When intervening in world affairs, should the U.S. prefer military or diplomatic methods?
Andy Wilson:
No, always reaching for diplomacy is too idealistic.
Whether or not you’re a fan of President Obama, it's hard to argue that he has been a successful president when it comes to foreign policy. Our traditional rival Russia has returned as a major player in Europe and the Middle East, China is asserting its dominance over resource-rich waters legally controlled by Vietnam and the Philippines, the Middle East is embroiled in multiple bloody power struggles, and the self-proclaimed Islamic State has risen from the wreckage of Iraq and Syria to wreak havoc in the region and abroad. I don’t intend to give a blow-by-blow account of what Obama did wrong, but I think the crux of his foreign policy mistakes was to overemphasize ideals and underemphasize practicality.
Theodore Roosevelt famously said to “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Obama — and those who would follow in his foreign policy footsteps — have mastered the “speak softly” element, but have failed to project the “big stick” that threatens practical action if the speaking fails. America has the world’s most advanced and well-funded military, but Obama has failed to use it as leverage in his interactions with potentially hostile powers. He understandably loathes the idea of getting us into more wars, but, by letting our rivals know this, has created a situation in which they were emboldened to test our thresholds and find out just how much they could get away with.
In the first year of his presidency, Obama famously declared a reset in America’s previously terse relations with Russia. One of the most significant aspects of this reset was to scrap the planned missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic that would have acted as a check on Russia. Ideally, the move would have shown the Russians our friendly intentions and convinced them to respond in kind. Instead, Russia interpreted this idealistic generosity as a sign of weakness and willingness to disengage from the region. Rather than the U.S. and Russia moving closer during Obama’s presidency, there was increased separation. Since 2009, Russia has seized Crimea, cultivated an ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine to destabilize the country and supported the Syrian regime with direct military action. America’s relationship with Russia since Obama shows the failure of foreign policy that sacrifices pragmatism for idealism.
What does foreign policy that sacrifices idealism for pragmatism look like? Russia provides a clear example. They are currently conducting a horrific bombing campaign in the densely populated heart of Aleppo, causing massive loss of life and essential infrastructure. Why? Because doing so is part of their self-serving strategy to prop up Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, and keep a foothold in the region.
Purely pragmatist leaders are willing to trample on rights and sacrifice thousands of lives to achieve their goals. Purely idealistic leaders, in their single-minded exaltation of rights, end up causing the loss of thousands of lives anyways. For America to succeed in foreign policy, we have to strike a balance between idealism and pragmatism. That means, to give a few examples, tempering the ideal of democracy with the reality that some areas are too sectarian for it to function, the ideal of human rights with the reality that revolution against oppressive governments often leads to worse rights violations and the ideal of welcoming refugees with the reality that it may be dangerous to do so.
Some people question America’s right to interfere with the politics of other nations. Many would brand our foreign policy as a return to arrogant imperialism. I don’t want to get bogged down in American exceptionalism, but I think most people can agree that we should try to do the most good in the world with the resources we have available. While the notion of a country being completely impartial is unrealistic, if America acts only to look after its own interests, we are no different than Russia, China or other national aggressors. We should be concerned about things like ISIS’ genocide against Yazidis, Christians, and Shias, about the Zika epidemic, about violation of national sovereignty in Ukraine, not primarily because these things directly affect American society or our role in the world, but because these are bad things that we can save lives by standing against.
Foreign policy is one area where Trump’s "art of the deal" may serve him well. The Republican presidential nominee is someone who can balance what he would like to get with what he’ll take, or in other words, idealism with pragmatism. America needs a shrewd leader after an era of ineffective idealism in foreign policy.
Dan Nelson:
Yes, diplomacy has the best history of success.
The Iran deal was both one of the most controversial and well-praised moves by the Obama administration. Instead of forcing Iran to discard its nuclear ambitions with a show of arms, the United States managed to keep Iran at the table. The plan’s critics believe that it is a sign of weakness and Iran will be able to subvert the monitoring, create a bomb and still be able to pursue its terror funding throughout the region. Not only is this criticism without merit, it challenges the very concept of diplomacy as an intervention technique. With the memory of the failures in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan still very present in our minds, why do many still challenge the bloodless success of diplomacy?
Use of diplomatic intervention by the United States has been a key feature of our foreign policy for over 100 years. Some high points include an assortment of nuclear disarmament treaties, the Paris Climate Deal, Nixon’s détente with China and many others. These diplomatic actions and interventions helped to make the world a safer place by limiting and reducing nuclear stockpiles, reopening relationships with world powers and protecting the environment. Some diplomatic initiatives, admittedly, have been failures, but this does not mean they should be thrown to the wayside, particularly if you weigh them against the numerous successes.
Diplomatic interventions aren’t all just treaties and agreements, either. Many can impose serious consequences on nations that are considered to be working against the interests of the United States and our allies. Before there was the Iran deal, there were heavy sanctions placed on them to force them to the negotiating table. These sanctions banned oil imports from Iran and blocked Iranian banks from the global financial system, among other things. In the end, Iran lost roughly 160 billion from the oil sanctions, experienced runaway inflation and unemployment and had nearly 50 billion in assets frozen. These consequences were devastating, crippling the Iranian economy and making the nuclear deal a less damaging alternative than economic standstill.
Serious sanctions were also applied to Russia after it seized Crimea from Ukraine and backed pro-Russian Rebels in eastern Ukraine in 2014. These sanctions “restrict access to Western financial markets and services for designated Russian state-owned enterprises in the banking, energy, and defense sectors … place an embargo on exports to Russia of designated high-technology oil exploration and production equipment … [place] an embargo on exports to Russia of designated military and dual-use goods.” Further sanctions were added in 2016, expanding the list of sanctioned individuals and businesses in an effort to prevent curtail attempts to evade previous sanctions. Unlike the Iranian sanctions, the Russian sanctions “are intended to exert long-term pressure on Russia and not to push it ‘over the economic cliff.’”
On top of country-wide sanctions, sanctions can also be leveled against private individuals. The United States does this frequently and with huge numbers of private individuals. While this might not have the same systemic effect that country-wide sanctions have, it can still hinder individuals who are escaping justice or engaging in terrorism and encourage powerful government leaders to reach a deal.
In comparison to military intervention, diplomatic interventions are less costly to the United States in both money and blood. Researchers believe that the war in Iraq could cost upwards of six trillion dollars in long term costs, and this doesn’t even consider the sheer trauma of losing 4,637 soldiers in the line of duty, disabled veterans, the high suicide rate of veterans returning, the massive number of Iraq civilians killed (roughly between 100,000 and 500,000) and the extensive destabilization of the region. Vietnam and Afghanistan have had similar outcomes as well.
In the end, of course, you can’t put a price on the safety of America and Americans, but the most consistently successful method should be the one tried first. In this case, that would be diplomacy. Diplomacy offers potential success beyond that of military intervention, without the expenditure of blood and money. Diplomacy offers to build up the image of United States on the world stage, without destroying it first.
Diplomacy is the way of the future — war should stay where it belongs: in the past.