Category: Foreign Policy

Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Immigration

Trump’s Two Front War

Bob Claude |

Military strategists have long warned about the risks of waging a two-front war. Nevertheless, President Trump intervened in Israel’s war on Iran while National Guard troops were deployed to quell resistance to immigration enforcement in California.  A prudent leader would resort to military force only after attempting to negotiate with an adversary possessing significant tools of resistance. Avoiding military force would be particularly advisable if the underlying policy enjoyed only tepid support at home. If negotiations still failed, threats of force would then be used, followed by the low-level exercises of force such as sanctions. Only when this failed would military force be used. 

The President arguably followed this path regarding Iran. Prior to Saturday’s attacks, the US and Iran were in active talks attempting to reach agreed-upon limits on Iran’s nuclear program. When this appeared to fail, the parties graduated to threats of force, which continued for several days. Sanctions had already been tried, and so the card of military force was played. The President appears to have successfully negotiated a ceasefire in the Iranian conflict. However, the uncertainty over the success of the bombing campaign means the temptation of “mission creep” and the risk of escalation to further military action remains.  

At the time, the President was already in a low-level military conflict here at home with Los Angeles and California about the enforcement of federal immigration law. Instead of following the traditional escalation protocol, Trump immediately turned to military force despite only tepid support for the intervention at home. There is another path he could have taken that might have avoided a military confrontation and achieved a lasting solution to the immigration issue.  

The administration should have first proposed a comprehensive immigration bill tightening enforcement and significantly reducing immigration levels. The legislation could have accomplished the goal of discouraging the employment of illegal immigrants and incentivizing self-deportation through  

  • A 10% employer tax on the salaries of an employer’s illegal immigrant employees. 
  • A requirement that those employers purchase insurance protecting third parties from injuries or damages by their immigrant employees. It would also reimburse government agencies for any welfare payments to those employees.  
  • A prohibition against refugees seeking permanent immigration status until they first return to their native countries.  

Employers would be forced to decide if these increased costs and risks would be worse than hiring American citizens. It would also finally force the real debate on our immigration policy that the nation has avoided for decades.  

What if globalists did not take this deal? Then, sanctions would be the next step, and Trump has a peaceful but big stick in his arsenal. He can announce that the US cannot host the 2028 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles because California’s resistance to federal authority may result in an internal military conflict and, as a result, we cannot guarantee the security of the games. This risk in such a threat would hopefully prompt globalist immigration enthusiasts to agree on reforms that reflect today’s world and establish an effective enforcement process.  If not, the President should make good on the threat.   

Partisans on both sides of the immigration debate will condemn this strategy. However, it recognizes that each side has economic and legal leverage. Admittedly divisive in tactics, it is potentially unifying in strategy by creating a road to a permanent resolution that gives American citizens hope and the peace of a better life. It is this objective, not regime change overseas, that should be the most crucial goal of the Trump Administration.  The risks are certainly worth the reward.

2024 Election, China, Foreign Policy, Politics, Realist Theory

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index Speaking Softly

Bob Claude |

This is the third in a series examining the issues in the 2024 presidential election. To see other articles in the series, click on the “2024 Elections” link under the heading “Politics” in the above menu.

Score

Harris -6 Trump +1.5

While Theodore Roosevelt was known to engage in bellicose rhetoric, his foreign policy as president was based on adroit diplomacy. Roosevelt knew that the world was in a transition where nations such as the United States, Germany and Japan were becoming powers as the British Empire was reaching its peak. He used diplomatic negotiation to prevent a German intervention in Venezuela and to stabilize great power rivalries in Europe and in Asia, thus increasing America’s soft power.

The Biden-Harris ticket campaigned on the slogan “a foreign policy for the middle class”. After the election, they implemented the exact opposite- a policy that desperately tried to maintain the American unipolar hegemony of the 1990’s and extended our scarce resources far from our limited national interests.  The only people served by such a policy were business and foreign elites.

The correct worldview is that we now live in a period of great power competition on its way to becoming a G0 world; that is, a world where there are only regional powers and no superpowers. In a G0 world, the US would be the preeminent power in the Western Hemisphere with the ability to influence other issues in the world primarily by diplomacy. In the meantime, the US must live and act in the current great power reality while planning for this future state. I advocated abandoning liberal interventionism in favor of a realist approach in my series “Nationalist Foreign Policy -a History” (see the Foreign Policy tab above). Trump and Harris have very different philosophies on these crucial issues.

National Security Strategy

Every new presidential administration produces a document called a National Security Strategy (“NSS”) that shapes American foreign policy as well as its perception overseas. Comparing those of the Biden and Trump Administrations reveals a marked difference in strategic emphasis and priorities.

The Biden NSS speaks repeatedly of addressing “shared challenges” that “are not secondary to geopolitics but are at the very core of security and should be treated as such.” This would be accomplished by a “rules-based international order” that would grow “the connective tissue” between the US and other nations to spread democracy and strengthen national security. In addition, it expressly seeks to use foreign policy to “spur reform and rejuvenation domestically”.  A more globalist, liberal interventionist policy could not be imagined.  The best that can be said is that it is a statement of how to achieve a G0 world, while trying to wish away the geopolitical realities of today’s world.

