An Analysis of US Foreign Policy

Ecuador has decided not to renew the lease the US has on its base there. The roughly 450 US personnel there had been very involved in anti-drug operations.

This move reflects two negative trends for US relations in Latin America. First, is the simple reduction in US influence. The Post reported that the millions the US pays each year no longer buy the influence that they once did, as more millions from other countries (ie Venezuela) and development infrastructure projects flow into the country.

Second, and more disturbing, is the wide-spread currency of anti-American politics. Part of this is a reaction to policies of the Bush Administration. But another part of it is structural. As the Ecuadoran Security Minister observed,

"This is a problem for us of sovereignty," [Security Minister] Larrea said. "It's as if we had a base in New York. This would be incomprehensible for North Americans."

Labels: Ecuador, hegemony, military

From MotherJones.com, this interactive map is rather cool. It has a global accounting of where the US military is and has been. The associated articles provide the background.

Labels: military

One of the interesting and recurring themes in USFP, especially when you look at it through the lens of Hegemony as we are this semester, is the role that certain countries play in the domestic debate. That is to say, there are certain type-cast roles that are used to justify certain policy positions, and having someone to fit that role really helps the person making the particular policy argument in question.

One of the classics is 'China' as "the next big thing." As a rhetorical device, this has little to do with what China is actually doing or plans to do. Rather, there is a role for the future challenger to the USA that requires action today, and China now fits that role. It didn't always have this role--long ago, it was the Soviets, then for a brief time it was Japan.

Fred Kaplan, in Slate, has a very interesting write up of the latest use of the China Card, this time in the Air Force's desire to buy more F-22's. Secretary of Defense Gates wants to stop production of the F-22, which costs $385 million per plane.

Gen. Carlson's rationale for this expansion: "Most people say in the future there will be a China element to whatever we do." In plainer words: He says we need more than twice as many F-22s than the secretary of defense says we need because of the future military threat from China.

Two things should be noted about this claim. First, by the Pentagon's own measure, the Chinese military has a long way to go before it constitutes a threat to U.S. forces. Second, even if it does become a threat, it's not at all clear that the F-22 would be the best weapon to deal with it....

The F-22 is the centerpiece of Air Force procurement at the moment. It has nearly no role in the sorts of wars that the United States has been fighting in the last 20 years—or has much prospect of fighting in the next 20.

And so, the China threat is dragged out of the cellar once again, as it has been to justify troubled weapons systems for 40 years now.

Kaplan goes on to document the leaps and bounds by which Chinese military power is behind the US. Its certainly worth reading all of it, especially if you are a China-o-phile. The moral of the story: China's military doesn't fit the role today, but the role is quite powerful--powerful enough to drive billion-dollar military spending at a time when the US military has many other more pressing and immediate needs. He concludes

In other words, it's worth keeping an eye on China. But it's probably not worth spending tens or hundreds of billions of dollars now for a program like the F-22, which its own sponsors admit might be needed in case a threat develops 20 years in the future.

(plus, how can you not love a chance to have some cool F-22 pics on the blog?!?!)

Labels: China, f-22, hegemony, military

Last weekend, a pair of Russian TU-95 "Bear" bombers buzzed the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier.

According to published reports, one Bear buzzed the Nimitz while another circled several miles off. The Nimitz launched planes to intercept the bombers, and escort them away from the carrier. (you wonder if it was anything like when Maverick and Goose 'communicate' with a MiG in the opening of Top Gun...)

This type of military signaling is something that used to happen all the time during the Cold War--on both sides. We'd send ships in international waters all around their coast, just to show them we could, we'd send planes to fly along the outskirts of their airspace. They'd send planes to fly by our ships, just to let us know that they knew we were there and the like. It was a complex signaling game, each side showing that it could maintain a deterrent posture, communicating its resolve and intentions.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has abandon these kinds of flights, as they are quite expensive. The Bears were, literally, thousands of miles from home, and you need a superpower-sized military budget to keep that up.

Interesting, though, is that even with the supposed "rise" of other countries / currency zones and the relative decline of Russia, its really hard to imagine anyone else doing this. The US still sends out its patrols (recall the P-3 incident with China back in early 2001--a similar deal where we sent a P-3 up their coast in international waters, and they sent a plane out to 'communicate' back). Still, only Russia has anywhere near the ability to do this in the middle of the ocean. Neither China nor India have the projection capabilities. The EU simply wouldn't think to do such a thing--they lack much of the capabilities, but as 'allies' they could just have a guy on the US ship as a guest.

A small incident but telling of what it takes to offer any kind of challenge to the US military.

Labels: hegemony, military, Russia, signaling

How many ways, how many times, can one say that the US is screwed in Iraq?

Today, two of the better military correspondents following Iraq (each with a must-read book on Iraq) dispense key insights as to how problematic Iraq is for the United States.

Michael Gordon in the NYT reports that:

The top American military commander for the Middle East has warned Iraq’s prime minister in a closed-door conversation that the Iraqi government needs to make tangible political progress by next month to counter the growing tide of opposition to the war in Congress.
In a Sunday afternoon discussion that mixed gentle coaxing with a sober appraisal of politics in Baghdad and Washington, the commander, Adm. William J. Fallon, told Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that the Iraqi government should aim to complete a law on the division of oil proceeds by next month.
The admiral’s appeal, which was made in the presence of Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq, a senior political adviser to the command and this reporter, elicited an assurance from Mr. Maliki that he hoped to make some progress over the coming weeks. But he also offered a lengthy account of all the tribulations facing the Iraqi government, including tenuous security, distrustful neighboring Sunni states and a complex legal agenda.

The US, now driven by domestic politics opposing the war, wants yet another quick fix to the problem of governing Iraq. Time and again, the US has pushed for institutions, events, and milestones hoping that the country would catch up to its 'leaders' while ignoring the large-scale political processes necessary to legitimate such institutions of government that allow them to function. Gordon's pearl of wisdom:

At times, the two sides appeared to be operating on two different clocks. While Admiral Fallon emphasized the urgency of demonstrating results, Mr. Maliki cast the political process as a long journey from dictatorship to democracy.

Therein lies the rub. We need a quick fix for Iraq, but there is nothing quick about fixing things in Iraq. The US is part of the problem, and yet, the US leaving is also part of the problem. Staying allows the Iraqi government to put off the really tough choices it needs to make about how it will govern and who will be part of the governing coalition. Leaving opens the door for a whole host of political factions to vie for power in what could easily devolve into a civil war. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Hell of a way to run a war.

Tom Ricks dispensed his wisdom in one of the Washington Post's regular on-line chats about Iraq, Q & A style (with me paraphrasing the longer Q's, but his answers in full). His central insight:

I think the beginning of wisdom on Iraq is to understand there are no good answers available. So the question is, What is the least bad answer?

Question: Is there a way to get out without making things worse?
Ricks:

That is very much the vibe that I picked up in Baghdad in recent weeks--that there are different ways of getting out, or reducing the US military presence, and that we could do it in ways that intensify the violence, or we might be able to do it in ways that lessen the violence, and that we should starting thinking through these courses of action.

As one officer put it to me, "Just because we invaded Iraq thoughtlessly doesn't mean we should leave it that way."

Question: Does that mean we we're in for another 18 months, until Bush is out of office?
Ricks:

18 months? That's optimistic. In my view, this is a Shakespearean tragedy. His works had five acts, and I think we are only in Act III.

When I was writing 'Fiasco' I'd sometimes look out the window at about 3:30 in the afternoon and see a group of kindergarteners being led from the elementary school down the street to a nearby day care center. On my pessimistic days (most of them), I'd think, "One of those kids is going to fight and die in Iraq."

I do think that is a possibility. I don't like it. But I think that Iraq is a tougher problem for the US government, and people, than the Vietnam War was. We could walk away from that one. Yes, it was awful if you were Cambodian, or a Vietnamese who had cast your lot with the Americans. But the United States as a nation could pretty much wash its hands of Vietnam. I don't think it will be as easy to walk away from Iraq.

It is too bad we didn't have this conversation in the summer and fall of 2002, huh?

Question: So will Iraq ever be able to govern / secure itself?
Ricks:

This question gives me a headache. That doesn't mean it is a bad question, it is just that it points to how damn difficult the Iraq situation yes.

No, there is no guarantee that Iraqi security forces will be competent--or even-handed. Again, that is another reason US planners are thinking about a "post-occupation" presence, because Sunni leaders might ask for such a force to guarantee that Shiite-dominated Iraqi army and police forces don't attack them. But just how do we guarantee that? Do we attack the Iraqi government? Do we post soldiers to protect Sunni enclaves?

I think the fingers-crossed answer we will get from American officials is that political accommodation should ease the security situation, and so lessen the need for US intervention. But that's a hope, not a plan.

Iraq doesn't seem to get any easier, does it?

Too bad there are no candidates from Hope running in this election (sorry, bad pun!).

Here's the heart of the matter-- for all those on the far left or far right who think the the 'only way' to go in Iraq is to either get out now or stay the course (it doesn't matter which)--its high time to recognize that neither is much of a solution--its "a hope, not a plan." Unfortunately, trying to sell a bad anwer to Iraq is a sure loser in any election, which is why no one wants to do it. But its pretty clear that we have painted ourselves into a corner from which there is no easy way out. The honest answer is to admit as much.

Labels: Iraq, military

Last summer, I noted the significance of the Pentagon's creation of an Africa Command in the unified command plan. My conclusion then was:

By creating such a high-profile position for Africa, the bureaucracy of the Pentagon and the US Government as a whole, will see Africa in a whole new light.

On Monday, the Washington Post ran an article based on analysis of a CRS Report on the new command (You can read the entire CRS Report here).

There are two broad issues here that I think merit discussion and reflect more than just the basic reorganization of boxes on the Pentagon's Org chart.

First is the concern over the militarization of US policy toward Africa.

The creation of the Defense Department Africa Command, with responsibilities to promote security and government stability in the region, has heightened concerns among African countries and in the U.S. government over the militarization of U.S. foreign policy, according to a newly released study by the Congressional Research Service.

