Skip to main content

US foreign and military policy at a crossroads, but who controls the traffic light?

To some readers it has seemed I have been harping on Barack Obama's foreign policy nominees and what their records suggest about the future of American conduct abroad.

A far more important point that I need to make is that while Obama as President may well have different intentions on foreign policy, we have a decades-old military-political-bureaucratic organization determined to drive US foreign policy in certain directions, and it will actively fight to keep going in those directions regardless of who is President.

This will be the challenge for Obama: can he actually impose his will, not only on events, but on our own militocracy?

Some cases in point: The Joint Chiefs have now authorized release of the unclassified version of their general worldwide threat assessment [read: new places we might have to send troops]:

America’s Joint Forces Command issued their annual “Joint Operating Environment” report, which projects future wars and other potential global threats. This year, the report pointed to two nations which may undergo a “rapid and sudden collapse.” One, unsurprisingly, was Pakistan: a near-bankrupt nation with spiraling inflation, a huge domestic insurgency problem and growing military tension with neighboring India. The other was Mexico.

Is Mexico really on the cusp of turning into a failed state? It seems hard to imagine but the report cautions that “the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels.”


Forget all the Libertarian concerns about the drug war de-stabilizing Mexico; this document is a forewarning to all readers inside the government and out that--over the next few years--the US military sees itself as being more interventionist rather than less.

On the other hand, there are signs that the military is adapting to the expectations of new leadership, as in this report about drawing up a new 16-month time-line to remove most combat troops from Iraq:

Pentagon officials said Thursday they will be ready on Inauguration Day with plans for a quick pullout of U.S. combat troops from Iraq if Barack Obama orders one, as he pledged to do during his White House campaign.

A 16-month timeline for withdrawal of battle forces from Iraq is among options being prepared, with an eye to Obama's pledge to call the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the White House on his first day in office with instructions to close down a war he opposed.

"Our military planners do not live in a vacuum," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. "They are well aware that the president-elect campaigned on withdrawing (combat) troops from Iraq on a 16-month timeline, so it would be only prudent of them to draw up plans that reflected that option."


The really vexing part of this report, however, is contained in one line:

The Pentagon has also hired a contractor, the Rand Corp., to do detailed analyses of the logistics and risks involved in pulling out combat forces under several possible timelines. Results of that study are expected by summer.


If I were President Obama (which most of you, I assume, are thankful that I am not), I would have to be asking myself, Since when did the Pentagon lack the resources to do its own logistics and risk assessment?

There is also some interesting parsing going on in Obama's own rhetoric about foreign policy and the "war on terror," as the Times Online reports:

Barack Obama suggested last night that removing Osama bin Laden from the battlefield was no longer essential and that America's security goals could be achieved merely by keeping al-Qaeda "on the run".

"My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him," he said. "But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America."

His comments, in a CBS interview, represent a significant watering down of the "dead or alive" policy pursued by President Bush since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. They also appear to contradict Mr Obama's own statements made in the election campaign.

As recently as October 7, in a presidential debate, Mr Obama said: "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."

Yesterday, the President-elect adopted far less aggressive language, saying his "No 1 priority" was to protect America from further attack.

"I think that we have to so weaken [bin Laden's] infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function," he said. "And I'm confident that we can keep them on the run and ensure that they cannot train terrorists to attack our homeland."


This is an important distinction. I have argued (and gotten into trouble for it at homeland security conferences) that ingoring Bin Laden, even ridiculing him rather than treating him as a significant player in world events (which he no longer is) is the appropriate strategy. Coming on the heels of yesterday's call by the British Foreign Minister to rethink the "war on terror," and today's article by three leading British generals questioning the usefulness of Cold War nuclear deterrents, it seems possible that some new thinking is working its way into the upper levels of Washington and London.

This is a promising development that nonetheless has to be weighed against contradictory signals: the career histories of recent high sub-cabinet level nominees to Pentagon and State Department; the heavy investment of the defense industry in the Obama campaign; and rapidly deteriorating situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan where the new administration has sworn to invest more resources for (according to SecDef Gates) as long as it takes.

We are going to live in interesting times.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...