June 7, 2023
As of this blog entry, the war between Russia and Ukraine has slowed, but Russia seems to be in control. China has become more territorial and aggressive in the South China Sea, while Taiwan has been given more American weapons. Iran is getting closer to having materials capable of building a nuclear bomb, forcing Israel to plan for any measure available to stop that from happening. These are some of the current scenarios that the Biden Administration has to deal with, and invite the question: Should U.S. foreign policy adapt and change to a new world?
____________________________
Two years into the Biden Administration, we may need to re-evaluate our foreign policy, one in which the world is much different from the one we inherited from the ashes of World War II. At that time (April 1945), America emerged as the primary hegemon, with Britain ceding that title to us after the costs of maintaining the British Empire were too much to maintain while fighting a global war. The war also started a proliferation of the arms manufacturing industry in the United States, which to this day, plays a large part in influencing how the country conducts foreign policy, with an emphasis on military operations.
The Senate Armed Services Committee states that America will spend $857 billion on national defense this year. The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act of 2023 shows that a little over $816 billion will be spent on spending for the Department of Defense, with an additional $30 billion for the Department of Energy for its custody of the nation's nuclear weapons, nuclear power, research, and disposal of nuclear waste. Combined, that is far more than the world powers spend on their defense. A Peter G. Peterson Foundation study shows that the United States allocates roughly 40% of the world's defense spending on itself, based on a review of the FY22 defense budget (April 2023). The largest percentage of this allocation is directed toward operations and maintenance, which involves keeping ships, tanks, and aircraft functioning in preparation for deployment and a large number of military bases around the world. The Department of Defense allocated only 14% of its 2022 budget appropriations to development and innovation. The foundation estimates that the proportion of defense spending vis-a-vis national GDP will drop below 3% within the next decade, however.
What is troubling is that despite spending so much money, the nation's return on foreign wars lately has not been very productive. The outcomes of those wars were ambiguous at best, a colossal failure at worst. Needless to say, the results of our policies could come back to haunt the United States, which spent a little over $2.2 trillion on the combined Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The embarrassing visuals of the American-led NATO coalition fleeing Kabul were disorganized and calamitous and will shamelessly live in infamy for decades. Iraq has a government that is sympathetic to and aligned with Shia Iran due to its own Shia majority, which complicates the American agenda there. Those upfront costs don't include interest on the borrowed funds, which could add an additional cost of $2.5 trillion by 2030. The aggregate cost could top $6.5 trillion for future generations of Americans (CBS News-August 2021). In Afghanistan's case, U.S. policy is right back where it was before the American-led NATO invasion.
This brings us to the current state of affairs in the world in 2023 and the various hot spots around the world: (1) Russia/Ukraine, (2) China/Taiwan, (3) the greater Middle East, and (4) the Korean peninsula and Japan.
(1) Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not going as well as President Putin had hoped. While the Russian military has taken over certain cities, including protecting its influence in the eastern Donbas region, Putin's forces had tremendous losses in personnel, and many of its tanks were destroyed. NATO provided weapons and training, helping the tough Ukrainians re-take control of some territory. From what I have read and viewed through media, it seems the Russians are still "in the driver's seat," and dictate their battle plans accordingly. I sincerely hope that Russia will seek peace and leave parts of that country that they control. However, NATO should not go from covert assistance to actively fighting a "hot" war in Ukraine that may eventually lead to an exchange of nuclear weapons. That absolutely cannot happen. Peace must be the primary solution. Ukraine may have to give up some territory in the process, though.
The Ukraine war has depleted America's weapons inventory, which means the defense contractors will obviously see an increase in revenues. Was this part of the reasoning to provide Ukraine with economic and military support? America's largest defense contractors will see their share prices increase with new defense spending, but will it be fruitful in the long run? Unless NATO forces join the fight with the Ukrainians, the United States should work with its partners to end the destruction of that country and prevent more deaths.
(2) Another hot zone in the world is the South China Sea, where the United States and China are potential belligerents over shipping lanes, and territorial islands fought over between other nations allied with the Americans, with the most important being Taiwan. China sees that independent nation as a wayward part of its unified destiny and will do whatever it takes to bring it back into the Chinese Communist Party's authority. An amphibious military operation is part of that strategy, and the United States is obligated through its agreements with the government of Taiwan to render aid and support, including weapons and intelligence. It may have to provide its own military resources to defend that island nation. A war with China will have lasting damage for a generation for both nations, and the United States should aggressively seek a diplomatic solution with the Chinese to avert any loss of life and economic catastrophe.
(3) The United States under the Trump Administration removed itself from the deal that was ratified by both the United States and Iranian governments regarding Iran's nuclear program. It is standard political posturing for both Republican and Democratic administrations to extricate themselves from any policy or program the previous opposing government entered into. The Israelis are rightfully worried that Iran's nuclear program is very close to having the capacity to enrich Uranium for multiple weapons. Previous governments of the Jewish state had made it known publicly that if Iran does produce nuclear weapons, it will act alone if needed to ensure that possibility never comes to fruition. Because of the nature of the close relationship between the United States and Israel, it is not beyond reason to expect America's military to join in any operation to incapacitate Iran's nuclear program unequivocally. As always, what is the price that America and its citizens will have to pay for this conflict?
During the Trump administration, Israel made many peace deals with countries in the region that for most of its history involved military wars and diplomatic isolation. While this deal was welcomed after generations of conflict, it was also quite surprising. Was President Trump really held in such high esteem that former enemies of the state of Israel would welcome diplomatic relations based on his agenda? I think it runs deeper than that. Iran is one of the countries with an Islamic Shia majority. Those countries that signed peace deals through the White House joined a coalition against Shia Iran and were most likely influenced by Sunni Saudi Arabia. Israel and the United States sought out this coalition to provide financial assistance through loans for joint military campaigns. While it made headlines and was a boon for the Trump agenda, I don't think this plan in the long term will play out well for those involved. This is especially since China is trying to broker peace deals of its own between those countries as well.
The Middle East has seen a period of relative peace, and it will be ruined if this secret plan comes to pass. A war led by Israel and the United States, funded by Saudi Arabia, will create a conflagration that will draw other powers (Russia and possibly China) into this conflict. As it is, U.S. military involvement in the region (especially Syria) needs to be carefully adjudicated. Syria is backed by Russian economic and military support. American ally Turkey sees rebels opposed to President Assad as aligned with the Kurdish Workers Party, considered a "terrorist organization" by the State Department, Turkish, and European Union (Al Jazeera-Aug 2022). This country must avoid being led down this path by those within the U.S. and Israel, who see war as a necessary step to ensure dominance in the region.
(4) In addition, North Korea continues to be a problem for the United States and its allies in that region (South Korea and Japan). Any spark on the Korean peninsula that leads to war will be catastrophic for all Koreans and many Japanese, and it would behoove our leaders to keep the gunpowder dry in that region. Kim Jong Un should be treated as a wary pest but should not feel he will be removed by force or that this grip on power is challenged or threatened in any way. This would lead to war as a destructive and reactionary measure to protect that entrenched power that will lead to the deaths of thousands or more.
Adding to the current state of world affairs are examples of nations trying to move away from the dollar as a reserve currency. Saudi Arabia, Russia, and recently, Brazil are trading using other currencies instead of the American dollar for business. The dollar has substantial value as a reserve currency and is due to a robust U.S. economy, a valued and safe investment. The American government sanctions countries (most notably Russia recently, and Iran in the past) flexing muscle if non-compliant with U.S. policy and a strategy not viewed favorably by many countries. While it may play well domestically, future American Presidents will lose this negotiating ability in international relations.
These are signs that the 21st Century is going to be drastically different from the last century. The world is gearing up for a multi-polar world, one in which there are two dominant countries (the United States and China) and balanced by several economic and minor military powers (Germany, France, England, Japan, South Korea, and Russia). Additionally, other countries will align with the two major powers as their governments see fit. Canada and Mexico share a border with the United States and are its two largest trading partners, so they will work together in the short term, for better or worse.
American foreign policy needs a re-set. The old method of quickly discarded soft diplomacy with an immediate, aggressive military response will not work for the foreseeable future. The two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq showed that the use of military power has a shelf life and can only do so much. Most Americans who can evaluate the government and its policies will list defense contractors, banks, and other conglomerates as shaping our foreign policy agenda. Many of these corporations and their executives made (and will continue to make) enormous amounts of money financing the Department of Defense procurement of weapons and investing in the companies that have direct revenue streams tied to endless wars (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc.) while their families are never affected by the true cost in lives.
Our current foreign policy is not sustainable for the long term. As a country we need to reduce the number of military bases across the world, leaving only those that create a "tripwire," such as South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Diplomacy and collaboration with common goals, while also leaving people alone work much better than a permanent garrison of soldiers, Marines, and airmen on foreign soil.
I sincerely hope our government will spend effectively on behalf of its citizens instead. Improving roads and highways, repairing crumbling infrastructure, strengthening our borders with a fair and equitable immigration policy and modernizing certain industries (advancements in air and rail travel especially), and providing funding for a better healthcare system would be a good priority. Our foreign policy is rooted in protecting American hegemony in the world (and the elites of our society will benefit from this). The fulfillment of the U.S. agenda is much more difficult to achieve in this day and age, and may even be outdated. Our primary rivals on the world stage, Russia and China, have the financial and military strength to push back against American power, albeit with less force projection. We as citizens must push our elected officials to change our policy away from imperialism and focus more on diplomacy over conflict and the reduction of military operations around the world. Perhaps the new dawn that is upon us will give those who run our government an opportunity to course correct and move the country in a better direction, rather than chase an old, ineffective foreign policy that doesn't yield the results it seeks.