In contrast, the NSS of the Trump Administration leads with the statement the government’s first duty is to its citizens. It expressly rests on a “principled realism”.  The most fundamental duty of the President is to protect the homeland, our way of life and American interests overseas. It recognizes that we are in a great power rivalry with China and Russia.  Our allies and other countries can “magnify our power” but are expected to help us address threats.

We can assume that Vice President Harris and former President Trump would implement these past strategies of their respective administrations, though the details may differ. Harris maybe even more globalist if her administration includes more radical “progressive” globalists as this article suggests. Based on their record and this possibility, she deserves a  minus  2 score. Trump has often said he believes in a more “transactional” foreign policy, which is consistent with a realist approach. His running mate Sen. JD Vance also wants to reorient American foreign policy away from the Biden view to a more realist strategy (see this article). The Trump– Vance ticket thus earns a plus 1.5 score on this fundamental issue.

Ukraine and European Policy

The Russo – Ukraine war has now ground on for more than two years. The Ukrainians achieved a dramatic victory in preventing Russian forces from taking Kyiv. We now know that a peace could have been negotiated at that time, but the US and Britain encouraged Ukraine to continue the war to attempt to recover the Donbas region and Crimea (see this article from Foreign Affairs magazine– subscription required).  The West, particularly the United States, then begin shipping arms to Ukraine, but only to the extent it did not provoke Russia to escalate the war into NATO. The result has been another “forever war” with no clear strategy or achievable goal at the cost of thousands of Ukrainian lives.

The war has also proved to be a crucible of fire testing the strength of NATO and our European relationship. Eastern Europe stepped up to support Ukraine while Western Europe, in particular Germany, gave limited support. Some NATO members such as Hungary actually opposed aid and overtly sympathized with Russia. These divisions call into question whether it is in our interest to remain a NATO member, especially in light of Europe’s potential defense capability (see this past post on the issue).

The next administration needs to concentrate on bringing peace to this conflict.  Ukraine will have to accept the loss of the Donbas and Crimea and Russia will have to accept the sovereignty and, thus the loss, of Ukraine. At the same time, we should have no illusions about Vladimir Putin.  He is a ruthless dictator who, among other war crimes, orchestrated the kidnapping of hundreds of Ukrainian children to be placed with Russians. We cannot have normal relations with him. For example, we should immediately kick the Russians off of the International Space Station.  

However, the increasing importance of East Asia and our neglect of Latin America require a reassessment of our NATO commitment. Vice President Harris appears committed to continuing the war in Ukraine and our current NATO commitment despite these realities and so deserves a minus 2.  In contrast, Trump pushed Europe to increase its defense spending to counter Russia and criticized Germany for its reliance on Russian oil and gas. He has said he would settle the Ukraine War even before he takes office, though without specifying how. His past efforts and current attitude merits a plus 1 score in this area.

Israel and Middle East Policy

As of this writing, Iran has just launched a barrage of missiles at Israel in retaliation for its killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon. It is an escalation of a war that has extended far beyond the originally stated goal of freeing the hostages that were taken during the October 7 raid of Hamas. Instead, Israel has used the raid as an excuse to widen the conflict to attack Hezbollah as well as expand its control over the West Bank in violation of the Oslo Accords and international law. They call it “mowing the grass”; i.e., not eliminating the problem, but simply keeping it under control.

As I argued in this post, we have an interest in a stable Middle East, not one regularly wracked by war that threatens world stability. Israel is a critical pillar of this stability, but so is the Arab and Muslim world. The Biden Administration has endangered this balance by tethering American policy to Israel without imposing any real costs to its expansive goals that contradict our own stated policies in support of a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, both Harris and Trump support this myopic policy, though Harris’s connections to pro-Palestinian groups in the Democratic Party make her more open to change. Trump successfully negotiated the Abraham Accords normalizing relations between Israel and some Arab states, but those are in tatters now. In light of these performances, Harris and Trump both receive a minus  2.

China and Asia

The vaunted “pivot to Asia” during the Obama Administration has become a circular pirouette during the Biden administration. Its concentration on Ukraine and Israel has led it to ignore crises in East Asia that directly threaten important Pacific Rim nations. China has effectively annexed the South China Sea in violation of international law and is now regularly challenging Philippine control of its seas. Meanwhile, Xi Jin-peng threatens Taiwan, which is only now starting to ramp up its defenses.  

A Chinese attempt to take over Taiwan would have severe economic and geopolitical consequences for the world.  Nevertheless, it would be impractical and possibly disastrous for the US to stop a military invasion. It is more likely that China would simply try to strangle the island with various levels of blockades.  The American people need to be prepared for the tariffs and other sacrifices that may be required to impress upon the Chinese leadership the costs to China of a forcible takeover.  We will need the support of East Asian nations in this effort. President Biden’s support of Israel has made this more difficult in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country that straddles key shipping lanes. Trump led the way in raising alarms about China’s rise during his administration while Harris’s approach is unknown. Thus, Trump receives a plus 1 on this issue and Harris gets a zero.

