A Note on American Power for the GOP

The US’ foreign policy has been in a bad way since 9/11, and some might say since the fall of the USSR in 1991. It has been foundering for a cause or a coherent strategy, often blundering and leading to seriously acrimonious debates over the fallout. The recent dustup over Trump’s “Bush lied! People died!” rant on Iraq and 9/11 is but one example of this. Outside of ad hoc reactions to media images and op-eds in prestigious journals, it often seems that the US just doesn’t know what it’s doing or even what it wants to do in the world, anymore.

We need to take a step back and a few deep breaths and remind ourselves of a few simple realities. The following article is meant to serve as a sort of brainstorming session/outline for a coherent strategic and value-based outlook on America’s role in the world for the Republican Party. Once upon a time, it would have been addressed to the Democrats as well, but I fear that they have gone too far down the WEIRDo rabbit-hole to be of any use. Should they sober up, I suggest they read this as well.

A very important caveat is appropriate before I begin:

I am not an “expert” nor do I pretend to be. I’ve neither the training nor the professional experience to make detailed policy proposals for the US. Mine is the view of the educated layman, the “outer ring” of people who are fairly well-read and intellectually curious and who bridge the gap between the experts at the top and the regular folk.

Nevertheless, I believe what I have to say is valuable, based on many years’ study as well as discussions with the “big dogs.” The Jewish leader Hillel the Sage once said that “where there is no-one, you must try to be someone.” That, in essence, is what I am trying to do with this outline.

The Reality of American Power

The United States is the most powerful country on earth — economically and militarily. No other country even comes close. It has been so since at least 1917, and probably since August 1914, when all the other empires which may have rivaled it decided to commit suicide or semi-suicide over matters which could easily have been resolved diplomatically had they so desired. This reality has not changed one whit today.

Americans — especially those of an isolationist or libertarian bent — like to deny this, claiming the United States can and should be like it was in the 18th century: a neutral “city on a hill.” But this reality is only appropriate for the 18th century, when the United States was a “second-rate power on the European periphery,” as historian James McPherson once put it. It makes no sense in an age when the United States rules coast-to-coast and when no other western country or democracy can wield anywhere near its influence. The days when the British Navy did what the US Navy now does in protecting trade routes and sea lanes, for instance, is gone for good.

Power Obligates

This reality means that the United States is kind of like Superman — a being so incredibly powerful, albeit not invulnerable, that everything it does or doesn’t do in the world has tremendous consequences. US intervention in WWI, and especially its insistence on dismantling the Austro-Hungarian Empire at its end, helped sow the seeds of discord that led to WWII. Contrariwise, American isolationism in the 1930s meant that it was up to the far weaker and divided England and France to try and stop Nazi Germany, with the resultant tragic results. Yet eventual American involvement ensured that at least half of Europe would remain free, whereas if it had not done so, all of Europe would be divided between the Nazis and Stalin. And this is just one of many possible examples.

It’s important to remember in this context that the United States was never entirely pacific. Nostalgists may like to think the US never meddled in others’ affairs before evil Woodrow Wilson, but all other observers prior to 1913 knew otherwise. The American drive to the coast, its meddling in the affairs of Central American and South American countries, the Indian wars, conflicts with Britain and Spain over their imperial possessions, forcing Japan to open itself to trade — these were all the acts of an ever-growing and self-confident empire.

The Goals of Power

The question, then, is not whether or not America should use power, but why.

For starters, there is self-defense broadly construed. As a global power with economic interests across the globe, America has a vested and permanent need to ensure open sea lanes, ever increasing trade, and political friendships and the spreading of its influence among as many countries as possible. “Only defending the mainland” is the kind of thing one might say of a medieval kingdom, not in a world brimming with trade links, expats, and complex movements of peoples.

The second is to check rival ideologies which threaten both American concrete interests and its more general interests in spreading freedom and influence throughout the world. The two most obvious examples of these are, of course, the murderous dangers of Nazism/militarism and communism. Other examples today might include radical Islamic ideology and various forms of revanchism in Russia, China, and elsewhere.

American success against these cannot be understated. The world today is exponentially freer than it was in 1776. People who constantly emphasize America’s admitted mistakes and wrongs but ignore the fact that hundreds of millions now enjoy the fruits of democracies and free societies thanks largely to its efforts are missing a crucial part of the picture. “American imperialism” is far from flawless or perfectly benign, but it has usually been employed in the 20th century in fighting imperialisms which were usually downright malevolent and destructive by comparison.

The third is the support of friends throughout the world who assist the United States in spreading its influence and protecting these interests. Even now, after many years of acrimony, the United States has many of these in every corner of the globe. Smaller countries often have knowledge, cultural attachments, and local ties that can do things for the US which America itself cannot, in a foreign policy example of Hayekian wisdom.

Yes, interests of friends of the US will sometimes collide, but they will often be surpassed by the benefits of the same. Failure to help defend these friends, or selling them down the river in the name of the 19th century style European imperialistic “spheres of influence” logic now popular when it comes to Russia or China, can and will have very negative consequences for anyone who wants to trust the US anywhere on earth.

The Means of Power

A note on tactics is on order. Discussions of the means the US can employ tend to be extremely superficial and limited. America has a far larger toolbox than just mass invasion, no-fly zones, and sanctions. These include but are not limited to: strength projection and deterrence, intelligence operations of all kinds, support of proxy groups and individuals, and so forth. That’s to say nothing of diplomatic options involving America working alone or alongside allies and friends.

No single method is or ever will be a magic bullet. Strategic bombing helped win WWII, only helped lead to a draw in Korea, and did not prevent defeat in Vietnam. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended WWII but would have led to nothing more than worldwide Holocaust once other powers gained nuclear capability. Proxy wars in Afghanistan helped bring down the USSR but have failed elsewhere or led to no more than a draw. Counterintelligence operations did indeed force Abu Nidal’s organization into dissolution, but other terrorist organizations proved far more resilient despite determined efforts at weakening them. The list goes on.

The Partisan Diversion

But for all of America’s undoubted power, it cannot do everything. The limits of the use of its power have never been clearer than the debacle that is Iraq. This last has also led to many falsifications of history, especially the canard that Republicans specifically are incompetent, bumbling warmongers while Democrats are all naïve isolationists.

These assertions are arrant nonsense. Two of the most controversial interventions America ever launched — WWI and Vietnam — were Democrat initiatives. So was America’s most successful and important war — WWII. Meanwhile, the Republicans have Lincoln’s successful prosecution of the Civil War but also Nixon’s drawing down of Vietnam and Eisenhower’s of Korea. No one party has a monopoly on wisdom or stupidity in foreign affairs, and America’s role in the world is too important to be left to the Donald Trumps of the world.

More to Come

I hope to write articles discussing how these principles come into play in specific regions — Eastern Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, Africa — in the coming weeks. I will also address the question of a specifically “conservative” or “classical liberal” foreign policy and use of power, as well. But I hope I have laid down at least some insights that can be useful for restoring a modicum of sanity, reality, and sober understanding of the role — usually very positive — that America plays in the world and can play in the world.