In presidential campaigns, foreign policy is a speculative art. Once in office, a candidate may face global developments unforeseen during the general election. Indeed, there are historical examples of unexpected crises that defined an American president. John F. Kennedy could not have predicted the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, nor did Jimmy Carter expect to witness the Islamic Revolution in 1979. One would expect Messrs McCain or Obama to face similar unscripted challenges in the next term.
Nevertheless, there are certain foreign policy issues which stand plainly before the candidates. What is more, the ways in which these men confront such challenges suggest the policies that each might craft in the future. From that perspective, here are eight questions for Election '08.
1. In your opinion, what were the critical elements to the recent reduction in violence in Iraq, and how would this success be replicated in other counterinsurgency struggles?
Mr McCain and officials in the Bush administration have scored points in recent months by claiming that the surge, by all accounts a huge political gamble, has been a success in Iraq. The 2007 strategy shift was designed to increase the troop levels in Baghdad and Anbar Province by more than 20,000 troops in an effort to "create space for political progress." In September of last year, General David Patraeus told lawmakers that "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met." Mr McCain has asserted that the major reason for decreasing violence is the number of troops. This logic would suggest that the US should look to deploy more brigades when attempting to clamp down on insurgents.
There are, of course, alternate explanations for the improved security climate in Baghdad and Anbar province. First, many of the Shia-Sunni neighborhoods that saw the worst sectarian violence are, in effect, ethnically cleansed. Second, Iraq has benefitted from the ceasefire which Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army struck with coalition forces in August 2007. Third, American forces began to embrace the organic Anbar Awakening and began to pay Sunni militias to combat al Qaeda forces. And finally, analysts have pointed to certain highly classified strategic changes in Iraq that have led to the targeted assassination of command-level insurgents.
If these developments are more important the troop numbers vis-á-vis Iraqi stability, they would provide a very different blueprint for how the US should conduct its global war on terror.
2. If you become president, how would you conduct the war in Afghanistan?
It should be noted that an updated Afghan policy really does not exist at the moment. Mr Obama has made a point of calling Afghanistan the "central front in the war on terror," and the Bush administration has recently signaled it will shift forces to focus on fighting the Taliban. In the mid-1980s, the Soviets deployed 120,000 troops to Afghanistan but were still defeated in a costly counterinsurgency. Today the US and NATO are attempting to quell the resurgent Taliban with a mere 50,000 troops.
Some analysts suggest a massive increase in forces is needed to hold the major cities like Kabul and the Karzai government. Still others contend that the terrain is simply too difficult to patrol, and that American and NATO forces should work with the Taliban's rival tribes in an effort to replicated the progress in Anbar.
3. Given Pakistan's inability to control the Northwest Frontier Province, how would you address the recent problems with cross-border raids conducted by American forces?
Any attempt to consider Afghan military policy without Pakistan is politically illiterate. The vaunted Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, helped start the Taliban, and the agency still has a tangled web of conflicting loyalties. In recent days, Pakistani forces have fired on American helicopters in what have been described as accidental border skirmishes. Nevertheless, the debate over "hot pursuit" is one that will shape US policy in Afghanistan and its America's relations with the Zardari government.
4. In light of the August war, how will you deal with a resurgent Russia that insists on maintaining a sphere of influence along its border region?
Russia's incursion into Georgia was a clear message to the Caucasus that it would not allow petulant pro-Western states in the former Soviet Union. More importantly, the Kremlin recognizes that the US is tied down by war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has used this window of opportunity to exert pressure in critical regions. Recent arms deals with the Syrians and talks with Iran should certainly concern the next US president.
5. Article 5 of the NATO charter states that an attack on any one member should be considered an attack on all members, triggering a military response of collective self-defense. In your opinion, should the US welcome states like Georgia into NATO and risk being dragged into a conflict like the one in August?
The recent events in Georgia have effectively ended the era in which security guarantees could be dispensed without concern for the consequences of such a commitment. And in many respects, the brash political moves of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili have made it more difficult for NATO to offer membership action plans in the Caucasus. At a fundamental level, the next American president will need to seriously consider whether NATO should remain as a military organization or transition toward a glorified political club.
6. How will you deal with the nuclear program in Iran and the country's increasing influence in the Middle East?
Many analysts believe that policy hawks have overstated the threat from Iran's nuclear program. In reality, the nuclear issue is an effective bargaining chip for Tehran, which has suffered under nearly 30 years of sanctions. Unlike the Libyans (who traded their nuclear program for an end to sanctions in 2003), Iran imagines an endgame in which it is able to keep some semblance of a nuclear program, which may ultimately become weaponized.
Iran is a country of contradictions: the world's 28th largest economy, ranked 71st in GDP per capita, has the 3rd largest oil reserves, and an energy shortages in its own capital. These realities are in large part due to the frightening geography of Iran (huge mountain ranges and uninhabitable central plains), which makes it very difficult to establish infrastructure and drives up exploration and export costs for the energy sector.
Iran has used this terrain to hide its nuclear program. Any attempts to knock out enrichment plants (recently considered by the Israelis) would likely be foiled by their geographic spread and depth (many facilities are underground). It seems a successful end to the nuclear standoff will have to be diplomatic and not military.
7. Do you consider China a strategic threat or an important ally?
Chinese economic growth has been seen as a threat to the financial influence of the US, but the global credit seizure may, temporarily, render such comparisons moot. Some analysts have pointed to the rapidly increasing investment Beijing has made in its military budget. Still, the Chinese army is effectively land-locked and the country has no ability to project naval power. Sino-American relations are critical for future negotiations on climate change and the global energy equation. Moreover, China's broad presence in Africa may well complicate any efforts by the US to shape policy on the continent.
8. Do you view al Qaeda-style terrorism as an existential threat to the US?
As a strategy, terrorism relies on an overreaction. Al Qaeda's hope with the 9/11 attacks was to draw the US into a costly war in the Middle East, a script which the Americans followed tragically. Preëmptive strikes and military responses to terrorism are the core of the Bush Doctrine, and are likely to remain in some form of American foreign policy. Is this wise? Likely not. The global war on terror has indeed debilitated al Qaeda: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large, but their high watermark as the functional leaders of spectacular attacks has passed. The next president would do well to follow a more European model for counterterrorism and demilitarize the issue. The legal course has had its own headaches, but they pale in comparison to the bloody, expensive, and misdirected war in Iraq.
This is an important debate both for the candidates and for America. For too long the world has known Mr Bush's constancy of incompetence. Perhaps, tonight is the start of something new.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment