
non-compliant opposition groups and forces and destroy them will be cost
-effective for you.
However, imagine the
relationship you have with the world. You will sit there, with immense power,
deliverable from an immense naval capacity, from homeland bases equipped with
projectiles able to destroy anywhere in earth in much less than an hour after
the decision is made, and from strategic bases able to deliver low blast high
yield tactical nuclear weapons on the heads of any locally resurgent enemy.
You would have no
relationship with the struggling governments of those regions. Yes, they would
hate and fear such as the Muslin death-cults, the Taliban, etc, yet all you
offer for your 'partners' is the reality of your comfortable dis-engagement,
their eternal misery, and the prospect of a significant part of their territory
being turned into a charnel house at a moment's notice.
Since 1945 America has
been able to tie the world up in a web of obviously mutually beneficial
economic, cultural, social and political relationships. All have benefited.
Sit in your castle and
lob large lumps of stone onto the heads of the cottage dwellers all around, and
you will be surprised at how little they will want to know you.
Add to this the
uncomfortable reality that you can never effectively subdue from the air - to
smash powerful local opposition you must BE THERE. If you are not there,
gathering your gigantic military power on the way but only threatening
devastation from afar, then you absolutely guarantee that the opposition to you
will be total.
Why? Because you no
longer offer the world anything at all.
HUBRIS
There is no
conceivable condition where any level of potential force will subdue an enraged
world. You can dream of such a thing; but you cannot ever achieve it. At least
not by leaving the rest of the world alive.
There are now in
existence weapons that can utterly destroy all mammalian life and leave the
physical infrastructure completely intact. This is new. It does allow for new thinking
but imagine the reality the thinking must accept.
If a large region of
the world moved to a state where its population entirely opposes you, then you
will cause chaos there by attacking it, and that will force others not into
your orbit, but away from you (visa Kim in North Korea after your actions
in Libya and Iraq).
You will not be able
to dissuade others from opposing you unless you act with a new power and force.
You will, for this new and truly Imperial global posture to work, have to
utterly destroy a region - perhaps a number of regions - to ensure that all
others comprehend the risk of disengagement with you is one of total annihilation.
The widespread use of neutron bombs - tactically sized ones - is the
cornerstone of this new thinking as described in this article.
This allows you now to
control events on the ground entirely from the air.
And how have you done
this? By ensuring that from the moment the air bursts happen and henceforth,
there are NO events on the ground of any kind. All life there dies in hours.
Then Pax Americana reigns.
The following day, of
course, you have no friends anywhere. You have vassals. The American dream
becomes the American nightmare.
LESSON 1 Hide
behind a wall of death, and do not use it, and the world will get on with its
business without you.
LESSON 2 Use the
weaponry and you have no relationship with the world. And it WILL arm itself
and one day do to you what you have done to it.
As for China, it is
not a passive regional power. It is what it can become, as it grows and grows.
In the 16th century, Britain was a little island in thrall to the Holy Roman
Emperor, run by brutish warlords. It grew and grew and grew. And as a baby
grows to an adult it became another thing. It is doing the same now but in
reverse and very quickly indeed.
The Chinese and Japans
are, and they know it, the most intelligent people on earth. China has your
population plus 1000,000,000 people. OF COURSE it will become an immense power.
With no dysfunctional effete 18th century romanticism, it will deploy it forces
and be willing to lose enormous numbers to defeat the West - you in effect - if
the prize is big enough. IN a century, if you hem it in, then the prize will
certainly be big enough.
This article is a
reflection of all that is wrong. (President Jimmy) Carter said, at the end of his term, that
America needs to become a humble partner nation. No arrogance, no excess, no
violence, no destructiveness on a whim.
And the response to this in America? Hatred
and contempt. Yet he was correct. If America really wants to maintain its
influence, protect its life, be loved as well as respected, then it must become
the secular reflection of Christianity. That religion captured hearts by the
offering of a weak, defenseless God, who was willing to destroy part of himself
for the recovery - the redemption - of his creation.
To willingly suffer
and die for others. Moral heroism is an overwhelming force. Nothing can stand
against it.
If you are loved and
admired for sharing the way you deploy your wealth, together with rational kindness
then you will hold sway in the hearts of people. That is your insurance policy.
Not tactical neutron
bombs, rail guns and hyper-sonic delivery systems. You cannot do any of that
good stuff by hiding and periodically slaughtering. Neutron bombs are the
things, together with digital control systems that give you a dangerous
illusion.
You cannot be as free
of the rest of us as you wish to be. And you are not as powerful as the article
suggests you are.
Your only chance of long
term success is to become responsible, slow to act, possessed of immense
material power yet rational in your use of those assets, and morally upright.
The conundrum is the
same as we had in India. We had military force but only when we used it at
Amritsar did we lose all authority.
As a preference I much
prefer the American to other powers. It is the place I really care for
most, and yet am
debarred from living in. But the cold reality is that other great powers will
appear. You will become weaker.
And an article that
comes from out of Star Trek and the ghost of the Rand Corporation reflects
hubristic ego, not reality. It is Trumpian, not Christian.
Comments?
