Retiring the Doctrines

In a recent Washington Post article, Fareed Zakaria argues that times have changed and the idea of a comprehensive foreign policy doctrine may be too anachronistic for our ever more complicated position in the world. An excerpt:

The fashionable criticism is that Obama does not have a consistent policy toward the Arab Spring. But should he? There are vast differences between the circumstances in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia; American interests in those countries; and our capacity to influence events there. Take the case where American interests and values most starkly collide, Saudi Arabia. Were the administration to start clamoring for regime change in Riyadh, and were that to encourage large-scale protests (and thus instability) in the kingdom, the price of oil would skyrocket. The United States and much of the developed world would almost certainly drop into a second recession. Meanwhile, the Saudi regime, which has legitimacy, power and lots of cash that it is spending, would likely endure — only now it would be enraged at Washington. What exactly would a more “consistent” Middle Eastern policy achieve?

In Libya, the administration confronted a potential humanitarian crisis in which Moammar Gaddafi’s domestic opposition, the Arab League, the United Nations and key European allies all urged international action. It found a way to participate in a multilateral intervention but has been disciplined about keeping its involvement limited. Syria is different, with a regime more firmly and brutally in control. And while I wish President Obama would voice his preference that President Bashar al-Assad should resign, it is worth noting that the same critics who want Obama to say this also criticize him for calling for Gaddafi’s ouster when he does not have the means to make it happen. Or perhaps they want us to intervene in Syria as well, which would bring the war count to four.

Even the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive military force against nations supporting terrorist groups of global reach was never, nor could it ever be realistically applied in toto. While Bush often spoke broadly when addressing a public that clamored for rhetoric of us being good versus evil, his most specific remarks included using all the tools at our disposal to deal with global terror networks... from diplomacy to international banking regulations and cooperation. These non-military measures continue in the background to this day, often expanding and/or adapting to deal with essentially a stateless enemy.

Some even viewed the "Bush Doctrine" as specific to WMDs, but even that was way off the mark in reality. Of course we don't like any nation that is hostile towards us to have some of the nastier weapons in their arsenal, but that alone couldn't be the threshold. Iraq, with its long history of violations of the ceasefire agreement and most often specifically in regards to not cooperating with the UN for verifiable disarmament, probably still wouldn't have been invaded if not for the other circumstances of our hostilities since they invaded Kuwait. The most pressing matter being that our allies seemed poised to relent on the sanctions and return to business as usual with an enemy that had still yet to cooperate to prove it had disarmed nor given any indication they would be suddenly disinclined to support those who opposed our interests or cause us harm.

We're no longer the runt nation that has to worry about entangling alliances that could get colonial powers aligned to crush us. Our economy has grown to all ends of the Earth, and with it concerns about our prosperity and security. Many try to label us as the "world police," but we have neither the resources or manpower to intervene in such general doctrinal terms. Many of the same people who accuse us of being the world police in one breath don't see the irony when in the next they accuse us of hypocrisy for not policing other parts of the world when we intervene somewhere else. Some even find it shockingly cruel that decisions on whether we intervene or not might involve weighing our interests. We are not exempt from Cardinal Richelieu's concept of raison d'Etat just because we outlasted the Cold War. We're a super power, not all powerful.

I have to agree with Zakaria that our current reality is far from being able to sum up foreign policies as simply as a Monroe Doctrine, Roosevelt Corollary, or even the ideological dichotomy of the Cold War that resulted in us making strange bedfellows across the globe. The strengthening poles of this multi-polar world order will only further complicate how we'll have to carefully navigate foreign policy decisions for our interests. There has long been reason to worry about how we'll fare in the crucible of the post-Cold War era. George H.W. Bush had hopes that our alliances such as NATO could be built upon for a better world. Disagreements have continued to fracture those relationships ever since. And now, even when we supposedly stand united against an enemy that has attacked major NATO powers, we ended up with a poorly coordinated mess in the middle of Afghanistan... historically not a place you want to be stuck with a poorly coordinated military mess.

Some people may gravitate towards the wishful thinking of Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul that we can somehow simplify the world or go back in time and interact with the world through trade and become isolationist with the sword. Beauty queens may wish for world peace. Human civilization rarely accommodates such naivety in practice for very long. The "rise of the rest" was how Zakaria described the multi-polar world forming around us. Abstaining from the fate of the future is not a realistic option for the world's last remaining superpower. We have wealth and plenty, we have influence and power, we have allies and friends... but we also have growing competitors and enemies. As the global population continues to grow and the desperation for resources grows into a downward spiral of chaos, we cannot afford to be caught unprepared nor overextended.

There is no doctrine that can shine a light on this dark and dangerous path we face moving forward. All we can be certain of is that going backwards isn't an option. Christians may want to recite "The Lord's Prayer" right about now. As for me, I see a world with plenty of evil to fear. Let us hope that good men do something about it.