[Originally published in the Rutland Herald and Barre Times-Argus.]
For Americans who closely follow U.S. foreign policy, the end of the Bush era cannot come quickly enough. The precipitous change in the world’s view of American policy between 2001 and 2008 has been absolutely terrifying for those of us who truly believe that given world realities America cannot now and never could “go it alone” in the post-Cold War world.
The future of this country and the world, for that matter, lies not in Bush’s pre-emptive unilateralism, which was so fiercely championed by the neocons, practiced in Iraq and yearned for in Iran, but in establishing and maintaining alliances with other countries for the purpose of dealing with common problems and threats. Issues like terrorism, Korean nukes and Iranian nuclear development do not lend themselves to unilateral solutions.
We now have the potential to put that all behind us. A quick look at the resounding and virtually unanimous approval of the rest of the world of Barack Obama’s election as president, shows clearly not only what the world thinks of Bush’s policy of pre-emptive unilateralism and its total disregard for and rejection of the ideas of other nations, but the yearning for a more cooperative planet.
None of this is to suggest that the United States should simply disregard its legitimate national interests. Quite the contrary, it is to say clearly that our national interests lie not only in the goals we pursue, but in the means we use to pursue those goals. Even though it may be in our interest to seek a nuclear-free Iran, it is not in our interest to accomplish that through unilateral military action. In today’s world, because of our own policies and activities, our importance and influence are daily becoming more marginal. The ramifications of such policies, as embodied in Iraq today and soon in Afghanistan, will continue to be so threatening to our national interests that undertaking them will weaken America, rather than strengthen it. Our Iraq adventure has diminished our influence in the world in general and the Middle East in particular, decreased our ability to maintain friends and allies and limited our effectiveness in combating terrorism.
In the foreign policy context, President-elect Obama has developed policies that are clearly designed to pursue our national interests – with a major exception: Afghanistan and Pakistan, two nations that are joined at the hip. That problem will ultimately prove to be more complicated and intractable than Iraq and has no military solution. There is real peril there for the new president.
The Obama administration will carefully wind down U.S. commitment in Iraq where, successful surge or not, the ethnically and religiously divided Iraqis are historically disinclined to live peacefully together. There is, in fact, no history of such reconciliation in the absence of a repressive hand to enforce it. The purpose of the surge was to create an environment in which reconciliation would be possible, yet there is little evidence today that the Iraqis wish to make that happen.
Without taking the military option off the table, Obama will search for a negotiated settlement on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This will be in direct contrast to the neocon mantra that military action is the first and only useful tool in the conduct of foreign affairs. Such negotiations have the potential to re-establish a group of nations in support of a new policy in contrast to the opposition we face in proposing any military solution.
Palestine is the central issue in the Muslim world that makes problems for the United States. That is because U.S. policy is viewed by Muslims as one-sided. The issues are clear. There are United Nations resolutions on the table. The Obama administration will need to carefully examine past U.S. policies, not to punish either side, but to mitigate a 60-year-old irritant to regional harmony.
In return for real peace, Israel will have to seriously consider a border approximating that which existed before 1967 and the West Bank settlements will have to go. Further, the Obama administration will need to get American troops off Arab soil and reconsider its political and military support of the region’s undemocratic regimes. That may mean that something other than democracy will come to the Middle East, but absent that, turmoil will reign in the region.
Most important, if the Obama administration really wants to have an impact in the region; it will need to stop exporting democracy through force of arms. That simply will not work. Better we get our own house in order, something clearly high on the Obama agenda, to re-create that “shining city on the hill” that has made America so attractive over the decades to the rest of the world. Let the world import our strengths, but only if they choose to.
There are pitfalls and opportunities out there for the Obama administration. Fortunately, many of the pitfalls are amply illuminated by the blunders of the Bush administration and therefore easily avoided. The opportunities are equally identifiable by observing what the Bush administration did not do.
Somewhere in that mix lies a foreign policy that can put America back in sync with the rest of the world.
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA Station Chief who lives in Williston.
Rural Ruminations 