peacefare.net

Restraint and its challenges

Last night’s debate among Democratic presidential candidates spent relatively little time on foreign policy, maybe 10-12 minutes out of the two hours. But on some issues there appeared to a wide consensus:

1. Bring the troops home, in particular from Afghanistan, sooner rather than later.
2. Avoid using military instruments whenever possible and obtain Congressional authorization when it is necessary.
3. Give more emphasis to civilian instruments of foreign policy, especially diplomacy and development.
4. Enhance cooperation with other countries to deal with places like Venezuela and global issues like climate change and terrorism.
5. Refocus attention on domestic welfare, including support for veterans.

This amounts to a policy of military restraint and diplomatic lead. The military restraint might appear close to what Donald Trump promised in his campaign, but it was always clear he would favor big increases in the Defense Department’s budget, little emphasis on diplomacy, and even less on development.

That is where the Democrats differ from Trump. The question is not whether they are sincere but rather whether it is practical. The US has led with its military in foreign policy for so long it is difficult for American diplomats to imagine anything else. And we are so thoroughly exposed militarily in so many places that it is difficult even to know where to start.

American withdrawal can create real problems, especially in the Middle East. Iraq is a classic case in point, but not the only one. Military withdrawal requires major diplomatic efforts to ensure that US interests are served and adversaries blocked from taking advantage. After 2.5 years of President Trump, the State Department is in terrible shape: many experienced officers have left, and those who remain are demoralized. While Secretary Pompeo has influence with the President, the organization is weaker than ever, which is saying something.

So restraint is the name of the game, but the ways and means of achieving it are not so clear.

Here is the bulk of the debate transcript on foreign policy.

PS: I realized after hitting the “publish” button that I ignored what the candidates said about China. None of it was enlightening. They mostly support the Administration–without every saying as much–on getting the Chinese to yield on trade. Some even said they would keep the Trump tariffs in place initially to help make that happen. Mostly they oppose Trump’s tariffs on our allies, which is good to hear, but still they aren’t far off his thinking on squeezing the Chinese.