Let me begin by saying that I am jealous of this purported Wunderkind who is helping to shape Obama's foreign policy and writing many of his speeches on the subject. OK, that off my chest...to the analysis.
The text of the recent speech is here.
I will respond, fairly randomly to each of his five points.
1) Iraq. I've been saying for months that despite their rhetoric every one of the major candidates will do virtually the same thing in Iraq. This convergence is happening. What I didn't predict is that Bush would actually start to converge. That was new. I have advocated for over two years that we should draw down our troops in the middle once the Iraqis are able to sustain relative security and then sink savings into infrastructure and job creation programs. This should be done while bolstering border security and hunting terrorists in western Iraq. This is exactly what Obama is proposing. Thus my genius. What is left out of this debate is the fact that the majority of the Marines currently operating in western Iraq are not in this commitment to draw down. They may be replaced by JSOC operatives eventually (I suspect that will be the long-term solution), but they are going to represent a major force commitment for a long time. Despite his adherence to the no-bases policy, I think he may be forced to backtrack on that one. It will depend on what Iran does and it will depend on political developments within Iraq. I think that a basing strategy, if smartly pursued (read small), is in our national interests. If nothing, we will want to keep the Umm Qasr and Basrah areas open to deploy from like we did with Kuwait. Although Kuwait will continue to work, it will be further from the action than Basrah if things get out of hand.
For the most part, however, I'm not sure what McCain envisions that his bases will do. He seems to imply that he wants major bases. I understand his argument. I'm just not sure what his vision or mission for those troops will be. Our SOFA with Japan has modern day relevance, strategically. For it is from Okinawa and the large mainland bases where we would launch any strategic action were North Korea to head south or China to head across the channel. Our SOFA with Germany has less modern day relevance, which is why we've been drawing down the bases. We are keeping major hospitals there, which is the next stage trauma victims go after they are stabilized in country. But it doesn't make sense to keep major, strategic bases in Iraq. First it is access. Ships have to get into the gulf. A regional action (read Iran sweeps around to Saudi) would be able to cut off access to the gulf. That would isolate any bases we kept in Iraq from resupply. That makes little sense. Although the Navy would be able to damn the torpedoes, the choke point entering the gulf would become a grave yard. Secondly, mission. Although regional stability is obviously within our interests, I'm not convinced that a basing presence would enhance that. It sounds too much like me that we would be choosing sides when we may not want to choose sides in any possible future conflict. We may want to, but we may want to reserve the right which side to choose. Basing in Iraq permanently may prove problematic. Or it may ensure that we have such interests in the state that we are willing to ensure puppet regimes for the foreseeable future (likely the neo-con argument).
All this is why I'm predisposed to tactical and operational level bases in the southeast of Iraq but nothing more. It would allow us to pull out quickly if we needed to, but still keep our foot in the door. We can arrange the SOFA with Iraq to ensure we have priority rights at the port if there was a security crisis. This will enhance our current range beyond Kuwait. I know that Basrah isn't very far removed from Kuwait, but I think overall that the access to Iran is what will prove the strategic deterrent. If I were king of the world, that is where I would put our missile defense systems. But more on Iran soon.
2. Afghanistan. Yes. Pakistan. Yes. Nothing really to add here.
3. Nuclear Non-Proliferation. Agree, we need to update the treaty. Agree, we need to secure lose fissile material, especially by working with Russia. However, to a large extent that ship has sailed. It is on the market. It will take a wide-base multilateral effort to secure all of this. That is what Obama is advocating for. Good.
Two points here. One. I enjoy that this issue is back on the table, but personally I wonder whether we are too focused on the N and not on the BC. Biological and Chemical weapons are going to be easier to manufacture, transport and employ than most nuclear weapons. That is what really concerns me when we talk about terrorist organizations with a worldwide reach and an axe to grind.
Two. Iran. I'm less concerned than many about Iran getting the bomb. I think that there isn't' going to be much that will stop the international community from them getting the bomb. They are smart, they are resourceful and they are fairly self-sufficient (especially when combined with the friends that they do have in the world). I think that the focus on prohibiting their nuclear program is the wrong focus. To Iranians it is an issue of regional pride, they want it before the Arabs. If they are able to build a nuclear weapon I think that a regional level MAD will keep the situation stable. Everyone knows that we gave Israel nuclear weapons long ago. They also have the delivery capacity. We also keep enough nuclear submarines in the region to ensure that Iran will be destroyed long before Israel will. The Iranians do not seem to me to be as compulsive as everyone gives them credit for. They have a fairly rational (if provocative) foreign policy. The concern, I realize, is what happens if the ayatollahs fall from power and chaos ensues. Well, I think that if that happens and if my small basing strategy is pursued, then we fly in and secure the sites. In my world view, Israel is much more likely to launch a preemptive nuclear strike than the Iranians. The reason is Israel has fewer friends that are Iran's neighbors than Iran does. Although there are tensions between Iranians and Jordan/Syria, any strike by Iran on Israel will have MASSIVE fallout effects in Jordan and likely Lebanon/Syria. Most will likely be blown over to Jordan if the prevailing winds do in fact point straight west. However, containing the fallout will not be easy. No matter how much Iran doesn't want Israel around and no matter how much tension there is between them and the Arab states further east, I think that the religious alliances will prevail.
4. Energy security. Yes. Fully support the amount he proffers for R&D. This is absolutely essential national security issue.
5. Realigning our reputation. There are quite a few parts to this, and I would like to see more on this issue and him to give an entire speech on how and what he intends to pursue which falls under this heading. I think his development 'graphs were weak. Too much Sachs and too little Collier for my taste. I actually liked that Easterly blew it up. I had a feeling that he would. I think that Obama will get this right, but I'm not yet convinced that his idealistic domestic policy will spill over to aid rather than his fairly pragmatic foreign policy. I hesitate to endorse his new institution, something with Security that I"m too lazy to look up. We already have too many institutions. Why was there nothing on how he would reform the UN? Why was there nothing on conflict and peace building? Why is there so little on African policy? Why was there nothing about his views on Kyoto or the ICC or the Law of the Sea or many of the other major treaties where we are currently outliers?
OK, have a conference call.
~ # ~