Conclusion

American foreign policy will succeed in the present and future multipolar world only if it is clear, flexible and based on realist international theory.  Donald Trump seems to understand the need to change our current unipolar and interventionist approach while Kamala Harris will likely continue it in some form.  It is time for an American president with Theodore Roosevelt’s courage and vision and who will lead the transition to a foreign policy that effectively serves the American people and, in the end, the rest of the world as well.    

Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, General, Nationalist Theory, Politics, The Crisis of the American Spirit

The Crisis of the American Spirit – Living with Limits

Bob Claude |

Early Americans were blessed to grow up without a real sense of limits.  After all, an entire continent beckoned before them, offering challenges that occupied the country for almost three centuries.  Those frontiers, however, were less important than the values frontier eventually enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  It is too easy to forget how revolutionary the concepts of democracy and basic human rights were in a world that remained hostile to those ideas well into the nineteenth century.  Pushing this frontier forward was as exciting and dangerous as expanding the land frontier.  It involved personal and national sacrifice to tame and develop these new frontiers. The failure to address the contradiction of slavery forced the nation into a bloody civil war. Nevertheless, these frontiers created an optimistic spirit that animated American life and gave the Americans the feeling they were creating something new through the first century of the nation’s life.

The closing of the American land frontier in the 1890s initiated a serious debate about American goals and meanings.  The country was then in the middle of an Industrial Revolution creating once again a new, apparently limitless economic frontier of productive innovation. It also created a new challenge for American values frontier. The new industries absorbed immigrants fleeing the same economic and political turmoil as the original settlers but offered more stifling careers and a dangerous level of socioeconomic inequality threatening those values. Enter Theodore Roosevelt, who served as the perfect bridge to this new economic frontier. His life spanned the two worlds of Western pioneering and urban industrialization. He also never forgot that he became President because of an anarchist’s bullet and so sparked an era of progressive legislation that gave new hope for fairness for the average American in the new economy.  The America he left behind had renewed its confidence and a sense of limitless vistas as it entered the twentieth century.

American leadership in productivity and innovation led to both increasing international influence and socioeconomic strain that thankfully found a new bridge leader in TR’s cousin Franklin D. Roosevelt. Economists still debate how effective the New Deal was in countering the Great Depression, but FDR’s program clearly lifted the spirits of the country.  The advent of World War II not only provided the economic improvement promised by the New Deal, but also ushered in a beguiling new frontier of international influence. The US now had the ability to pursue two of its historic frontiers simultaneously  – the expansion of American values across a global land frontier.  The fight against fascism and then communism justified the sacrifices involved, but also contained a Pandora’s box of temptations to overreach and hubris.

For almost fifty years after World War II, this Goldilocks period of unlimited American power seemed unstoppable. In fact, the economic and international influence frontiers were slowly closing behind us beginning in the 1970s.  The European and Asian economies devastated by the war retooled with more efficient innovative industrial facilities and, in many cases, better educational systems that allowed businesses and workers to move up the value chain and win better wages.   Meanwhile, the American industrial system stagnated and lost capital investment to new high tech and information companies. This seemed to revitalize the economic frontier for a time, only to find out how easy technological change was to duplicate, steal or exploit for sinister use. Similarly, the limits of our international power were illustrated in the Vietnam War, but then apparently renewed by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the victory in the 1990 Gulf War. This ushered in the triumphant claims of a New World Order in which the US would lead the world to the new heaven of liberal values and economic bliss.

In truth, this was all being supported by policies that mortgaged the real future to sustain the illusion of an unlimited future.  Our political leadership defied TR’s warning and deceived people into believing that these unlimited vistas could be achieved with no real sacrifice. Tax cuts and government spending covered up the decline in incomes while overseas business investment slowly increased. As a result, the US went from being one of the 5 lowest debt-to-GDP countries in 2000 to one of the top 5 highest in only 23 years. The 9/11 attacks spurred a quixotic Global War on Terror that committed the nation to further military spending and long, poorly thought and fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The desperate futility of these policies was covered up by triumphalist rhetoric and a financialization of the economy that led to increasing inequality.  Instead of TR’s call to visionary sacrifice, the American people were encouraged to act like kids in a candy store who, when asked which piece of candy they would like, respond with “I want it all!”

So now we face the end of the era of unlimited economic and international power without the tools to bridge to the next era.  The drop in economic productivity due to our failure to invest in education and infrastructure makes it more difficult to maintain our standard of living and raise the necessary internal capital to keep up with the rest of the world.  The rise in debt is corroding the dollars’ status as a reserve currency – an important source of international power.  Meanwhile, China and the BRICS of the Global South are ushering in the new G-0 world of diverse powers that can chart their own destiny without us and create new rules of order more compatible with their own interests.

A modern bridge leader would have convinced the American people to invest in themselves through education and industries at home, avoided the weakening adventures abroad, and called us to new visionary, but achievable, frontiers at home and in our foreign policy. Why didn’t this happen?  Part of the reason is found in history, and not just one  – the subject of the next post.

Next – an awareness of different histories