Post-Post Election Post

Having been swamped by too many freshman class papers to comprehend and a determination to avoid politics on Facebook, I also stepped away from blogging.  I want to thank Joe Cunningham for allowing me to share my bloggy thoughts on his site, and for his patience while I worked out my assessment of where the 2012 election is leading the United States in the realm of world affairs.

First, a recap of my thoughts on the two major party candidates per foreign policy questions.

• Because I believe the "real" Mitt Romney is "Moderate Mitt" and not "Severely Conservative Mitt," I always thought there were more similarities than differences in the world affairs views of the two candidates. This was proven during the debate on foreign policy in which Romney agreed with Obama's policies on a variety of substantive matters. The natural inclination in contemporary American politics seems to be to find fault with this, rather than take a positive view and find what can be built upon consensus.
• The issue that stood out for me per Romney was China. I feel quite strongly that, had he been elected, Mr. Romney would have spent Day Two of his administration explaining why he did not formally declare China to be a "currency manipulator" on Day One as he repeatedly promised. If this would have turned out to be inaccurate and the declaration issued, the effects would be both short-term (in the sovereign wealth and debt departments) and long-term (combining with ongoing and emerging areas of tension between China and the U.S. to make difficult the management of the most important international relationship for the 21st century. Romney).
• My view of the Obama Administration's management of U.S. foreign policy has been favorable, with strong positives far outweighing the complaints I hear. The Benghazi episode I liken to the 1982 attack on American Marines in Lebanon, an unfortunate event in a location of instability. However, unlike the history of Lebanon since 1982, the overall picture in Libya is encouraging, though with plenty to worry about as well.  The people's turn against the terrorists after the Benghazi attack proves (1) the Libyans are on our side against al Qaeda-related terrorist groups, and (2) they desire to take control and exercise responsibility over their own security challenges. By definition, unexpected crises can return with little specific warnings to dominate our attention, but the signs in Libya are more encouraging than they are discouraging.  Elsewhere, I agree that it is time for the Afghans and Iraqis to take responsibility for their own countries, ignoring for the moment that I don't really consider either to be a country, but highly fragile collections of people forced within common boundaries whose borders were drawn by outsiders with their own national interests to propagate.  The turnaround of Myanmar in both its foreign and domestic politics has been remarkable and significant as part of the administration's defense strategy of "pivoting" or "rebalancing" U.S. attention and resources toward Asia.  Because of the nature of Asian geopolitics, we learned long ago that multilateral alliance building does not work. Therefore, working bilaterally with Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Australia and others, the administration has cultivated the beginnings of an effective military alliance network to counter the rise of China in the region. In the Persian Gulf, the Iranian-Israeli tensions are often highlighted at the expense of another factor, i.e., Iran's relations with its Arab neighbors, of which only Syria is on friendly terms and Syria is imploding with the help of its Persian, Turk and Arab neighbors. As covered in an earlier post here, the tensions between the United Arab Emirates and Iran are in increasingly heated over the islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunbs and Lesser Tunbs, located very near the Strait of Hormuz.  The U.S. has increased arms sales in the region, particularly in the area of missile defense with most going to Saudi Arabia and UAE.  Diplomatically, the Gulf Cooperation Council, which has never been more than a loosely organized collection of Gulf Arab states is still by no means as institutionalized as NATO or such long standing groups but is more cohesive and focused on a common problem than ever.  Many are facing domestic troubles and are presenting the West with a dilemma it's faced before, between supporting a strategically important ally and supporting the domestic opposition to the regime's policies and human rights records.  The situation in Bahrain, propped up by Saudi Arabia against a Shi'ite uprising, is a case in point.
• In sum, President Obama has practiced a pragmatic form of Realism or Realpolitik, aka power politics in which one cautiously determines policy based on considerations of power more so than of values such as democracy promotion.  His reputation as a Machiavellian political figure would also lend support to this characterization.  This is not to say concern for democracy and human rights is absent from the agenda, but as with the Realpolitik of Nixon/Kissinger, support for human rights is often a strategic move designed to enhance one's power position. From his early call for snipers to take out Somali pirates through his further advancement, by a large measure, of America's traditional disregard for the sovereignty of foreign states when the sovereignty or security of the United States is perceived to be at risk, Obama has demonstrated he is no idealist.  His policy toward Israel is classic Realism, for example following one of the great Hans "father of modern realism" Morgenthau's principles of international relations -- that big powers do not do the bidding of lesser powers. Obama may not have the best relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu, but that may not be an entirely negative thing, and more importantly the relationship between the nations is much more than the relationship between specific governing officials at any given time.  And, finally, Obama's foreign policy has fully realized the importance of understanding new forms of warfare, including terrorism and cyberwar. We are witnessing hard fought but real successes in Somalia, Uganda, and Kenya, as well as progressing the effort against AQIM in Mali now that ECOWAS will be sending in stabilization forces.
• As stated (and used blatantly and proudly by the Obama team), Mr. Romney agreed with the general trajectory and sometimes specific policies of much of Obama's foreign policy. Which leaves the question as to why I would oppose Romney so strongly on foreign policy grounds.
1. Neo-Conservatism. The fact that Romney chose to seek the formal participation in his campaign by the likes of John Bolton was a giant red flag. The track record of these people is abysmal. They are blinded by ideology and do not get that the proper participation in global power politics is to know not only the extent but also the limits of one's power at any given time. More importantly their idealism regarding the ability of the United States to transplant democracy anywhere in the world regardless of local history and culture is dangerous, potentially leading us not into a possible limited, targeted strike on Iran, but a full blown invasion, occupation, regime change and democratization. Beware liberal imperialists is a byword with me. 
2. Great Power Politics. Romney did nothing to convince me to believe he understands the nuance required in relations with countries like China and Russia. The Russians did not follow the U.S. election very closely, reportedly because many felt that U.S.-Russian relations would not change with either candidate winning.  Frankly, I could not get a good read on Romney's strategic thinking about Russia, as I downplay the significance of gaffes from his campaign about the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia that made occasional headlines.  Romney's statement about Russia being America's #1 geopolitical foe is hardly enough to go on, though it raises valid questions about his judgment (and I'm one who found the statement not entirely unreasonable because, indeed, we do and will have geopolitical rivalries against the Russians). Obama also made numerous rookie mistakes, such as with the silly "reset" button presented to Putin.
   But, generally, American policy on Russia would be a bit ambiguous regardless of who is president, because either would have to deal with Putin's mercurial attitude, and with the fact that domestically Putin is facing a rising tide of trouble. The U.S. under Obama has worked effectively with the Central Asian states, who are determined to remain independent in spite of the American-Russian-Chinese rivalry for their allegiance and resources.  On China, as mentioned earlier, I never understand why candidates lock themselves into a self-spun web by pronouncing some bold action "on day one," whether it was to close Gitmo or to formally designate China a currency manipulator.  Regardless, to pronounce such a policy without conditions or stated support for diplomatic maneuvering prior to such a drastic step was not wise in my view. More generally regarding China, Romney seemed to think China's government would change its behavior simply because a President Romney would insist upon it. This shows a troubling idealism or delusion about how international relations work, especially between great powers.  Obama's pivot to Asia, while not without its resource constraints even as we exit Iraq and Afghanistan, has taken the form of about a half-dozen vital bilateral relationships that together form a network of allies countering Chinese claims to disputed territories and control of sea lanes. These type of issues are far too obscure (unfortunately) from the American public's view to be debated in our electoral campaigns, therefore we have to go by what we do hear, and, again, nothing I heard from the Romney camp convinced me he had the temperament, judgment and independent mind for leadership on this level.
3. Middle Powers....There was little mention of Brazil or India, so honestly here I'm talking mostly about Israel again. I oppose many Israeli policies but I also understand their position and have no problem with the U.S. allying with Israel. But it seems to me many people have skewed ideas about how international alliances work. There is too much analogizing to personal relationships, constantly referring to the Israelis as friends rather than allies (and there never seems to be any question of how Israel treats the United States, only the other way around).  Also, as I mentioned earlier, there is apparent confusion as to how superpowers are to conduct themselves in relations with lesser powers. I am not recommending a policy of disdain or condescension, but I am saying that American policy must be based on American interests, and Israel has a separate set of concerns than we do as a global power. I fear that many of the conservative movement allow themselves to go too far in support of Israel, treating Israel as an extension of the United States (or the other way around, even), and advocating a scenario wherein the U.S. follows Israel's lead rather than the other way around. We can replace the name Israel with any other mid-level power in the world and my opinion would be the same -- the bigger player calls the shots. I also do not associate myself with the religiously-driven agenda of some American supporters of Israel, but I have little doubt they would have had greater influence in a Romney administration than in the Obama administration, and I do not find that to be a proper basis for policy. Then there's the oddity of Sherman Adelson, whose agenda for supporting first Gingrich and then Romney included the liberation of Jonathan Pollard from U.S. prison. That's all I needed to know.
4. Terrorism. Here Mr. Romney offered much agreement with the course of actions taken by President Obama, which does little to recommend the need for replacing the incumbent. The progress we've made in Africa -- not completed but definitely progress has been made -- is exemplary of Obama's strategy of using Special Ops Forces and drone technology rather than sledge hammer invasions.
5. To conclude, anyone who is and will be President of the United States for some time to come will be faced with enormous and multi-faceted challenges. I appreciate the Realism-based approach of the Obama administration, which is not to say there no downsides or that all has been perfect. Far from it. But it's a philosophy I find most compelling and productive of international stability. I don't argue that a Romney foreign policy would have been disastrous; indeed, it's apparent many current policies would continue. This is actually more the norm than otherwise, but people seem to have a need to believe that EVERYTHING changes when administrations change, particularly when one party replaces the other in the White House.  Yet there is always a great deal of continuity. In the end, I could not find compelling reasons to support Romney, or to change from the course we are on under Obama onto a Romney course that involves influences I find questionable for American interests and many questions about Romney's own stated positions.