The Case Against an Isolationist Foreign Policy
The United States is in a period when isolationism is on the ascent. A decade plus of continuous warfare has drained the American people's will and sucked funds which could be used to address other pressing domestic issues. With little tangible results from our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans have become jaded and are driving the political narrative for a more isolationist foreign policy.
I see this as a political foreign policy failure, or more accurately the lack of a transparent and strategic foreign policy. Historically, the United States has primarily had an isolationist foreign policy with limited foreign intervention. After World War II, the United States became the leading power to combat Soviet interventionism with a robust international presence. Inevitably, we became the indispensable policeman to the world. Unfortunately, military power has been (and still is) the driving force in U.S. international diplomacy. We now see U.S. military power being contested through irregular warfare and nation-state adversaries who are inclined to conduct enterprise-wide offensive operations (ie. cyber warfare, use of militia and/or irregular force proxies, etc.).
With an increased demand for an isolationist foreign policy and a military engaged in long term irregular warfare, what does the United States do now?
I contend that instead of taking the isolationist approach, the United States needs to redefine it's foreign policy and make policy making and implementation more transparent. First, let's dispel the notion that the U.S. should build "Fortress America" and disengage from the international community. The world is more connected at this time in history and is only going to become more so as barriers and distances are reduced through information technology and communication innovation, economic partnerships, legal agreements, and business agreements.
Politicians and political hacks who tout an isolationist America see a world through pre-World War II lens instead of current reality. Besides removing American military members from all foreign wars and engagements, isolationists also want closed borders to all immigration (characterized as a temporary hiatus to reset current immigration issues), disengage from international trade agreements, remove the U.S. from international organizations, and penalize companies with international reach through increased business taxation and "liberal" regulations.
Even if the United States could do all of those things, would we even want to? Instead of an isolationist foreign policy, I contend the United States needs to develop, and more importantly implemented, a limited interventionist foreign policy.
U.S. foreign policy should follow the following precepts:
Now that there is an overarching framework for a limited interventionist foreign policy, what are the obstacles for implementation?
There are several challenges, some which are political but some of which are ingrained within the institutions and professionals which dictate foreign policy.
On the political front, the challenges which come to mind are:
Besides the political front, foreign policy experts, think tanks, and defense industries also throw up roadblocks to real change. Foreign policy experts and think tanks are caught up in groupthink. There is very little, if any at all, divergent ideas on how the United States should intervene in international affairs. These experts fall into the same tired camps, those who endorse engagement to enforce "democratic" values upon tyrannical regimes, intervene in a human tragedy (be the world's policeman), or make right an internationally determined wrong. There is hardly any critical voices asking if intervention is to protect direct U.S. national security, instead criticism is often couched in competing political ideology.
So who benefits from continuous and ambiguous warfare? Well we already mentioned how politicians benefit. Foreign policy experts and think tanks receive millions of federal contracts and grants to come up with the same old lessons learned from past intervention and write a report on how best to mitigate the issues found in the next intervention. And then there are the private defense companies who receive hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to support the national security sector and produce billions of dollars worth of equipment and munitions.
Where do we go from here? We need politicians with the cajones to question the status quo and challenge the establishment on why the U.S. needs to intervene in an international crisis - and not just to make political points. Politically taking on the establishment will most likely have negative career ramifications, but politics should not be a career for any person. We need politicians who will tackle foreign policy, not as an afterthought to a developing/developed crisis, but as a leader driving for answers on the direct threat to national security and engaging the federal inter-agency to rely first on the diplomatic, information/intelligence, and economic centers of power.
There needs to be a shake up of all these foreign policy experts and think tanks. This will be a long term transition since we have an academic industry which is intimately tied to these experts and think tanks and the federal government for funding and prestige. Contrarian voices need to be heard. Industry publications should promote contrarian foreign policy viewpoints and provide a marketplace for an honest exchange of ideas. The influence of some of these experts and think tanks (such as the Atlantic Council and Council on Foreign Relations) should also be limited and the flow of personnel back and forth between the think tanks and Administrative agencies tempered.
But what is really needed is an American populace who inform themselves on the issues, how international intervention is in response to a direct national security threat, and to hold the political establishment accountable for U.S. tax dollars and lives.
I see this as a political foreign policy failure, or more accurately the lack of a transparent and strategic foreign policy. Historically, the United States has primarily had an isolationist foreign policy with limited foreign intervention. After World War II, the United States became the leading power to combat Soviet interventionism with a robust international presence. Inevitably, we became the indispensable policeman to the world. Unfortunately, military power has been (and still is) the driving force in U.S. international diplomacy. We now see U.S. military power being contested through irregular warfare and nation-state adversaries who are inclined to conduct enterprise-wide offensive operations (ie. cyber warfare, use of militia and/or irregular force proxies, etc.).
With an increased demand for an isolationist foreign policy and a military engaged in long term irregular warfare, what does the United States do now?
I contend that instead of taking the isolationist approach, the United States needs to redefine it's foreign policy and make policy making and implementation more transparent. First, let's dispel the notion that the U.S. should build "Fortress America" and disengage from the international community. The world is more connected at this time in history and is only going to become more so as barriers and distances are reduced through information technology and communication innovation, economic partnerships, legal agreements, and business agreements.
Politicians and political hacks who tout an isolationist America see a world through pre-World War II lens instead of current reality. Besides removing American military members from all foreign wars and engagements, isolationists also want closed borders to all immigration (characterized as a temporary hiatus to reset current immigration issues), disengage from international trade agreements, remove the U.S. from international organizations, and penalize companies with international reach through increased business taxation and "liberal" regulations.
Even if the United States could do all of those things, would we even want to? Instead of an isolationist foreign policy, I contend the United States needs to develop, and more importantly implemented, a limited interventionist foreign policy.
U.S. foreign policy should follow the following precepts:
- U.S. intervention directly protects U.S. national security interests. In other words the United States no longer engages in regime-change wars or preemptive intervention unless there is a direct and imminent threat to U.S. security.
- Humanitarian intervention should be left up to international organizations, such as the United Nations (UN) or intergovernmental organizations (IGO) like the European Union or Arab League. These organizations have a vested interest in human rights issues and regional conflicts which cause a humanitarian crisis. Yes, there is an issue with resourcing the UN and IGOs but the most effective way to deal with these humanitarian crisis is to have local and regional actors being the stop-gap and someone such as the UN putting into place government development programs with an eye towards ensuring minority rights are protected.
- If it has been decided that U.S. national security is direct jeopardy and all elements of U.S. power are needed to intervene, a concrete strategy needs to be defined with tangible objective(s) understood by the national security apparatus, to include the political establishment. No more ambiguity which creates space for mission creep. CAVEAT: flexibility, within the framework of the strategy is required but it should not muddle mission objective(s).
- Military intervention should be the tactic of last resort. The other categories of national power (diplomatic, information, and economic) should be the default U.S. position for intervention. Here is where trade compacts will come into play as an avenue for foreign policy. In negotiating trade agreements, there needs to be clauses which allow the use of economic power to achieve foreign policy objective(s). The United States should be able to leverage these clauses to assist in mitigating direct threats to the homeland.
- Intervention against existential threats by sub-national actors, requires a nuanced approach. U.S. diplomats would assist the host nation with programs and expertise to build sustainable institutions and local initiatives to eliminate safe havens. Military action would capitalize on information and intelligence operations in coordination with the host nation or if we are looking at a failed state, the larger international community. These information and intelligence operations would direct special operations (SO) military intervention. SO units would predominantly act as advisers to the host nation and/or support in joint operations. Only in the instance in which the SO forces are operating in a failed state without indigenous options would they be involved in direct action.
- Military intervention will be turned over to the host nation as governmental institutions are built and supported. U.S. military forces will provide support to our allies in the conflict but the host nation and/or regional allies will take over the majority of operations.
Now that there is an overarching framework for a limited interventionist foreign policy, what are the obstacles for implementation?
There are several challenges, some which are political but some of which are ingrained within the institutions and professionals which dictate foreign policy.
On the political front, the challenges which come to mind are:
- Politicians who do not understand foreign policy and do not care until there is some sort of public outcry for action. In these instances, foreign policy becomes weaponized and used to denigrate the "others."
- Administrations develop ambiguous strategies which are not rooted in geopolitical reality, but are built on historic assumptions trying to exercise ancient foreign policy ghosts.
- Both parties are the opposite side of the same coin. Since September 11th, both parties want to maintain the security kabuki theater and tout their national security cred. Maintaining perpetual warfare benefits both parties with defense industry dollars, defense jobs in their districts, and a built-in excuse for inaction on other critical issues. Besides, it seems as though many of the politicians, at the federal level at least, slide quite easily onto these large defense company boards after they leave or are voted out of office. They can capitalize on their political capital to profit for themselves and the companies they eventually work for.
Besides the political front, foreign policy experts, think tanks, and defense industries also throw up roadblocks to real change. Foreign policy experts and think tanks are caught up in groupthink. There is very little, if any at all, divergent ideas on how the United States should intervene in international affairs. These experts fall into the same tired camps, those who endorse engagement to enforce "democratic" values upon tyrannical regimes, intervene in a human tragedy (be the world's policeman), or make right an internationally determined wrong. There is hardly any critical voices asking if intervention is to protect direct U.S. national security, instead criticism is often couched in competing political ideology.
So who benefits from continuous and ambiguous warfare? Well we already mentioned how politicians benefit. Foreign policy experts and think tanks receive millions of federal contracts and grants to come up with the same old lessons learned from past intervention and write a report on how best to mitigate the issues found in the next intervention. And then there are the private defense companies who receive hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to support the national security sector and produce billions of dollars worth of equipment and munitions.
Where do we go from here? We need politicians with the cajones to question the status quo and challenge the establishment on why the U.S. needs to intervene in an international crisis - and not just to make political points. Politically taking on the establishment will most likely have negative career ramifications, but politics should not be a career for any person. We need politicians who will tackle foreign policy, not as an afterthought to a developing/developed crisis, but as a leader driving for answers on the direct threat to national security and engaging the federal inter-agency to rely first on the diplomatic, information/intelligence, and economic centers of power.
There needs to be a shake up of all these foreign policy experts and think tanks. This will be a long term transition since we have an academic industry which is intimately tied to these experts and think tanks and the federal government for funding and prestige. Contrarian voices need to be heard. Industry publications should promote contrarian foreign policy viewpoints and provide a marketplace for an honest exchange of ideas. The influence of some of these experts and think tanks (such as the Atlantic Council and Council on Foreign Relations) should also be limited and the flow of personnel back and forth between the think tanks and Administrative agencies tempered.
But what is really needed is an American populace who inform themselves on the issues, how international intervention is in response to a direct national security threat, and to hold the political establishment accountable for U.S. tax dollars and lives.
Comments
Post a Comment