Given the results of the current
administration’s foreign policy, people are now asking what kind of foreign
policy the US should implement. The current
administration seems to like to talk loudly and send in a few air strikes and
some drones while announcing that we won’t put boots on the ground or stay
longer than the next significant election.
The previous administration’s efforts at nation building ended up to be
beyond what the country was willing to spend in both lives and money. So what’s next?
For a start, I would like to suggest
a few new rules of thumb to guide future foreign policy decisions. I would recommend a foreign policy that arms
our friends so they can defend themselves. There should be no reason that the Kurdish
Peshmerga in Iraq should have to retreat because they are out of ammunition,
leaving Yazidis running for the hills to escape ISIS. There should be no reason
that the President of the Ukraine should have to come to Washington to beg for
weapons after Russia seized pieces of his country. Even worse, the Ukraine
still didn't get the weapons, even though the US guaranteed the territorial
integrity of the Ukraine in exchange for their surrender of Soviet Era nuclear
weapons. If the US guarantees your territorial integrity, it should mean we
will give you weapons so at least you can fight for yourself. We should also
decide that the borders drawn by colonial powers in Africa, Asia and the Middle
East often contribute to instability because they group together tribal and
religious groups who would be better off separated. In particular, if arming the Kurds means that
the Turks are nervous, that’s too bad.
It’s not like they let us use our own airbase in Incerlik, Turkey, for
air strikes against ISIS.
If the US admits you to NATO, it
should mean we are ready to help defend you, but you have to make a big boots
on the ground contribution yourself. This might mean a small professional
military with a large conscripted national guard. It should not mean that you
get your defense for free at the expense of US taxpayers.
While we're talking about NATO,
there is no reason that US forces should be stationed in Germany instead of
Poland. The Russians have violated their side of the agreement that kept NATO
forces out of former Warsaw Pact Countries. At the very least, there should
combat aircraft stationed in Poland so they could slow down any Russian
aggression against NATO members, like the Baltic States.
We need to get away from keeping our friends
weak and dependent and then having to send US ground combat troops to bail them
out. Being a friend of the US should mean you've got enough guns and ammo to
make attacks against you very costly. It should also mean the US Special Forces
have trained you how to use your weapons very effectively. Article I was reacting to: