In a post two weeks ago I wondered if President Obama's strategic vision was based on a brutally realistic assessment of our weakness and concluded:
Although it is too early to tell, and we will only really know how Obama will respond when he is actually tested, the early indications are that Obama does not particularly value the military option, does not believe that our military can positively impact events, and is making a virtue out of necessity by extolling dialog with our enemies. He may well be correct in his assessment of our paucity of options, but his sympathetic, willing, and apparently eager embrace of our weakness is troubling. As usual, events will be determinative.
Two weeks later, events are beginning to fill in a mixed picture in which Obama's apparent reluctance to exercise power in the international arena is producing a vacuum that others are willing to fill.
The first event of note concerns a 30 year war that finally ended this weekend. Richard Fernandez offers some perspective:
“Prabhakaran shot dead,” reports the Times Online.
...
The victorious Sri Lankans were said to have received large scale financial and technical assistance for their campaign against the Tigers from China. That assistance enabled them to thumb their noses at the Western capitals, which they must now be congratulating themselves for doing.
...
One wonders whether there isn’t some sudden realization that there’s no contest between brute power and the so-called protections of Western legitimacy. All the international tribunals which were supposed to bring justice to Lebanon, the sanctions which were to defang North Korea; the moral superiority which was to shame the Burmese Junta; all the pieces of paper which emanate from the United Nations are in danger of being regarded as Paper Tigers; which perhaps they now are. To see the utter pregnability of the walls of taboos and garlands of diplomatic wolfsbane with which the West has engirdled things laid bare may have sent the wrong message from Damascus to Teheran; from Gaza to Southern Lebanon; from the Northwest Frontier to the Black Sea. An international regime can survive many things; even defeat. What it cannot survive is a sudden realization that it is ridiculous. Legitimacy depends on prestige and upon respect. How much of that does the West have left?
America was once called a "Paper Tiger" because we were thought to be too soft to respond to provocations. The eventual legacy of our defeat in Vietnam, and our enabling of the defeat of our erstwhile allies in that benighted country, included 9/11. (Osama bin Laden explicitly mentioned our defeat in Vietnam as part of his evidence that a severe blow would cause us to fold.)
One unfortunate response to the war in Iraq has been the elevation of lawfare to a superordinate position. It is a tribute to our sensibilities that we make every attempt to minimize suffering and collateral damage in warfare but once the lawyers and the media have become the front line of defense for our enemies, our ability to make the single most moral choice in war, the choice to win, has been dangerously compromised. The effects of the changing rules for warfare, and the uncertainty under which our military must now operate, is leading to a relative abandonment of our traditional military and strategic interests. Galrahn posted a remarkable bit of news on the weekend that will be hard to find in the MSM. Did you know that America is abandoning a 200 year old policy with almost no comment? Apparently, it is now policy that Merchant ships sailing anywhere near the Somali coast should find their own ways to secure their passage; the United States will no longer police the sea-lanes. Note Galrahn's question:
Protecting Freedom of Navigation: No Longer a Naval Role
What is the US Navy's role in defending freedom of navigation anyway, and can anyone wearing a Navy uniform say with a straight face it is to protect the sea lines of communication or freedom of navigation when our governments own policy suggests they are willing to give up that freedom so easily?
Sound maritime strategy during a period of peaceful globalization must be built on a fundamental necessity to insure freedom of navigation for trade, particularly in the parts of the world that are disconnected, like Africa. Piracy is compounding the global economic slide for countries like Egypt, that rely heavily on income from the use of the Suez Canal. Kenya is also suffering, as ships instead take a longer route around Africa and many smaller ships are avoiding port in Kenya where normally they would take on fuel or provisions. These carry economic consequences in a part of the world where economy is the strategy to bring peace and stabilization to a very poor region of the world.
Economics is driving global peace between major powers today, and disruptions to the economic system, particularly at sea in places where globalization does not connect is a problem that should be addressed by all countries, and not just a single country. The very idea of flags of convenience is coming full circle to bite the maritime industry, and I for one have no problem with that. However, I believe Gene Taylor (D-MISS) is asking the right question and is on the right road here, the United States should take a more proactive role in the protection of US flagged ships, sending a clear message that we will at minimum protect our own even if we won't assume the full responsibility of protecting the global system. There is an old catch phrase in consulting, if you aren't willing to be part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem. I am not suggesting the US Navy or Marines are the optimal rent-a-cop for commercial ships, but we do collect taxes on the goods shipped on US flagged ships and with a well armed US military security team and with the US government providing the coverage of risk insurance through the transit zone for ships with an armed US guard, commercial ships can cut down on massive fuel, insurance, and private security costs while still paying large sums of taxes to the US. I have seen several models of such a system, and it can be done if the US can encourage participation.
The greatest triumph of the Anglosphere control of the seas has been the incredible growth of globalization, an economic engine that has lifted billions out of poverty and done more to increase peace than any treaty or UN proclamation. It is extraordinarily short sighted and will be incredibly damaging in the long run, to focus on, for example, a trillion dollar plus re-engineering of Healthcare while negelecting the foundation of our prosperity. [See especially, God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World]
If we do not act as guarantors of the international rules, no one will. The Chinese, acting in their national interest and without the legal qualms that are chaining us, will behave in their traditional amoral fashion. They will supply weapons to anyone who can pay whose interests align with theirs with no concern for human rights or dignity.
During the Bush administration it was commonplace for the left to complain, vituperatively at times, that the Bush foreign policy, based as it was in their fevered imagination on torture and abuse, was immoral and illegal. (It is absolutely true that Bush's America fought for what it identified as our national interest; it is also true that we fought in a much more moral fashion than any big power has before now.) Barack Obama emerged from that milieu, though, again, it remains to be seen if his beliefs are anything more than skin deep. If he is indeed committed to decreasing America's international footprint, the left will have their opportunity to see how a world governed by true Realpolitik, ie "Might Makes Right" will look. It will not be a pretty sight.
Worse, if Obama truly believes that weakness will beget accomodation from our enemeis, he is living in a fanatsy world as noted by Tom Barnett, a supporter of Barack Obama, who points out that Obama's apparent belief in nuclear disarmament will likely have the opposite response to what he intends:
Seven Reasons Why Obama's Nuke-Free Utopia Won't Work
The Obama administration wants to separate itself from the Bush-Cheney legacy of rejecting nuclear arms control while, at the same time, obsessing over the dangers of nuclear terrorism. I understand this. But there are better ways to bridge those two dangers than seeking to turn back the clock on nuclear weapons, which — counter-intuitive as it may seem — have actually kept us free of great-power war for well over six decades and counting.
Don't underestimate the power of America's large nuclear arsenal; it constitutes a very big stick that allows our leadership to speak softly as the world's sole military superpower. For a president of Obama's temperament and ambition, this is a match made in heaven. Now all he has to do is appreciate it, because with enough on his plate to consume five or six terms, Obama needs to husband his political capital at home and his diplomatic capital abroad to focus more on pressing matters and immediate threats.
Read the whole thing. I suspect that Obama's Utopian fantasies are the result of a relative lack of depth on the issues. These were not issues that engaged him or interested him in any way. Now that he is actually responsible for our security and for managing multiple conflicts and potential conflicts, he has to get up to speed with alacrity. Our President is a bright man; let's hope he is a quick study as well. Even more importantly, let's hope that his judgment will improve as his knowledge base expands.
Additional data points will emerge from this week's meetings between Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama. Those expecting fireworks are likely to end up disappointed.
Recent Comments