In a culture dominated by celebrity and entertainment it is sometimes easy to blur the line between serious political questions and mere fluff. Nowhere has this become more apparent than in the area of foreign policy. Domestic politics of course have always had its share of buffoons, comedy and delightful satire. When the same sentiments are applied to our standing and policy with the states of the world the results are usually only tragic.
Since the fall of the Soviet Empire the foreign policy of the United States has been remarkable for its lack of clarity, amateurishness, and pure blunders. From Jerusalem to Jakarta, from Baghdad to Berlin and Moscow to Mogadishu we have stumbled so many times so as to strain the credulity of those who consider the State Department a place of educated professionals. Yet as with Harry Truman the buck stops at the top and it is there that the lions share of the blame must be laid.
Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all (for sometimes varied reasons) enacted foreign policies not of a Superpower, but of a neophyte. Sometimes, as with the fall of Communism inf Eastern Europe, we stood by with shock as the Soviets fell apart and took little real action to lead. Our own surprise at the weakness of communist power left us dazed and confused as to what, if anything, to offer the new governments in the way of help. Instead,at best, we praised the rise of what was commonly believed to be Jeffersonian (or was it Robespierreian) democracy in countries sometimes eminently unsuited for such a system. Instead of a studied look at limited government changes until stability could be enacted, or even the return of monarchy, we crashed forward with ideology.
The 1990’s largely followed this policy of unthinking reaction. In Serbia, Wilsonian ideology prevailed. In Rwanda Machiavellian practicality rose. The obtuse belief that the fall of the Soviet Empire ended major foreign challenges to the US was a stunning lack of vision. The State Department, the President and a host of sycophants and advisers missed the far larger story of the last century. That was the domination of not communism in much of the world but of nationalism and alongside it the resurgence of Arab and non-Arab Muslim radicalism. That we callously disregarded these in our moment of “victory” in the early 1990’s has been our enduring tragedy.
With no clear statement of what US Foreign policy is, it is no wonder we act schizophrenically. We established NATO to keep the Soviets out of Western Europe. Then, with the Soviets gone, we suddenly forgot the whole purpose and began to move the borders of NATO to the borders of Russia without any regard for European history or Russian mentality. Then we seemed unable to believe that Moscow would object. Stunning.
We demand Gaddafi go and bomb Tripoli while doing a wink and nod at Assad in Syria while he does as bad or worse to his people. There is no rhyme or reason to our policy because we don’t have one. Bush adopted the “with us or against us” mentality after 9-11 without regard to the realpolitik that governs the world. Obama has adopted a globalist view that, while idealistic, does not account for the fact that he is the US Head of State and must put our needs and security before all. Idealism in foreign policy is for professors to haggle, not for diplomats to actually implement. The farce goes on.
C.L. Ingram
American Reactionary 
Leave a comment