American Foreign Policy Post-WW II

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read a very interesting article that appeared online at www.AmericanDiplomacy.org . The author of the article argues that American foreign policy tends to veer between pragmatist and idealistic goals in foreign policy. He also argues that America gets into trouble when its resources, both human and financial, don't match its idealistic goals.

He points out, for example, that initially American foreign policy was to limit the containment of communism to Europe where America had troops stationed and where it had allies for such an effort. Then, after China went communist, Truman began to expand the zone of American resistance to communist expansion. He expanded it to include Southeast Asia. This led to American involvement in the Korean War, and the beginning of assistance to the French, who were fighting communist backed guerrillas in Indochina and assistance to the Filipino government, which was fighting a guerrilla movement of its own.

When Eisenhower was elected, however, it meant that there was a return to a more realistic foreign policy. Eisenhower decided not to try and liberate North Korea; decided not to get involved in the French war in Indochina; and decided not to make any attempts to overthrow the Chinese government. In fact, by stressing nuclear weapons in its defense policy, Eisenhower was trying to cut back on defense spending, which actually went down under Eisenhower.

And on it went, Kennedy-Johnson representing a more idealistic side to American foreign policy, Nixon representing a more realistic side; Carter shifted toward idealistic side with his emphasis on human rights; and Reagan represented the idealistic side with his desire to overthrow communist governments.

Clinton came into office without any foreign policy experience, with a world where the Soviet Union no longer existed, and with apparently no grand vision of how American foreign policy should be conducted. During his administration, however, the neo-cons began to put together a foreign policy based on idealistic goals. Goals that, as we have found out, did not match the resources of the United States.

What happened after 9-11-2001 was a perfect storm combining a president who didn't have any vision of his own; a public that was traumatized by what happened that day; and a group of influential neo-cons who had a vision of what they wanted to accomplish, especially in the oil rich Middle East. This combination led to the Iraqi War, which has cost hundreds of billions of dollars; over 3,000 American lives; thousands wounded; and a unknown number of Iraqis.

Democrats need to start talking about a "realistic" foreign policy. We need to have a vision of what we indeed to accomplish and how that vision matches up with our resources, both human and financial. Americans are going to be ready for a foreign policy that is based on realistic goals because the foreign policy we have had recently will have left a very sour taste in their mouths.

Bush No Longer Intimidating Democrats on Iraq

In this article from the New York Times, the writers talk about how Democrats have kept their Congressional unity over Iraq even in the face of Bush's tough-guy talk. The fact that Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate have stayed together on the Iraq vote is remarkable. In the past Bush could intimidate enough Democrats from "red" states or Congressional districts to give his policies a veneer of "bi-partisanship".

This intimidation took place because Democrats from such areas were afraid of his political power. Since he is now polling in the low to mid-thirties on job approval, his political power has diminished. The diminishment of Bush's political power combined with the power of being the majority party has emboldened Democrats and led to party unity on Iraq.

If Democrats keep united, they will force Bush to respond to them because it is hard to conduct a war without bi-partisan support for that war. Increasingly Republicans from "blue" states or Congressional districts will be under pressure to desert Bush on Iraq. It will be interesting to see how long Republicans will keep supporting Bush' war as we get closer to the 2008 elections.

Bush's & America's Lost Opportunity in Foreign Policy

Reuters has a story out today, (3.18.2007), about how the Iraq War has undercut the Bush administration and its chances of getting any sort of domestic agenda passed. It has also ended the talk of how the "Boy Genius", aka Karl Rove, aka "Turd Blossom", was going to reshape American politics by forging one party domination of the United States. One commentator points out that America's standing overseas has never been so low and he wonders if even a new administration can turn our image abroad around. (Click on the link in this entry's title to read the whole story).

Which brings us to the topic of this entry. Right after the events of 9-11 Bush and America enjoyed immense popularity abroad. There was broad support for our invasion of Afghanistan. Most of the world recognized that you couldn't allow a country to harbor terrorists who murdered over 3,000 of your citizens to go unpunished. The apparently quick victory in Afghanistan only fortified that sentiment.

If the Bush Administration had stopped there, consolidated its victory in Afghanistan, and helped bring about a secular democracy in Afghanistan, things would have been so much different from the aspect of America's image in the world. The United States would have been seen as doing the right thing.

It wouldn't have been easy. There would have been resistance from elements in Pakistan who might have supported Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. We would probably still have troops in Afghanistan and we would be spending a lot of money in aid to Afghanistan, but such actions would be seen by the rest of the world as necessary. Other countries would have seen that supporting terrorism leads to having governments successfully overthrown. American foreign policy objectives would have been much clearer and more defensible.

Now, all this isn't to say that Democrats at home wouldn't have still had their differences with Bush. Indeed you can make an argument that the best thing that Bush did for the Democratic Party was start his war with Iraq. It has clearly led to a decline in public support for the Republican Party, and has led, along with the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, a questioning of the basic competence of conservatives. Of course, its hard for Democrats to take any joy in this since it has come at the cost of over 3,000 American military deaths, the deaths of literally thousands of Iraqis, and the total disintegration of America's standing in the world.