A recent poll shows that the majority of Americans deem Iraq and Afghanistan failures and do not hold much optimism for stable democratic governments in those countries. Events on the ground seem to perhaps show that these countries are edging down a slope back to chaos. ISIS controls large parts of Iraq, while the government looks anything but a unified front to defend their country. Meanwhile, the Afghans are debating their results and it is likely there will be continued division that the Taliban can once more take advantage of.
The broader world is depressing too. The Arab spring has turned hope into despair. From North Africa to the Middle East, Syria, Mali, Nigeria, Egypt, Libya all are displaying serious threats to their civilians, whether through extreme Islamist groups and/or their governments themselves.
The President, in his West Point speech, certainly seemed to suggest that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would not have been his decision. Perhaps he would have had to have gone after bin Laden in Afghanistan post 9/11, but there would have been much more argument internally for an intelligence led offensive. But it's a complicated world out there, and there is an impracticality to leading the world through multiple initiatives, from combating terrorists to climate change to poverty etc.
So what is the most effective way to play the leadership role for America and her closest allies in this chaotic and depressing world? I do agree with him that America remains and will remain undisputed country no.1 and so it is right to hold up the light of American ideals, and that there are many ways to do that apart from putting troops on the ground. In this regard, I agree with Ikenberry's article in Foreign Affairs, and I would like to see more unity amongst Congress and the President in how they project this to the world.
But, I also think Mead has a point that Obama and America are at least perceived as bogged down and less effective, with some real risk in the shorter/medium term if others are tempted to flex more muscle. I think history will judge better his approach, when we see how Iran nuclear containment goes, and how isolated Russia can be made to be following her interventions in Ukraine. But in this dangerous world, over reaching from time to time with military might may just be the necessary balance to others who can much less afford it.
AP-GfK poll: Public ready to close book on 2 wars - Yahoo News: Three in four Americans think history will judge the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as failures, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows that about the same percentage think it was right to pull forces from the two countries. Americans surveyed in last month's poll were not optimistic about the chance that a stable democratic government will be established in either country. Seventy-eight percent said it was either not too likely or not at all likely in Afghanistan and 80 percent said the same about Iraq
ISIS a bigger threat than pre-9/11 al Qaeda? - CBS News:
As the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) continues to sweep through northern Iraq, U.S. lawmakers are sounding the alarm that it could be just as dangerous as al Qaeda in the days before it launched the
Transcript of President Obama’s Commencement Address at West Point - NYTimes.com
Barack Obama’s West Point speech: The president responds to his foreign policy critics.
Foreign policy: The war on terror, part two | The Economist: This suggests that despite what Mr Obama’s speech suggested, his foreign policy resembles a continual process of trial and error rather than the application of clear principles.
Egypt’s new president: Marching to the wrong tune | The Economist: THE freshly minted presidency of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has got off to an embarrassing start. The turnout for the poll on May 26th-27th that was supposed to provide civilian camouflage for a military dictatorship was lower even than expected—so low, indeed, that polling stations were kept open for a third day in the hope that more Egyptians could be enticed into them. The election has thus failed to provide the former general with the stamp of legitimacy that he was hoping for.
"China, Iran and Russia never bought into the geopolitical settlement that followed the Cold War, and they are making increasingly forecful attempts to overturn it. That process will not be peaceful, and whether or not the revisionists succeed, their efforts have already shaken the balance of power…"
"Obama now finds himself bogged down in exactly the kinds of geopolitical rivalries he had hoped to transcend"
Far Eastern Promises | Foreign Affairs: Why Washington should focus on Asia.
G. John Ikenberry | Geopolitics Are Not Back -- China, Iran, and Russia are Third-Rate Powers | Foreign Affairs The Enduring Power of the Liberal Order
"it is a misreading of China and Russia, which are not full-scale revisionist powers but part-time spoilers at best, as suspicious of each other as they are of the outside world. True, they look for opportunities to resist the United States’ global leadership, and recently, as in the past, they have pushed back against it, particularly when confronted in their own neighborhoods. But even these conflicts are fueled more by weakness -- their leaders’ and regimes’ -- than by strength. They have no appealing brand. And when it comes to their overriding interests, Russia and, especially, China are deeply integrated into the world economy and its governing institutions."
"...the grand strategy it should pursue is the one it had followed for decades: deep global engagement...It is a strategy in which the United States established leadership not simply through the exercise of power but also through sustained efforts at global problem solving and rule making"
The broader world is depressing too. The Arab spring has turned hope into despair. From North Africa to the Middle East, Syria, Mali, Nigeria, Egypt, Libya all are displaying serious threats to their civilians, whether through extreme Islamist groups and/or their governments themselves.
The President, in his West Point speech, certainly seemed to suggest that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would not have been his decision. Perhaps he would have had to have gone after bin Laden in Afghanistan post 9/11, but there would have been much more argument internally for an intelligence led offensive. But it's a complicated world out there, and there is an impracticality to leading the world through multiple initiatives, from combating terrorists to climate change to poverty etc.
So what is the most effective way to play the leadership role for America and her closest allies in this chaotic and depressing world? I do agree with him that America remains and will remain undisputed country no.1 and so it is right to hold up the light of American ideals, and that there are many ways to do that apart from putting troops on the ground. In this regard, I agree with Ikenberry's article in Foreign Affairs, and I would like to see more unity amongst Congress and the President in how they project this to the world.
But, I also think Mead has a point that Obama and America are at least perceived as bogged down and less effective, with some real risk in the shorter/medium term if others are tempted to flex more muscle. I think history will judge better his approach, when we see how Iran nuclear containment goes, and how isolated Russia can be made to be following her interventions in Ukraine. But in this dangerous world, over reaching from time to time with military might may just be the necessary balance to others who can much less afford it.
AP-GfK poll: Public ready to close book on 2 wars - Yahoo News: Three in four Americans think history will judge the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as failures, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows that about the same percentage think it was right to pull forces from the two countries. Americans surveyed in last month's poll were not optimistic about the chance that a stable democratic government will be established in either country. Seventy-eight percent said it was either not too likely or not at all likely in Afghanistan and 80 percent said the same about Iraq
ISIS a bigger threat than pre-9/11 al Qaeda? - CBS News:
As the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) continues to sweep through northern Iraq, U.S. lawmakers are sounding the alarm that it could be just as dangerous as al Qaeda in the days before it launched the
Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S….
And with President Obama's decision to launch airstrikes in Iraq as a means to provide humanitarian aid and safety for thousands of Iraqi religious minorities being targeted by ISIS, that day could come sooner."
Transcript of President Obama’s Commencement Address at West Point - NYTimes.com
Barack Obama’s West Point speech: The president responds to his foreign policy critics.
At
West Point, President Obama defends a foreign policy vision based on more than
U.S. military might.
" The question we face, the question each of you will
face, is not whether America will lead but how we will lead, not just to secure
our peace and prosperity but also extend peace and prosperity around the
globe….
But to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and
freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military
solution. Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from
our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without
thinking through….
As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on
this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947, “War is mankind’s most tragic and
stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime
against all men.”
"I also believe we must be more transparent about both the basis
of our counterterrorism actions and the manner in which they are carried out.
We have to be able to explain them publicly, whether it is drone strikes or
training partners."
Foreign policy: The war on terror, part two | The Economist: This suggests that despite what Mr Obama’s speech suggested, his foreign policy resembles a continual process of trial and error rather than the application of clear principles.
Egypt’s new president: Marching to the wrong tune | The Economist: THE freshly minted presidency of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has got off to an embarrassing start. The turnout for the poll on May 26th-27th that was supposed to provide civilian camouflage for a military dictatorship was lower even than expected—so low, indeed, that polling stations were kept open for a third day in the hope that more Egyptians could be enticed into them. The election has thus failed to provide the former general with the stamp of legitimacy that he was hoping for.
Syria’s war: Why Bashar Assad is still in charge | The Economist:
“It has to be creating an army or nothing,” complains David Richards, the retired head of the British armed forces. If the rebels continue to get only light arms, a few anti-tank and—crucially—no anti-aircraft weapons, the battle lines are likely to become more entrenched, in effect partitioning the country….
Above all, many Syrians now want the war to cease at almost any cost. “At the end of the day we understand people need to eat,” says Abu Hamza, leader of a rebel group in Qaboun, a suburb of Damascus, explaining why fighters join extreme Islamist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra. That brutal truth, rather than the fake legitimacy afforded by this week’s bogus election, is one reason Mr Assad is still in power.
From Foreign Affairs Magazine
Kenneth M. Pollack and Ray Takeyh | Don't Disengage from the Middle East | Foreign Affairs. Helping the Syrian opposition build a large, professional military able to hold territory and defeat both the regime’s forces and the Islamist extremists involved in the conflict would certainly reduce the opposition’s fragmentation. It would also furnish a powerful, secular institution around which a new Syrian government could be built.
Walter Russell Mead | Geopolitics are Back in, China, Iran, Russia, and the United States | Foreign Affairs“It has to be creating an army or nothing,” complains David Richards, the retired head of the British armed forces. If the rebels continue to get only light arms, a few anti-tank and—crucially—no anti-aircraft weapons, the battle lines are likely to become more entrenched, in effect partitioning the country….
Above all, many Syrians now want the war to cease at almost any cost. “At the end of the day we understand people need to eat,” says Abu Hamza, leader of a rebel group in Qaboun, a suburb of Damascus, explaining why fighters join extreme Islamist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra. That brutal truth, rather than the fake legitimacy afforded by this week’s bogus election, is one reason Mr Assad is still in power.
From Foreign Affairs Magazine
Kenneth M. Pollack and Ray Takeyh | Don't Disengage from the Middle East | Foreign Affairs. Helping the Syrian opposition build a large, professional military able to hold territory and defeat both the regime’s forces and the Islamist extremists involved in the conflict would certainly reduce the opposition’s fragmentation. It would also furnish a powerful, secular institution around which a new Syrian government could be built.
"China, Iran and Russia never bought into the geopolitical settlement that followed the Cold War, and they are making increasingly forecful attempts to overturn it. That process will not be peaceful, and whether or not the revisionists succeed, their efforts have already shaken the balance of power…"
"Obama now finds himself bogged down in exactly the kinds of geopolitical rivalries he had hoped to transcend"
Far Eastern Promises | Foreign Affairs: Why Washington should focus on Asia.
G. John Ikenberry | Geopolitics Are Not Back -- China, Iran, and Russia are Third-Rate Powers | Foreign Affairs The Enduring Power of the Liberal Order
"it is a misreading of China and Russia, which are not full-scale revisionist powers but part-time spoilers at best, as suspicious of each other as they are of the outside world. True, they look for opportunities to resist the United States’ global leadership, and recently, as in the past, they have pushed back against it, particularly when confronted in their own neighborhoods. But even these conflicts are fueled more by weakness -- their leaders’ and regimes’ -- than by strength. They have no appealing brand. And when it comes to their overriding interests, Russia and, especially, China are deeply integrated into the world economy and its governing institutions."
"...the grand strategy it should pursue is the one it had followed for decades: deep global engagement...It is a strategy in which the United States established leadership not simply through the exercise of power but also through sustained efforts at global problem solving and rule making"
Comments