Tag: foreign policy

The Next President Needs a Foreign Policy Reality Check 

On top of ongoing conflicts in Europe and the Middle East and rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, the next administration will inherit structural domestic and international obstacles that have been mounting for decades. Addressing these challenges while keeping our current U.S. foreign policy strategy on autopilot simply won’t cut it—it is time for a new approach. 

Since America’s victory in the Cold War, our national security elites in both parties have avoided asking fundamental questions about what missions the United States should be engaged in. These experts insist that maintaining a heavy military footprint across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia simultaneously is necessary for American security. 

Focusing on how to resource these missions without reflecting on their wisdom or sustainability misses the forest for the trees. Twenty years of open-ended nation-building efforts in the Middle East cost thousands of service members’ lives. These conflicts also came at the price of $6 trillion, damaged American military readiness, and aided our great power rivals by diverting our focus and energy.  

After decades of deficit spending, our national debt is approaching $36 trillion, a ten-fold increase from the end of the Cold War. After the COVID pandemic, our nation’s debt hadn’t been so large in relation to our economy since the Second World War. At this point, our interest payments alone are exceeding U.S. defense spending from this year. 

On top of these challenges, the trust funds for our biggest domestic programs—Social Security and Medicare—are on track to be insolvent in a decade and impose benefits cuts unless the next administration makes difficult domestic choices to secure their future.  

Taken together, the United States now experiences a strategic scarcity that our national security class has not had to deal with for generations.  

We cannot buy our way out of these constraints, as the Commission on the National Defense Strategy recently called for. Voters, especially in swing states, are already disillusioned with America’s level of involvement in conflicts abroad. Americans are not going to make the painful fiscal sacrifices needed to secure our financial future only to see trillions more squandered on flawed defense strategies.  

In the face of these challenges, Concerned Veterans for America’s new report, “Realism in Practice,” offers a fresh, disciplined path forward for U.S. foreign policy, rooted in assessing our strategic situation as it is, not as we might wish it to be. 

American strategic goals need to align with America’s available resources. Policymakers also need to use the right tools to achieve these goals, avoiding overreliance on an already overstretched, undermanned military. Our allies can and should take greater responsibility for their own defense. The United States needs to concentrate its military resources on regions most vital to its core interests, while relying more on diplomatic and economic engagement elsewhere.

Keep reading

American Outreach to Middle Eastern Despots Is Shortsighted

President Joe Biden is an increasingly decrepit lame duck. A Washington fixture for more than 50 years, he is lost in time, believing that the U.S. is still the unipower and essential nation, enabling him to “run” the world. Those days, to the extent that they ever existed, are long past.

Biden has spent most of his term sacrificing the interests of Americans to benefit foreign governments. Particularly bad is the administration’s bizarre offer of a security guarantee to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s few absolute monarchies, headed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. That would mean turning the U.S. military into a modern janissary corps, with American personnel acting as royal bodyguards. Apparently cooked up by the National Security Council staffer Brett McGurk, acting as Riyadh’s man in Washington, the plan continues to be pressed by Biden, contradicting the latter’s many embarrassing paeans to democracy.

Few Washington policy proposals are so loathsome and irrational. It is tempting to write the idea off as a product of Biden’s advancing dementia. Other administration officials lack that excuse, however. For instance, Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed, “It would really change the prospects of the entire region far into the future.” Nevertheless, the so-called Abraham Accords are not peace treaties despite their strangely idyllic reputation, since none of the nations involved have been at war with Israel. Rather, the U.S. is paying Sunni Arab regimes to establish diplomatic relations with Jerusalem. 

The earlier agreements were bad for America. Bribes should not be necessary if a de facto alliance against Iran is in the interests of Arab countries and Israel. However, the former governments, despite long having back-channel relations with Israel, played the U.S. In exchange for recognition of Jerusalem, Washington expanded arms sales to the United Arab Emirates and recognized Morocco’s illegal conquest of Western Sahara. 

Biden would provide the Kingdom with a security guarantee backed by U.S. troops, along with a sweetheart nuclear energy deal. Americans would protect MbS, as the killer prince is known, while he imprisons and murders, and sometimes dismembers, his domestic critics, and attempts to coerce his neighbors. According to Washington’s magical thinking, heavenly peace would then take hold. Iran would surrender, allowing Riyadh to dominate the region. The Palestinians would yield, docilely acting as cheap labor for their Israeli overlords. After the lion and lamb laid down together, the U.S. military would be able to withdraw from the Mideast. Everyone would live happily ever after, especially the Saudi and Israeli lobbies in Washington. 

In fact, paying off MbS and his wastrel royal elite would be bad policy in almost every way.

Keep reading

Biden’s ‘leadership’ is blowing the lid off two wars

President Joe Biden has called America “the world power,” and has referred to his “leadership in the world.” If Biden does indeed see himself as a, or the, world leader, then he has been disappointing in his job and has mismanaged it.

The world today stands on the brink of larger wars, even potentially world wars, on two fronts simultaneously. That is, perhaps, a more precarious position than the world has found itself in in over half a century, since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and perhaps longer. Then, the danger came from a single front: today, there is danger on two or even three.

The Biden administration seemingly subscribes to a foreign policy doctrine of nurturing wars while attempting to manage them so that they remain confined to America’s foreign policy interests and do not spill over into wider wars. But such fine calibrations are not easily done. War is sloppy and unpredictable. Though a nation’s plans may be well understood by its planners, calibration of what might push the enemy too far and cause a wider war depends equally on your enemy’s plans, calibrations, passions and red lines: all of which are harder to profile or understand.

What is more, the contemporary culture of the U.S. foreign policy establishment seems dedicated precisely to excluding the kind of knowledge and empathy that allows one to understand an adversary’s mind, and instead to fostering ill-informed and hate-filled prejudice.

Calibrating how far you can push militarily or politically without tipping the balance of containment and triggering full-scale war is dangerously worse than tricky. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah badly miscalculated how far the calibrated strikes and responses with Israel could go before a controlled conflict became a larger war. The price of miscalculation was his life and a war in Lebanon.

Successive U.S. and European governments, and the NATO Secretariat, calculated that they could, through a series of steps, expand NATO into the former Soviet space without triggering a military response from Russia. The result of this miscalculation has been a war that has been disastrous for Ukraine and severely damaging for Western interests and that risks ending in either Western humiliation or direct war between Russia and the West.

Keep reading

The Failure of Biden’s ‘Just Say Don’t’ Foreign Policy

“Don’t.” That has been President Biden’s repeated message to Iran and Hezbollah in the year since Hamas attack Israel on October 7. Well, Iran just did. Again. That makes Tehran’s October 1 attack on Israel with about 180 ballistic missiles a test not just of Israeli resolve, but of American credibility. The United States should join with Israel in imposing, as national security advisor Jake Sullivan said, “severe consequences” on Iran.

The Biden administration’s strategy throughout the last year of conflict has been to seek de-escalation and avoid a broadening of the conflict wherever and whenever possible. That was the import of President Biden’s warning of “don’t” in last October, telling Iran and Hezbollah to avoid joining Hamas’s savage attack. He issued the same warning in April, as Iran was preparing to strike Israel.

The administration also backed up its warnings by deploying significant military assets to the region. That might have helped prevent a Hezbollah invasion of Israel a year ago, but that is about the extent his warning’s effectiveness.

Hezbollah attacked anyway, just from the air. Just a day after 10/7, it began raining rockets on northern Israel in a year-long war of attrition that has left over 60,000 Israelis homeless. Despite Biden’s warnings, Iran now has twice fired an unprecedented amount of missiles at Israel, which could have inflicted untold damage on Israel if they had penetrated Israeli airspace and hit population centers. Fortunately, Israeli and American air defenses neutralized them.

Indeed, Biden’s commitment to Israel’s self-defense has been admirable. His U.S. deployment of military assets has critically helped Israel in its defensive actions. But it is not just Iran that Biden has been trying to deter, it is Israel, too. And in that he has been far more successful.

Repeatedly, over the past year, Biden has said “don’t” to Iran, but Iran and its proxies did; Biden helps defend Israel, then tells Israel “don’t.” The Biden administration has opposed every Israeli action that would truly deter the Iranian axis and enable actual victory, such as the ground incursion in Gaza, the conquest of Rafah, and the killing of Nasrallah. After the April 13 Iranian attack, Biden told Israel to “take the win.”

The same pattern is repeating itself again.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris’s Foreign Policy: Similar to Biden’s, but Even Worse

When asked on The View what changes she would make to Biden’s policies, Kamala Harris responded, “Not a thing that comes to mind.”

Beyond showing a lack of preparation for even the most basic interview questions, this answer confirms what many already suspected: Kamala’s policies would simply be a continuation of Biden’s, but worse.

Her administration would start at an even lower point than Biden’s, pushing more liberal policies that will only further exacerbate the foreign policy issues and conflicts currently threatening the country.

Biden’s foreign policy has been an absolute train wreck, from the botched Afghanistan withdrawal to weak handling of China, the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, the ransom payment to Iran, and his failure to address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism.

His border and immigration policies, handling of Mexico, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, energy policy, and OPEC relations have caused gas prices to double.

On top of that, he’s mishandled North Korea and handed over the last U.S. military base in sub-Saharan Africa to a repressive military junta.

Chief among Biden’s greatest failures is the botched Afghanistan withdrawal in August 2021, which led to the rapid Taliban takeover, the abandonment of U.S. allies, and the deaths of 13 U.S. service members in the Kabul airport bombing. This catastrophe is the crown jewel in Biden’s Foreign Policy Belt of Failure.

Keep reading

The Insanity of US Foreign Policy

What do you do with a president (and of course he’s just reading a script given to him) who says he “fully, fully, fully” supports Israel as it commits genocide in Gaza, gobbles up the West Bank, invades Lebanon, and spoils for a war with Iran? It’s as if Joe Biden took an oath to Israel rather than the U.S. Constitution. And will the madness be any different under Kamala Harris or Donald Trump?

And, speaking of foreign interference in U.S. elections, why is Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli leader overseeing genocide and invasions, allowed to address Congress, before which he receives stormy applause from virtually every senator and representative? Why are organizations like AIPAC allowed to have so much power and influence (through campaign financing and lobbying) over U.S. elections? Why is it OK when AIPAC brags that its support ensures that candidates win their elections, and that its opposition determines that they lose?

The untoward influence exercised by Israel and AIPAC ensures you have the “choice” of Donald Trump, who advocates smashing Iran for Israel, and Kamala Harris, who gives her unqualified support of Israel’s right to defend itself (of course, everything Israel does is “defensive”). The U.S. military is currently defending Israel in the Middle East, effectively at war with Iran (one hopes it doesn’t escalate, but a wider war with Iran may be the “October surprise” that will have Harris and Trump falling over each other to profess their undying devotion to defending Israel and smiting its enemies in the name of freedom).

It’s bizarre indeed to see the world’s self-styled lone superpower and imperial hegemon reduced to a lackey and toady of Bibi Netanyahu and hardliners within Israel. It’s not just a case of the tail wagging the dog but a flea on the tail wagging the dog.

With my globe in front of me, I see how geographically small Israel is. In land area, it’s roughly the size of New Jersey, Google tells me. Now, imagine if New Jersey completely dominated U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and heavily influenced presidential and congressional elections across America. A little weird, don’t you think?

Keep reading

Russian Arms Dealer and “Merchant of Death” Viktor Bout Who Joe Biden Exchanged for Pot-Smoking Brittney Griner Is Back in Business Selling $10 Million in Arms to Houthi Rebels

Another major foreign policy failure by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

Nothing ever seems to go right for this ridiculous, tyrannical administration.

The infamous “Merchant of Death” Viktor Bout, who Joe Biden traded for WNBA pot-smoking star Brittney Griner, is allegedly back in business. Bout reportedly was caught selling $10 million in arms to Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to The Wall Street Journal.

WNBA star Brittney Griner was found guilty of drug smuggling with criminal intent in a Russian court in August 2022.

The 6’9″ basketball star was accused of possession of vape cartridges containing cannabis oil at a Moscow airport in February, during the lead-up to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine later that month. Griner’s defense team said she was prescribed marijuana by a doctor for pain treatment.

Russia released Brittney Griner in exchange for international arms dealer Viktor Bout, the notorious “Merchant of Death.”

Vikor Bout is a former Soviet military officer, who was serving a 25-year prison sentence in the United States on charges of conspiring to kill Americans, acquire and export anti-aircraft missiles, and provide material support to a terrorist organization. Bout has maintained he is innocent – via CNN.

Bout armed terrorist groups in some of the most violent conflicts in the world.

Bout was arrested back in 2008 in Thailand and extradited back to the United States. His arrest was linked at the time to FARC rebels in Colombia.

Keep reading

When odious foreign policy elites rally around Harris

Efforts to bolster the candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris by the D.C. foreign policy establishment kicked into overdrive over the course of the past week with the near simultaneous release of two open letters signed by hundreds of former U.S. national security officials.

It is an accelerated version of previous campaigns in 2016 and 2020, where ex-officials and military officers on both sides of the aisle vocalizing major opposition to Trump offer to give national security cred to the Democratic candidate — in this case Harris. For their part, the candidate virtually ignores that many of these endorsements are in many cases coming from odious individuals, including architects of wars and interventions that Democrats have openly criticized as stains on recent American history.

The first was a letter signed by over 100 former Republican national security officials stating that while they, alumni of every Republican administration from Reagan to Trump, “expect to disagree with Kamala Harris on many domestic and foreign policy issues” they also “firmly oppose the election of Donald Trump.”

According to the former GOP officials, Trump’s “susceptibility to flattery and manipulation by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, unusual affinity for other authoritarian leaders, contempt for the norms of decent, ethical and lawful behavior, and chaotic national security decision-making” render him a danger to U.S. national security interests.

Critics of course point out that many of these people are the same Washington creatures who got our country into endless foreign wars and profited from them for 20 years straight — and until this day support cruel, authoritarian dictators when convenient to U.S. policy. They are not wrong.

As a group, the signatories of the first letter are a very mixed bag. The missive does feature a few sensible, responsible pillars of the Washington establishment, including those of former defense secretary (and U.S. senator) Chuck Hagel, and former FBI and CIA director William Webster.

Yet for the most part, the letter carried with it the odor of the consensus minded War Party, if not 9/11-era neoconservatism. In the past this would have been a problem for traditionally liberal and progressive outlets, but Mother Jones and the New Republic were quick to applaud the letter as a “win” for the Harris campaign. Not surprisingly, only The Nation has called out their fellow liberals and progressives for making common cause with the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, both of whom have also endorsed Harris in recent days (except for columnist Joan Walsh, who found Liz Cheney’s endorsement of Harris “strangely moving,” writing, “Liz, I told you we could find common ground. Let’s have a cup of coffee. Or even a beer?”

This columnist at Al Jazeera, however, offers no stated desire for beers with the Cheneys, particularly father Dick. “What makes Cheney’s endorsement, and the Democratic Party’s embrace of it, particularly galling is the way in which they gloss over these past sins in order to paint him as a guardian of American values,” charged Howard University Law school professor Ziyad Motola.

Just so.

The letter features dozens of embittered Republican hawks who claim to deplore Trump’s “unethical behavior and disregard for our Republic’s time-tested principles of constitutional governance” when they evinced no such concerns when they worked for the likes of George W. Bush, Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and old boss John Ashcroft during the Global War on Terror.

Keep reading

Debate Debacle: Our Bleak Foreign Policy Future

The first presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump presented a bleak picture of the future of U.S. foreign policy no matter who wins in November. On the most urgent and important foreign policy issue of the year, the war and genocide in Gaza, Harris repeated empty platitudes about a “two-state solution” and Trump fell back on tired “pro-Israel” rhetoric. Neither candidate offered voters any hope that there would be a meaningful change from Biden’s policy of unconditional support for the slaughter and starvation of Palestinians.

Trump absurdly said that Harris hates Israel, but aside from her perfunctory expression of support for Palestinian self-determination there was unfortunately very little to distinguish the two of them on this issue. Like Trump, Harris backs Israel to the hilt, and the main difference is that she pays lip service to Palestinian rights while doing nothing to protect them. She says some of the right things about the need for a ceasefire, but the Joe Biden administration isn’t willing to use its leverage to secure one and Harris refuses to call for the halt to U.S. arms transfers that U.S. law requires.

Harris has had many opportunities in the two months since Biden dropped out to separate herself from the president on this issue. She squandered them all by sticking to the official administration line. The vice president would rather tout her support from the likes of Dick Cheney than try to win the support of antiwar voters across the country. Harris has been catering mostly to hawks this summer, and she prefers attacking Trump for being “weak” instead of using his policy failures against him.

Keep reading

American Interventionist Foreign Policy: One and a Quarter Century of Failure

When Theodore Roosevelt succeeded William McKinley as president in 1901, he realized the US was no longer just a continental republic; with the Spanish-American War of 1898, America now claimed Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines as territories, Cuba a protectorate and annexed Hawaii.

Roosevelt “believed it was the burden of ‘civilized’ nations to uplift ‘uncivilized’ nations,” says Michael Patrick Cullinane. He believed U.S. interests were global interests, and that it was actually good for “civilized” nations to intervene in other countries’ affairs.

Moreover, the 26th president made sure the U.S. played a larger role in international affairs by extending the Monroe doctrine through the Roosevelt Corollary – the United States, henceforth, would protect countries in the Americas from recolonization by European powers, and would intervene militarily if  necessary to do so. It was a foreign policy he described as “speak softly and carry a big stick.” US presidents since Roosevelt have pursued his “big stick” foreign policy agenda.

In the slightly less than a hundred years from 1898 to 1994, the U.S. government (directly or indirectly) has intervened successfully to change governments in Latin America, alone, at least 41 times. That amounts to once every 28 months for an entire century. Overall, while the United States engaged in 46 military interventions from 1948–1991, from 1992–2017 that number increased fourfold to 188.

Keep reading