Biggest Foreign Policy Challenge For the Next US President

[nerdgirl 0]

This past Sunday on Fox News Sunday, William Kristol (very smart, conservative analyst and commentator) noted that he had met with President Bush during the previous week.

While remarking that “almost everything interesting was off the record,” Kristol did offer that the President “conveyed the following impression” that the biggest challenge for the next US President would not be Iraq or Afghanistan but would be Pakistan.

Kristol further elaborated noting that al Qa’eda is now “headquartered in the remote region of Pakistan,” the lack of access for US troops, the “sort of friendly government,” and the problems of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

Last Wednesday, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, commented that more troops are needed for Afghanistan, because the mission there “has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there.”

Mullen acknowledged that Afghanistan has become “a very complex problem,” beyond counterinsurgency to include the extensive, resurgent drug trade; a near-failing economy (he said "faltering," which one might consider generous); and porous borders with Pakistan (and implicitly the tacit support if the border regions civilian populace). From the Defenselink.mil transcript:

“I am and have been for some time now deeply troubled by the increasing violence there. The Taliban and their supporters have, without question, grown more effective and more aggressive in recent weeks and as the casualty figures clearly demonstrate.

“I’ve made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can, nor have I been shy about saying that those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so.

“There’s no easy solution, and there will be no quick fix. More troops are necessary, and some of our NATO allies have recently committed to sending more of their own, but they won’t fully ever be sufficient. We need and are pursuing a broader interagency international approach, one that includes infrastructure improvement, foreign investment and economic incentives, and I’m hopeful these efforts will begin to pay off in the near future. But we all need to be patient. As we have seen in Iraq, counterinsurgency warfare takes time, and it takes a certain level of commitment. It takes flexibility.”

This month’s Military Review (published by the US Army) features an article, “Twelve Urgent Steps for the Advisor Mission in Afghanistan" by Captain Dan Helmer, USA, asserting “without major and rapid changes to structure and execution, the advisory effort in Afghanistan will fail to arrest the growing insurgencies.” Helmer asserts that the folks who are commanding stability ops in Iraq and Afghanistan are being trained via an Iraq-model fits all doctrine.

The comments of both ADM Mullen and CPT Helmer reminded me of those I heard early 2005 by Kimberly Marten, who had been embedded as a researcher with Canadian Forces in western Kabul, Afghanistan in 2003 & 2004. She gave a talk entitled “Enforcing the Peace: There Aren’t Enough Canadians” …apparently more Canadians are still needed.

There's also the intersection with the thread on "Britain gives Pakistan £1bn to fight extremism." In the context of ADM Mullen and CPT Helmer's assessments, is trying 'soft power' (beyond SST[R] & the Human Terrain teams) that poor of a foreign policy choice?

Most curious to me in Kristol’s comments … almost conspicuous in its absence … was the complete lack of mention of the 1,648,195 km² wedged between those other 3 states.

So what do you think – what is likely to be the biggest foreign policy challenge for the next US President?

And what kind of policy is needed to address US foreign policy concerns regarding Pakistan, if you concur with Kristol's impression of President Bush's comments?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

You have to wonder.... what the area would be like now if the Administration would have kept their eye on the real prize of winning the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan and building a democracy there. A lot of good work for the region COULD have been done there to help the people of that war torn country become citizens of the 21st century instead of giving support to those who wish to take us back to the 7th century Caliphate.

[riddler 0]

Quote

what is likely to be the biggest foreign policy challenge for the next US President?

How about "minding our own business" ?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

So what do you think – what is likely to be the biggest foreign policy challenge for the next US President?

Reading out words he has very little input into the creative writing side of... wait that must be a domestic policy challenge

Quote

And what kind of policy is needed to address US foreign policy concerns regarding Pakistan, if you concur with Kristol's impression of President Bush's comments?

That is a sensible framework of discussion because the US are just naturally allowed to mess with Pakistan.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

You have to wonder.... what the area would be like now if the Administration would have kept their eye on the real prize of winning the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan and building a democracy there.

Yeah that was the 'real prize' all along...

[FreeflyChile 0]

Well, the *real* answer to this is "fix the foreign policy screwups of the current US President".

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You have to wonder.... what the area would be like now if the Administration would have kept their eye on the real prize of winning the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan and building a democracy there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yeah that was the 'real prize' all along...

In my world it certainly would have been... if you remove the support for your enemys... its far easier to wint the so called War on Terror. Instead the arrogance of the Bush Doctrine and their incompetence has made that war essentially a never ending war that our grandchildren will be fighting and there will be no kind of stability in the region.

BUT the military industrial complex and those who profit from that instability will have a near endless source of access to the American Treasury. They have replaced the Cold War.. and the subsequent "Peace Dividend" with this war profiteering on a massive scale.

[AWL71 0]

Pakistan and North Korea are both unstable countries that have the nuclear bomb. Pakistan is currently under a state of emergency and we all know the leader of North Korea is less than rational. Those two countries will pose the biggest challenges to the next president. Iran is in third place. The next president needs to get them to stop sponsoring terrorism.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[kelpdiver 2]

> So what do you think – what is likely to be the biggest foreign policy challenge for the next US President?

I don't think it will be a single theater of operations, but at the systemic level.

If Obama wins, the biggest challenge will be projecting any sort of US power in a framework where the public won't be inclined to support deployment of troops for non defensive purposes. (Ie, attacking the Taliban yes, beating up on another Iraq, no). This will be the environment if he wins and pulls out the troops on that 16 month timetable.

If McCain wins, the challenge will be keeping the military from collapse. I think the toll of the wars on the current military personnel is akin to the credit card debt that consumers and the government are piling up right now. Excess now must lead to a respite/regeneration later, and it can't be sustained for much longer.

[TheAnvil 0]

Interesting. I don't think any single country will be the next greatest challenge. I think the next great foreign policy challenge will be economic and not military in nature. Reform of international institutions (see this week's ECONOMIST) will be a huge thing, as well as getting the DOHA round un-stuck (if that's possible), resisting the urge to impose draconian gov't controls on commodities speculation as the cost of oil rises, and many other economic challenges await.

Not that Pakistan will be a SMALL issue, but I think the real challenge will be in the realm of trade and economics - the largest one being the reform of international financial/economic treaties & institutions to bring them into the 21st century.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,120]

>If Obama wins, the biggest challenge will be projecting any sort of
>US power in a framework where the public won't be inclined to support
>deployment of troops for non defensive purposes.

If you change that to "any sort of military US power" I would agree. We still have an enormous amount of economic power that we wield.

>If McCain wins, the challenge will be keeping the military from collapse.
>I think the toll of the wars on the current military personnel is akin to the
>credit card debt that consumers and the government are piling up right
>now.

Also agreed. I would add that his proposed deep tax cuts and determination to stay in Iraq for 50 years if needed (or in his words "make it 100") will result rapidly in an inability to maintain those current levels of expenditure.

[TheAnvil 0]

I disagree completely, and not only because I think the economic challenges will far outweigh the military ones in terms of complexity and effort required to solve them.

Governing according to public opinion is about the dumbest thing an elected official can possibly do. They're not elected to be popular - they're elected to do the right thing, which unfortunately they often don't do. If President Obama (may that never come to pass, PLEASE DEAR GOD PLEASE) needs to deploy troops for the good of the nation, he needs to do so regardless of public opinion.

The maintenance $$ need to get flowing to DoD REGARDLESS of whom is elected (dear GOD LET IT BE MCCAIN) because the war has taken a toll on the equipment of all branches of the military. That's not a challenge - it's a fact of life.

I'm going to the beach to show off my sexy knee caps.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,120]

>Governing according to public opinion . . .

No one is suggesting that in this thread.

>If President Obama needs to deploy troops for the good of the nation,
>he needs to do so regardless of public opinion.

Agreed. Conversely, if he refuses to deploy our troops in a situation where such a deployment will make the US less safe, then he should refuse to do so - even if there is great public pressure to do so, and even if it makes him unpopular.

>The maintenance $$ need to get flowing to DoD REGARDLESS of whom
>is elected (dear GOD LET IT BE MCCAIN) because the war has taken a toll
>on the equipment of all branches of the military.

Also agreed. And that cannot happen if the government finds itself in a deep financial crisis precipitated by crushing levels of debt.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Governing according to public opinion is about the dumbest thing an elected official can possibly do. They're not elected to be popular - they're elected to do the right thing, which unfortunately they often don't do. If President Obama (may that never come to pass, PLEASE DEAR GOD PLEASE) needs to deploy troops for the good of the nation, he needs to do so regardless of public opinion.

Troops don't get deployed without public support. Until 9/11 came, that wasn't present. And thanks to how well it's been going, it's going to be hard to get again. It will have to have direct benefit to the nation, not a potential and indirect one such as with Iraq.

Quote

The maintenance $$ need to get flowing to DoD REGARDLESS of whom is elected (dear GOD LET IT BE MCCAIN) because the war has taken a toll on the equipment of all branches of the military. That's not a challenge - it's a fact of life.

Not fighting for a while will certainly help direct the $$ towards repairing the equipment and personel.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Governing according to public opinion is about the dumbest thing an elected official can possibly do. They're not elected to be popular - they're elected to do the right thing, which unfortunately they often don't do.

They're elected to represent the people of this country. In reality, they represent the interest of rich corporations, groups and individuals. Unfortunately, representative government is not democracy. The problem is that it is both accepted and expected that they take dollars from the wealthy and do their bidding. Whether you choose to accept their actions as "right" depends on how much you believe the PR.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

> So what do you think – what is likely to be the biggest foreign policy challenge for the next US President?

I don't think it will be a single theater of operations, but at the systemic level.

Largely concur, w/a caveat below.

I do need to think about it more intentionally to pick just one.

One systemic challenge is transglobal networks, specifically radical Islamist networks empowered by information and communications technology (ICT), especially if they intersect with a near-failing or fragile state in Africa. For the main US foreign policy concern to be an African state there has to be some other political-economic factor. See Chad as a simmering hotspot that may have the necessary but not sufficient independent variables.

Whether Iran emerges as the biggest foreign policy concern of the US, imo, correlates with which candidate is elected. It will also pivot on the next Iranian election cycle, again imo. My concern is less driven by the individual US Presdential candidates then their advisors. Some of Sen McCain’s foreign policy advisors, e.g., Michael Ledeen, are obsessed -- for lack of a less inflamatory descriptor -- with invading Iran.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying