Foreign Policy Platform

I feel that coming of age during eight years of a George W. Bush presidency and four years of an Obama presidency (and having learned a bunch about Bill Clinton's eight years), has provided some great tests on foreign policy ideas. And from those tests, I think we should have learned much better what we should and should not do in the foreign policy arena. Below is my foreign policy platform based on what we have learned in the last decade or two (though really going back as far as Korea and Vietnam as well).

To summarize, I think we should take a long view of history. Making dramatic changes in the short term is extremely costly and difficult. Instead, we should do what we can to alleviate suffering, prevent massive human rights abuses, and support oppositions to oppressive governments while realizing the new government may not be perfect. And when change isn't as fast as we want, we should not lose heart and give up on future chances for change. We should always try to understand the feelings on the ground. And when something requires too much resources, we should seek containment.

So let's look at some examples. First, human rights abuses. I think we should have been involved in Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo, South Sudan, Darfur, Libya, and now Syria. In each case, human rights abuses were happening or likely to happen.

Of course, how much help we can and should give is an issue. I agree with Samantha Power (as you probably know if you have read this blog before) that we could have done far more in Rwanda. It may or may not have required boots on the ground, though I think we could have done that with a small amount of international troops. Syria though may be a little more difficult. I feel like we are doing too little right now. Though since I am not immersed in the details, I should say that maybe real change would require too much support and focusing on the long term and not over-committing in the short term is justified.

In Tunisia,  Egypt, and Libya, we supported real movements that were seeking change. But we are not committed to creating real democracy right now so we don't have to provide a lot of resources.

Compare that to Iraq where we invaded - originally because of WMD but changing the rationale to creating democracy and overthrowing a tyrant. And because we invaded, we were responsible for creating a very positive outcome. The resources required to even get to something close to that were enormous: 5,000 American soldiers died, many more injured, and billions in deficit spending.

Some of these (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya) might not become democracies right away. In fact, in Egypt, the choices are sad - a former Mubarak supporter or a more radical Islamist / Muslim Brotherhood member. If Egypt goes backwards, we shouldn't lose heart. This rebellion was a step forward and should be creating conditions for Egypt to eventually - today or further down the road - establish lasting democracy and rule of law. Same goes for Libya.

In places like North Korea and Iran, I think we should focus on containment. There is little threat of immediate action from either of those governments and the possibility of a very costly conflict once one starts - Korea even more so than Iran. And yet there are folks in the Romney team - notably the crazy John Bolton - that desperately want war in Iran and probably North Korea as well.

Instead, if we focus on the long term, on preventing them from attacking other countries and focusing on making their regimes difficult and create conditions for democracy down the road, we can avoid large short term costs and pave the way for big long term benefits.

I know this sounds kind of vague. But let's look at the Soviet Union. In many cases, we focused on preventing the spread of communism as much as we could. In some cases, we tried too hard (Vietnam). In some cases, we did a lot then walked away (Afghanistan). and in some cases we did the absolute wrong thing (Iran, Chile, Cuba, etc) by supporting capitalist murderous dictators over more democratic but leftist oppositions. But over the long term, the Soviet Union eventually collapsed. And we should have faith, while proactively creating the conditions, for the same things to happen in North Korea and Iran (or at least for Iran to be more democratic and more focused on the rule of law).

This platform contrasts with a few things. First, it contrasts with the opposition against Obama's efforts (supporting European leadership) in Libya and delayed support in Egypt, which suggested that we shouldn't have done anything because it might not turn out to be democratic (or more might not be as open to US influence). I reject both of these. The two candidates in Egypt might not be perfect, but having choices is better than having no choices and no liberty. Or at least it should be to a country that claims to be a model for the world.

It also contrasts with those that think genocide and mass murder in other countries are not our concern. Every time we say "never again", and every time we let it happen anew. And we let it happen because we let those who say it isn't our business align with those who want to pretend it isn't happening because they are too weak to do something. 

Finally, it contrasts with major conflicts like the ones we saw in Vietnam and Iraq (and maybe even Afghanistan and Korea). The costs were far too high and the benefits too small. We should avoid these conflicts as much as possible. And yet, I fear we might not be able to. It is much easier to convince the public that there is a threat and that war is necessary. And with a Republican administration - especially one that can't decide whether it likes warmongers like Bolton or more moderates like Colin Powell - possible in 2012, we might be headed to more big conflicts. If so, that will be very sad indeed, and many young Americans will pay the price. And the benefits will be small indeed.