Advocate of an America’s First foreign policy might begin reviewing the former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger six rules for engagement. The principles were:
1. Forces should not be committed unless the action is vital to national interest.
2. Forces should be committed wholeheartedly with the intention of winning – or they should not be committed at all (No half-hearted commitment).
3. Forces should be committed with clearly defined political and military objectives.
4. The use of force should be the last resort (after all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted).
5. The relationship between objectives and the force committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
6. Before committing forces abroad (in foreign countries) there should be some reasonable assurance of public support.
Casper Weinberger set these principles in the aftermath of the Vietnam war in which America was divided and there was serious question on how the war was conducted, principal ideas that political leader needs to consider even today. In 1984, two events occurred, one in which 240 Marines were killed as result of a suicide bomber in Beirut and the second, the invasion of Grenada in which United States removed a Marxist government that overthrew another leftist government, and the coup was supported by Cuban forces.
The Beirut attack was part of an ill-defined peace keeping mission in Lebanon and eventually Reagan, left Lebanon as oppose to getting sucked into an endless morose and in Grenada, United States went into with overpowering force, and easily removed the Cuban forces in an island located in our backyard, the Caribbean.
The first Gulf War was influenced by this principle as United States and their alliance went into Kuwait with overwhelming force, defeated the Iraqi army easily before ending the war. And Bush administration went to the American people and Congress to gain approval to use force if diplomacy failed in persuading Hussein to leave Kuwait. After the failure of diplomacy, the first Gulf War commenced.
The second Gulf War and the war on terror began with these principles but after the initial victory, the United States expanded the objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan to reinstitute democratic government in both countries. From there, United States engaged in long term engagement that ended in failure in Afghanistan.
The question is how to use these principles in the future to protect American national interest and not lapse into an isolationist position. During the Reagan years, the number one objective was to defend the West from the Soviet Empire and everything else was tied to that. Arming the Afghan rebels against the Russian was part of that strategy and within Congress there was bipartisan support for that and did not involve the use of U.S. troops. Grenada could be justified since the threat was close to home and overwhelming force and clear military objectives were present. The first Gulf War was another war that had defined objectives, expel Hussein from Kuwait, it was in a vital area that impacted both the United States and her allies and overwhelming force was used. Many criticized President George H W Bush for not marching to Baghdad but the Bush administration felt that their mandate was limited, nor they were not interested in occupying Iraq. We can argue the case maybe first President Bush should have gone to Bagdad, but then Weinberger thesis was that there was limit to what the American public would support and what they would not. For many in the Bush years, they feared being involved in another insurgency.
There is a bipartisan consensus among some Democrats and Republicans that China is the number one threat to United States and the question is how best to deal with this threat without getting into involved in a failed military operations or expanded war. That requires alliances and it requires a strong Domestic economy.
Ukraine is interesting case point and not necessarily an easy case study. The one thing that everyone agrees or should agree, that it is not in our interest to involved American troops in Ukraine. The problem has been that the Biden Administration has failed to garner bipartisan support among the American people for aiding Ukraine nor have there been an endgame defined for what is considered a victory or acceptable to our side and Ukrainians. There are many who will not view this in our national interest, but others could argue that if Russia succeed in Ukraine, this could encourage China to move against Taiwan. Using the ideas behind Weinberger doctrine, policy makers need to make case if this is in our interest and that our long-term interest is being served. If China is our number rival, does this enhance or disrupt our objectives against China? It is the responsibility for Biden to explain to the American people why Ukraine matters and what support for Ukraine need to prevail. For many Americans, there is no real national interest in aiding Ukraine when our own borders are open and wondering when the billions flowing to Ukraine will end?
As for the Ukraine, is it similar to helping mujahideen to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan? After the Russian invasion, we aided the mujahideen against the Russians and they provided the blood and we the money and arms. In the case of the Ukraine, there is no support for American troops to be involved in the defense of Ukraine and that Ukraine fate is up to the Ukrainian people. Since Ukraine is not NATO country, there is no reason to involved European troops.
Within the Republican primary, Republican candidates shows differences, but there are some similar takes. Nikki Haley’s argument is that there is a connection between Tawain and Ukraine, if we fail to support Ukraine or China may view Taiwan as vulnerable whereas others fear that a we are concentrating on the Ukraine at the expense of the Chinese. The reasoning begins with using up our own military stock and the billions we have spent with no end game in sight. The one thing that everyone agrees with, no United States troop will enter the conflict to aid the Ukrainians and it is their war to win or lose.
The question is how much support is too much and what is the end goal? Has the aid been parcel out bits by bits and in a half-hearted fashion? Has Biden’s administration delayed providing M-1 tank and F-16 fighters, and does this violate the dictum that forces should be committed wholeheartedly or not at all? And what are the clearly defined political and military objectives? What is victory? And how does the definition of victory change in the course of war? During Korean war, once the Chinese joined the fight, the objective went from unifying the entire the Korean peninsula as one entity favorable to the West to merely defending the status quo of independent South Korea not controlled by communists. South Korea has zoomed ahead of North Korean since then and is not just a developed nation economically but is a leading military power in the region.
In the case of the Ukraine, a NATO official hinted that a negotiated peace would allow Ukraine to be part of NATO and Russia in control of eastern portion of Ukraine. Ukraine gets the protection of NATO in the future and aligned with NATO and EU, has a chance to provide its own economic miracle as a counter to Russia. Certainly, having a military power of quarter of million soldiers with armed citizenry behind it will provide security for much of central Europe, the Nordic and Baltic states along with Poland which is in the process of strengthening their military. The Polish-Ukraine alliance will include a minimum of 500,000 soldiers, well trained and with the latest military equipment. Poland economy is on the verge of overtaking Great Britain by the end of the decade and many of the Baltic and Nordic states have their own sound economics bordering Russia. This gives both United States and NATO option if Central European nations are capable of defending against Russia in the future. This could be seen as a military objective in which followers of a modest foreign policy could get behind. This is one policy that both Haley and DeSantis could agree on along most Republicans. (There will be some debate on whether Ukraine should be a member of NATO, but the reality is that in order to gain a peace treaty, Ukraine has to be guaranteed some security arrangements against future Russian incursion and NATO is the only option that provides that.)
Frederic Fleitz noted, “That the heart of the Ramaswamy/Haley argument over the Ukraine War is the ultimate goal of the American policy on the war. Ramaswamy’s position, though far from perfect generally adheres to the America First principles of prioritizing the security of the American people, keeping America out of unnecessary wars, and focusing actual threats to U.S. security like our southern border and China. Meanwhile Haley’s interventionist position, with no exit strategy and no limiting principles on foreign aid, is closer to President Biden’s. … Vivek Ramaswamy has made some mistakes in his proposals to end the Ukraine war, but he realizes that the Biden Administration approach is feckless and unsustainable. I hope Mr. Ramaswamy quickly change his proposals on the war so they are not so generous to Russian and holds Russia accountable.”
Ramaswamy view that we are driving Russia into the hands of China does have some merit similar to Allies position in 1935 toward Italy invasion of Ethiopia. Italy had not yet become a full ally of Nazis Germany and the year before, Mussolini protected Austria in a German attempt to overthrow the government and make Austria part of greater Germany. The Allies and the League of Nation sanctioned Italy (except oil which would have hurt Italy) and drove Italy toward Germany. Italy shortly afterwards joined Germany in a security pact and moved away from France and Great Britain. That is also debatable point since Putin himself wants to rebuild a new Russian empire and build up Mother Russia with control of those nations like Ukraine. So, lot depends how one feels about Putin own view.
Finally, an America first/Modest foreign policy begins with the control of the southern border. A nation that can’t control its border ceases to be a nation and massive illegal immigration along with the influx of drugs seeping through the border undermines any support for legal immigration and undermines the principles of successful immigration policy, assimilation. An immigration policy without assimilation as its goal is national suicide and that is where we are right now.
America First foreign policy begins with a strong economy at home, energy independent and controlling our southern borders. It includes defining what is our greatest threat and most would agree it is China. It also forces us to prioritize our objectives and working with Allies throughout the world but also understanding that there will be areas in which our Allies take the lead in their defense, example being Europe and NATO responsible for their defense from future Russian execution. It also means examining how best to defend ourselves from a Chinese threat in the future and what alliances it will require. America First foreign policy allows us to redefine our defense for the 21st century.
The Donelson Files 