AFRICOM would have traditional responsibilities of a combat command "to facilitate or lead [U.S.] military operations" on the continent, but would also include "a broader 'soft power' mandate aimed at preemptively reducing conflict and would incorporate a larger civilian component to address those challenges," according to the CRS study.

Fear that it could represent a first step toward more U.S. troops in Africa led [Ryan Henry, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy] to assure African leaders that the "principal mission will be in the area of security cooperation and building partnership capability. It will not be in warfighting."

As has been discussed often on this blog, usually by Dan, the US role as hegemon with a global order / empire to manage has required a number of US policy and grand strategy shifts in recent years. The US has become more involved militarily in more corners of the globe, not only fighting terrorism, but also enforcing and maintaining the current global order. Africa, long ignored in this process, now gets its own military command, allowing the Pentagon to further extend US military interests in Africa. Given the power of the Pentagon in the current Administration, its highly likely that under the new Command, the Pentagon's priorities for Africa will come to dominate the US Government's priorities and policies toward Africa, thereby increasing the militarization of US Foreign Policy.

However, the interesting line above is:

also include "a broader 'soft power' mandate aimed at preemptively reducing conflict and would incorporate a larger civilian component to address those challenges,"

How soft can power be? Nye's idea of soft power rests on getting people to want what you want so that one can achieve outcomes without having to resort to military or economic force. Unresolved in Nye's definition, I think, is the very question raised by AFRICOM--can the military employ 'soft power?' Is soft power defined by the tools used to realize it, making it a cultural/media/internet type phenomenon, or is soft power defined by the way one exercises power over another--in this case, allowing for the possibility that the military might be the organization that is best able to convey values and ideas to other actors.

The US Military has a very mixed record on this front. On the one hand, military engagement programs have been very very effective in helping to transform former communist countries into Western-European, NATO allied market democracies. These engagement programs have been all run out of EUCOM, so creating an AFRICOM might similarly duplicate this success in Africa. Moreover, the military may in fact be one of the most powerful social institutions (for good or ill) in many African countries, so using soft power to spread certain ideas through the military could be a good way to reach more (and more important) people than working through some other social network. On the other hand, the military does like to see and solve military problems, and its hard to see how a special forces A-team or IMET money will make serious progress in sustainable agriculture, clean water, or combating HIV-AIDS.

Second is the change in US bureaucratic politics:

A State Department civilian official is to be one of the two deputy commanders of AFRICOM, though that official would not be in the chain of command on military operations, according to the CRS report. In addition, more than one-third of AFRICOM headquarters personnel would be from outside the Pentagon. Defense officials told CRS that "the new command will seek greater interagency coordination with the State Department, USAID and other government agencies," according to the report.

Now this is very interesting. In my earlier piece on AFRICOM, I noted that having a high-profile, well funded bureaucratic organization within the government to generate knowledge, raise and define issues, advocate for positions, and implement programs would change the way the US government sees Africa. Now, there already is one person who ostensibly does this: Jendayi E. Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. I never heard of her either until I looked up that link. Compare her stature and resources to those of the eventual three or four star flag officer who will assume command of AFRICOM, and under Goldwater-Nichols report directly to the National Command Authority--The President and Secretary of Defense. Add, on top of that, the rise of the Unified Command Combatant Commanders in recent years and the rise of the Pentagon within the national security bureaucracy under the current administration, and you have a very strong new player on African Issues who will probably come to dominate the agenda (leading to the worries of militarization above).

But, notice how 'inter-agency' the new command is supposed to be. Having a State Department official as a Deputy Commander will create a new role in the diplomatic corps and give State and other civilian agencies a huge say in the Command's activities. Having one third of staff from non-military agencies, including USAID, suggests that AFRICOM may very well start to champion inter-agency cooperation on African issues and perhaps might even be able to raise the profile of key development issues on the continent. Of course, there is the price of securitizing development, AIDS, and the like, but the lesson in Washington is that this is how things get done these days. Perhaps the new, inter-agency make up of the Command will lead to a 'softer' military presence, and engagement in non-military or partially military development and capacity building activities.

Do you think it would make a difference if a 4-star general in full uniform heads up to the Hill to testify on behalf of an increase in the 150 account (the foreign aid budget) for development in Africa?

If this model works, it could very well serve as a model for future government reforms, where inter-agency cooperation and coordination is a key need. Look no farther than Iraq where DoD, State, and everyone else couldn't get along and it turned into a colossal disaster (as Dan just pointed out). Key agencies worked at cross-purposes to the detriment of the government's policy agenda. Worse, they failed to learn from each other, ignoring key bits of knowledge, expertise, and insight that could have prevented many of the worst elements of the post-invasion occupation from happening. Granted--the failings of the inter-agency process in Iraq were as much the result of fighting among principles, not line-workers, but having some more State Dept and AID folks on Frank's staff might have helped them just a bit when the "planned" the invasion.

So, I think the creation of this new Command and the way in which its being done will have far-reaching affects--on how the US sees the world, develops policy, and goes about its business as a national security state.

Labels: Africa Command, bureaucratic politics, military, national security strategy