Keywords or
Terms: Ukraine; Kremlin;
ISIS; US Congress; President Barack H. Obama; German Chancellor
Angela Merkel; Diplomacy-first
strategy; China, Spain; Italy; Lame Duck Presidency; Senator John McCain; 2016 Presidential
Aspirants; Obama’s Administration; American Security; and, Containment of
Global Terrorism
Did I hear a lame duck
President? Hardly ever, considering President Obama’s recent Press Conference with
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and last weeks’ White House request for war authorization
to go after the terrorists, one sees an actively engaged president who is
making tough choices in foreign policy. What will men and women clamoring to
replace him do in these times of unequal challenges? In an age of unwelcome tirade
against the Presidency, many of us are interested to know what any of the presidential aspirant, do when faced with a world where different actors are changing as chameleons
every other day: what will Governor Jeb Bush do if the White House phone rings saying
Israel has invaded Palestine overnight and Russia’s surrogate has given up on her
promise to pull back from Ukraine? What will Secretary Hillary Clinton do, if
ISIS strikes hard in the heart of Europe, Spain or Italy? What will aspirants
without foreign policy credibility do, if the Chinese move closer to taking
another Island in the Indian ocean? Yes, these questions seem hypothetical;
however, there are good reasons to believe these events are not out of place or
aberrations; in fact, they are likely going to take place if history is any
judge.
These inquisitively
exploratory questions come at the wake of Senator McCain’s dis-satisfactory assessment
or conclusion of the Europeans’ ‘wait-first’ strategy and overtures to Kremlin
on the invasion of Ukraine by Russian surrogates. Further, the questions follow
the scrutiny of the 2012 Presidential contestant, Senator John McCain, that the
diplomacy-first strategy is synonymous with European power’s appeasement of
Hitler before the outbreak of Second World War. Recall that Obama’s
White House argues that the failure of the ‘wait-first’ strategy will afford
for a credible US-Euro consensus on arming the rebels. Precisely, the President
of the United States says at his Press Conference with German Chancellor Angela
Merkel, If diplomacy fails this week, there’s
going to be a strong unified response from US and Europe” The President is
holding out and concertizing his choice with the Europeans with the expectation
that if Kremlin fails to come through, Russian’s choice will have profound impact on future collaboration with United States on the new START initiative. What
will the 2016 Presidential aspirants do differently, or will they support the
current White House?
With the rise of terrorists’
groups and Russian resuscitated hegemony in former Soviet states, we must all
agree that we are at the throes of far-reaching dynamics in the world order.
The eventual change and gross chameleon-ic dynamics of terrorist activities in
the Middle-East, Africa and Europe point to conclusion among foreign policy
experts that the world is moving towards new instability, one in which key
players are hardly state-sponsored terrorism but one engineered by splintered
groups with philosophical, generational or religious agenda. Neither unilateral
nor collaborative government strategy towards combating the new nemesis is going
to give permanent relief; rather, a continuous and more dynamic resolve to
combat the new enemy at the root in various countries with indigenous
participation in fighting the canker worm is likely to bring about long term
change.
The horizon of emerging US-European
‘wait-first’ diplomatic policies may constraint the expansionism dream of
Kremlin; however, we are going to need more than this to combat the nemesis of
Al Qaida, ISIS, and Boko-Haram among others. First, there is need for yet
another transformation in our foreign policy, non-given to regional alignment;
rather, one designed to address individual circumstance or fear of attack of
the homeland by multiple groups. To fight the tide against terrorists groups, coalition
of fighters on the field must continue to work with coalition forces that are
at our level of expectation on fighting terrorism, if our goal is to degrade
and destroy terrorist groups as ISIS, Taliban and Boko Haram. Second, security
and defensive arms supply may help a nation like Ukraine protect itself;
however, the defense of homeland would demand more than bombing ISIS to Stone
Age. We will need to accomplish the mission of destroying ISIS or other
terrorist groups not by blocking funding of the Department of Homeland Security
but by focusing our efforts at sweeping and wholesome foreign policy strategies
that yield true results. Finally, we must now equate American security to
global containment of terrorism; and within this sphere formulate foreign
policies that do not conflict with our domestic political necessity.
Polls show that among the field
of Republican candidates for 2016 Presidential elections, Jeb Bush stands out.
His dad and brother had foreign policy dominated by Iraq wars and wisely so, Governor
Jeb Bush has continued to distance himself from this strategy by refusing to
answer questions on the current crisis in that region. Hillary Clinton, the
former secretary of state and grandmother who has highlighted the gender
equation in the coming general elections, is hardly one with limited foreign
policy experience. If pitched on a head-to head fight with Jeb Bush, she is
more likely to come ahead on issues as curtailing Russian expansionism agenda
and fighting the Islamic State Militants. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive
nominee of the Democratic Party, however, has a challenge, one faced by
incumbents: she has had to deal with terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya and
there are those who believe there were some lapses in this case on her watch.
What may be said of a policy
of global containment of terrorism may also be said of the current war
authorization request to US Congress by Obama’s Administration. Obama’s
Administration war authorization wants to engage the enemy but does not want to
suck the military into Middle East hostility on the ground. While the proposal bars
engaging the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground operations,
the President wants to have the option of using US Armed forces, if the
President determines it necessary and appropriate, to combat ISIS insurgencies.
Critics maintain that while it is essential to fight ISIS, allowing the President
to have the largess of fighting enduring operations, is like giving him an
open-ended check or window to stay on extended hostilities; probably beyond the three years in the request. Supporters however maintain
that the logic behind Obama’s Administration request is based on the need not
to constrain the generals in the field, in case they need to take the fight to
the enemy, anywhere and for as long as possible.
It is worth recalling that
the Bush Administration went to congress to fulfill the requirements of
congress to authorize foreign wars. Obama’s Administration has done same on
this occasion. To some, the debate is, how much is too much, or how flexible
should a war authorization from congress be; should it be restrictive or time-unlimited?
On the surface, it might seem that the President is just fulfilling the
requirements of the constitutions; however, no one ever knows what the end
result of offering arms to others to do the bidding and then finding out that
the US has to follow through with some type of commitment on the grounds to get
the desired results. Critics maintain nobody doubts the intentions of the president;
however, there is no room to stomach another ground war for America.
The prospect that either
Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush will continue Obama’s Administration offensive, may
be given to their individual foreign policy agenda. Given that President Obama’s
authorization is going to be approved by US Congress with some limitations;
there may be a need for conviction to this policy by another administration for
there to be continuity. Secretary Clinton probably understands the inner
reasoning or workings and could be brought up to speed regarding new developments
since her exit from Obama’s Administration; however, Jeb Bush will probably
have to be doubly convinced to be drawn into continuity. To hawkish Republicans,
a continuity is plausible; however, they will want a more drastic and expansive
agenda. To critics of the past efforts of the Bush Clan on foreign wars,
another foreign war by another Bush, is unthinkable and must never be
accommodated. This position may weigh heavily on Jeb Bush’s choice and may
actually lead to him taking a different direction on this choice.
More generally, the compelling
need to fight terrorism across the globe may force the interest of a new
administration to have continuity in the Obama’s Administration’s authorization
from Congress. The manner and emphasis may differ, so can the degree of
expansiveness and magnitude of invested time. The added war costs consequence
and some fear of repeat of the experience under the first and second Bush
Administration may deter further efforts. These and other considerations notwithstanding,
there is going to be need to devise a strategy of engaging terrorist groups, especially,
those who are bent on killing Americans or destroying the homeland.
No comments:
Post a Comment