Author: Bob Claude

Defense Policy, Foreign Policy

Great Power Threats off Our Own Shores

Bob Claude |

We have certain duties in the West and East Indies. We cannot with honor shirk those duties. On the one hand we must undertake them, and on the other we must not fail to perform them in a way that will redound to the advantage of the people of the islands, no less than to our national renown.

Theodore Roosevelt, “America Part of the World’s Work”, February 1899

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32145/new-pentagon-map-shows-huge-scale-of-worrisome-russian-and-chinese-naval-operations

Neoconservatives and other globalist elites have often hyped the need for American intervention in the Middle East or elsewhere by claiming we faced grave and imminent threats to our national security. The Pentagon just released a map illustrating real threats to our security that should worry every American.  It shows that Russian and Chinese naval forces have dramatically increased their activity along our own East Coast.  As mentioned in the attached article, the scope and scale of Russian submarine activity led one senior officer to say:

“Our new reality is that when our sailors toss the lines over and set sail, they can expect to be operating in contested space once they leave Norfolk.  Our ships can no longer expect to operate in a safe haven on the East coast or merely cross the Atlantic unhindered to operate in another location.”

Vice Admiral Andrew Lewis, Commander U.S Navy 2nd Fleet, February 4, 2020

Much of this activity occurs along or near undersea cables that carry internet and other communication traffic between the U.S., Europe and South America.  Russia clearly knows the critical value of these links as illustrated by their own recent experiment in isolating their own domestic internet from the rest of the world as a way of hardening it from attack. 

Meanwhile, the Chinese navy has also become active not only in east Asian waters, but also in the Arctic and off South America.  In particular, a tiny red dot on the map off of Florida represents China’s recent construction of a port in the Bahamas and reflects their increasing presence in that island nation.  China has used similar investments to create “debt-traps” that force nations to convey long term leases or other rights to China easily convertible to military use.  Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida has highlighted the existence of a Chinese listening station in Cuba.  China also recruited several Caribbean nations to join their Belt and Road Initiative even though they are far removed from the stated focus of the program on the Eurasian heartland. 

TR knew the strategic importance of preserving our influence in the Western Hemisphere as well as the tactical value of a navy in projecting power across the world.  Instead of wasting money and resources in the Middle East, we should be paying attention to the increasing competition for power and influence here in our own back yard.  If we lose that competition, our national security and the American homeland itself will be threatened as never before.   

Foreign Policy, Realist Theory

Presidential Military Power

Bob Claude |

Opening the Pandora’s Box
Presidential Military Power, Part 1

Theodore Roosevelt’s first reaction to the killing of Iranian General Soleimani may very well have been grudging admiration of its audacity and the avenging of American blood on his hands.  Moreover, TR was an unrepentant advocate of presidential power and believed he could “do anything the nation demanded unless it was specifically prohibited by the Constitution”.  Many neoconservatives and some advocates of realism maintain that presidents need such unilateral power in a world where terrorism, cyber-attacks and other low-level threats will be the prevailing warfare of the future. 

Nevertheless, even Roosevelt would have had to concede that Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress, not the President, the power to declare war against a sovereign state.  Over time, presidents have arrogated more and more power to engage in military action with little or no input from Congress or the public. The Soleimani action shows how unrestrained military action can risk committing the nation to a general shooting war without the constitutional constraints envisioned by the Founding Fathers.   

Modern American nationalists who believe in realism and restraint should be horrified at this situation.  It limits the input into such a momentous decision to only a narrow elite without the discussion necessary to achieve the broad consensus required to sustain the commitment to victory.  The last three decades shows that it also encourages interventions in regions such as the Middle East where we have little direct interest. The fact that America has endured as many shooting wars in those 30 years as it did during the Cold War speaks to how such power can be abused and dissipate American lives and treasure to no conclusive  end.  Moreover, these interventions have occurred at the expense of the longer-term strategy necessary to deal with more important challenges such as China.

There is no question that American foreign and defense policy will need to be nimble and precise to effectively deal with cyber and drone warfare, as well as other foreign threats that we can hardly imagine now.  These twin challenges call for a new statutory framework for authorizing national action, military and otherwise.  The old War Powers Resolution adopted in 1973 has proven ineffective at controlling presidential military power and outmoded in managing modern forms of warfare.  It should be replaced by a system that requires varying levels of authorization based on the degree of national commitment necessary to successfully respond to the attack or level of threat.  The next post will outline the elements of such a statute.

Foreign Policy, Realist Theory

Opening the Pandora’s Box

Bob Claude |

The killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and President Trump’s statement after Iran’s retaliatory missile strike unlocked a Pandora’s box of issues for both the the United States and the world.  All of them had to be dealt with at some point, but it would have been better to have done so through a measured and deliberate diplomatic process where the consequences could be managed over a longer period of time. The choices America must now quickly confront are many, but break down into four categories:

The extent to which American presidents should have the power to commit American military resources against terrorist groups and other nation-states. 

The wisdom and future of America’s involvement in the Middle East.

The future of European relations with America and the rest of the world.

The implications for the balance of power in Asia and the structure of international relations throughout the world.

The American nationalist and realist solution would be to end our involvement in the Middle East quagmire, reject the uni-polar dream of imposing a worldwide liberal hegemony and start to transition to a foreign policy that accepts the multi-polar world of diverse world powers and the dynamic shifting alliances that will be necessary to protect American interests in such a world.  This is truly the new world order.

If American democracy is to succeed in this international system, we must begin building the domestic and international framework necessary to achieve the support of the American public for the policies required to win in this new order.  Americans deserve to hear the 2020 presidential candidates take positions on each of the above issues to insure that the ultimate decisions are primarily driven by the American people and not a distant elite or, worse, by the decisions of hostile nations. This summary will begin a series of posts that will identify some of the hydra-headed choices facing us in each of these four categories.