Opinion

America’s Foreign Policy Calculus

The United Nations is far from perfect, that I agree. But, it is our channel for international peace and diplomacy, and I am dismayed to see a U.S. President yet again bypass, ignore, and generally disregard this institution. Yes, I’m an idealist – I sincerely believe that War does not have to remain a permanent condition of mankind, that we can eradicate it, and ultimately replace it and all its surrounding institutions with processes of justice, diplomacy, and liberalism. There are steps we can make in this direction, but unfortunately, America’s foreign policy is far from traveling down this path.

Here’s some sweeping assertions about our current situation:

  • There is an America foreign policy regime
  • It is, if you will, a “spontaneous order”, a long-operating result of varied interests and processes.  Eisenhower named it “the military-industrial complex” – “complex” is a good word here; it is not simply a cabal, a small, smoke-filled room of profiteers, king-makers, world conquerors, whatever. It’s not a sinister plot, or conspiracy, but the systemic outcome of lots of players.
  • These players include the military itself, military contractors, intelligence communities, foreign policy think tanks, etc.
  • These players do not all have the same interests, but their interaction still produces a consistent outcome.
  • This complex has had a continuity, and consistency, that outlasts Presidencies.
  • This continuity stretches back to at least the early 1960s, but probably has its roots in WW2, with the permanent establishment of a Department of Defense (previously called Department of War), the CIA, and a few other key institutions.
  • This continuity is fed by an increasing percentage of taxpayer money that is directed its way.
  • An old Constitutional restriction – no appropriation of funds longer than 2 years for the raising of Armies – the that would have perhaps provided some brakes to this self-perpetuation, is largely ignored these days.
  • The general outcome of this regime is to #1, perpetuate itself (a lesson from Public Choice ECON 101, of course).
  • The regime is driven by “realpolitik”, not idealism.  Liberty, democracy, the human condition, are all secondary issues to its preservation of itself and “American Interests”.
  • The regime has a focus, and thus produces analysis and attention to, areas where its interests can be preserved or enhanced, and ignores other areas, no matter how stridently offensive to liberty, democracy, or humanity.  For example, the long-running Congo war has been completely ignored in the U.S. for decades.
  • A secondary factor in this focus is gamesmanship against other world powers that may threaten its dominant position in the world today.  Namely, Russia and China, though to a lesser extent, even Britain and France.
  • Its foreign policy “calculus” first analyzes this question: “if we take an action in this direction, will it enhance our interests?”.  This calculus extends even to regime change – either directly pondering assassination of foreign leaders, or supporting rebel causes that may lead to the toppling of a foreign leader.
  • Being realpolitik, this calculus will of course seek to preserve foreign leaders, no matter how undemocratic or brutal they are, if that means its interests are preserved or enhanced.
  • World events are still unpredictable, so the regime must react to events it doesn’t always control, and refactor its calculus
  • Thus, we’ll see the U.S. supporting certain players, such as Osama bin Ladin, Qaddafi, or Saddam, during certain periods, only to withdraw support later.
  • The regime doesn’t always win.