Foreign Policy "After Bush"

In the March 27^th edition of The Economist, Adrian Wooldridge writes in "After Bush" that no matter who wins the White House in November, the next President will face three problems that President Bush has been forced to deal with over the past seven-plus years: 1) Partisanship in Washington; 2) Diverging views between the United States and the rest of the world on how best to confront radical Islam and the ongoing problems in the Middle East; and 3) Insufficient resourcing for the prosecution of a global war on terrorism, the defining effort of the Bush presidency and the driving force behind U.S. foreign policy since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

With respect to partisanship, Wooldridge argues that the next President will have a difficult time bridging the gap between conservatives committed to fighting Islamic radicalism and liberals who think America's response to the 9/11 attacks has been disproportionate and overblown. This is a very real problem, and it is one that will not go away anytime soon. Senator Obama has pledged to bring our troops home from Iraq immediately, and Senator Clinton has promised to begin a drawdown within her first two months as Commander-in-Chief. Senator McCain, on the other hand, has argued that American troops should stay in Iraq as long as it takes to secure American interests not only in Iraq, but in the region as well. No matter which candidate wins in November, the status quo is likely to continue, at least for a little while. Senator McCain has already made his intentions clear, and it is highly probable that either a President Obama or a President Clinton would take some time to evaluate the situation at hand, avoiding a rush to pull out of Iraq knowing that the responsibility for what follows would clearly belong to the new Commander-in-Chief. If McCain wins the White House, he will be attacked by the left and the Democratic Congress for continuing the war in Iraq, and he will be criticized by the right for tying the hands of the men and women doing the dirty work (closing Guantanamo, opposing waterboarding, etc.). If Obama or Clinton wins, they will leave conservatives hungering for more aggressive tactics in the war on terror while simultaneously angering liberals for failing to "bring the troops home" right away. The partisan divide will not be bridged, and no one will be satisfied.

Second, Wooldridge says, is the fact "...that America disagrees with the rest of the world over dealing with the Middle East and radical Islam." I don't necessarily buy into this line of thinking. First, conservative electoral victories in Europe have shifted two EU heavyweights toward a more pro-American posture. Germany under Chancellor Merkel and France under President Sarkozy have clearly shifted course and both are much more amenable to American ideas about the problems in the Middle East and the threat of radical Islam. Of course, there is still a long way to go in our relations with these countries, but we are clearly on the right path. Second, many of the governments in the Middle East are themselves threatened by Islamic extremists. So far, they have been willing to let us do most of the work. We will have to push these countries more aggressively, but given a choice between closer cooperation with the United States and being left to fend for themselves against the extremists, I suspect the decision will not be a difficult one.

Third, Wooldridge says, the United States is not providing sufficient resources for fighting the war on terror. The simple truth is that while our military men and women are at war, the nation is not. Most Americans go about their lives largely unaware that we are involved in a global effort to fight Islamic extremists whenever and wherever they may appear. The war is being fought not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the United States as well. It is a comprehensive effort that involves law enforcement, intelligence, and the military. But the country seems unaware. We cannot get critical equipment to the battlefield in a timely manner because the Congress drags its feet and because industry is not mobilized in support of the military. Federal agencies are still learning to work with each other instead of competing with each other. The Congress lets anti-terror legislation lapse and takes long breaks without addressing the needs of those fighting the battles. Americans, save those in the military and their families, are by and large not sacrificing in any meaningful way. Simply put, we aren't acting like we're a nation at war.

No matter what happens in November, the problems we face as a nation will remain very much the same. Partisanship will not abate, we will continue to disagree with European allies (though not as much as in the past), and we will continue to treat the war on terror as an annoyance that doesn't require the full weight of American power to be brought to bear against it. None of that will change with the arrival of a new Commander-in-Chief.

Source: The Economist