Playing "Reservoir Academics" with US Foreign Policy: A Response to Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh was first published on Watching America at Libertas: The Centre for US Foreign PolicyI returned from vacation to an excellent discussion with a well-placed contact, complete with very good lunch at an Iranian restaurant (whatever you think of the Axis of Evil, it does have some quality food), about the state of US politics now and in 2009. The economic situation, the likely shifts in Congress after November, the possibility (or lack of such) of a meaningful American initiative on Israel-Palestine, even that perennial question "How 'anti-American' is American Studies?" were worked over and worked out.
When I returned to my office, I encountered a far different approach to these issues of “What Next”. Our colleagues Timothy Lynch and Rob Singh had e-mailed us their analysis from the Wall Street Journal to reprint on the Guest Blog page (thanks to both of them for the opportunity). Their argument is all in the headline, "Don't Expect a Big Change in US Foreign Policy."
For Lynch and Singh, “none of the main candidates has disavowed the war on terror". And, as past US presidents have deployed US forces overseas, so the next occupant of the White House will also have US forces overseas. Let's put aside any thought of "a peacenik vision of immediate withdrawal" from Iraq.
It seems that there’s nothing of difficulty to see here, folks. Move along. Because, if you’re a Bush-basher, your celebration of foreign policy after George is no more than "the joy of fools".
As an alleged Bush-basher, I am pleased to find that I share some common ground with Messrs. Lynch and Singh. I, too, don't expect a major change in US foreign policy in January 2009. US military forces are well-embedded in Iraq. The Bush Administration, despite opposition from almost every major Iraqi political faction apart from Prime Minister al-Maliki, is pursuing the Status of Forces Agreement that exempts American personnel from any oversight under Iraqi law (and exempts the President from going to Congress for approval of a formal treaty). A disturbing article in the Washington Post this week set out the latest American long-term investments, including a new prison north of Baghdad.
Contrary to the hopes expressed by others such as Joseph Nye, I don't expect a significant move by a new Administration on Israel-Palestine. Barack Obama, scrambling to cover his electoral flanks, is having to defend by distancing himself from engagement with the spectre of Hamas --- his appearance before the America-Israel Political Action Committee this week is already being framed in defensive terms, with demands that he distance himself from contacts with mad, bad, and dangerous people like Columbia University's Rashid Khalidi. Ditto re engagement with Iran, at least openly rather than through back channels. And, with every expert in Washington these days reducing Latin America to bad boy Hugo in Venezuela and, thus, someone who can be the good boy (Uribe in Colombia), even the prospect of a coherent American approach to the Western Hemisphere seems remote.
In other words, seven years of defining US foreign policy via a War on Terror to bolster policy judgements has succeeded in painting a global house of good and evil. Indeed, it's been such a success that the new President is handed the brush to carry on, only to find himself standing in one corner of one room.
Where I differ from Lynch and Singh's explanation of continuity in US foreign policy is that they forego the burden of these complexities in their portrayal of Life After George. It's only one leap of faith from a perpetual War on Terror --- "the debate is over how, where, and when" --- to victory: "We're winning the war in Iraq." Never mind that the next American administration is likely to jettison the phrase "War on Terror", since it has been distinctly unhelpful in the US political and military campaign from Afghanistan to Iraq to Europe. Never mind that Iraq (and indeed Afghanistan, which is absent from Lynch and Singh’s article) has long since moved beyond the easy sticker of "Mission Accomplished", since the issue is not of perpetual military dominance but of the failure to get a stable political resolution. Anyone questioning of both the US mission and its undoubted success can be brushed aside, not through everyday evidence but through reference to their dubious status --- "Euro-liberal", "Latin American leftist", "radical Islamist" --- and the reassurance that Bush is only doing what previous Presidents have done (he's just doing it bigger and better).
On the grounds of presentation rather than substantive analysis, I admire Lynch and Singh. Their forthright bravado, in the context of wobbly British academia, is quite clever. The masculine hyper-confidence, which has not just shades but colourful reflections of US writers like Victor Davis Hanson and Robert Kagan, gives them a distinctive platform, in contrast to other analysts who have to acknowledge the problems and challenges that have arisen from the last seven years of US foreign policy. With their duet, they provide reassuring music for the dwindling but still prominent orchestra in the United States (Wall Street Journal on first violin) claiming that American greatness is, always has been, and always will be assured.
This is not a posture without merit. It is useful to note that the fires set by the War on Terror, even as the term is set aside by those framing US foreign policy, still burn brightly. It is worthwhile to predict that they will not be extinguished in the near-future. To celebrate that firestorm, however, is useful more as a marketing pose --- let’s call it Reservoir Academics --- than as a constructive analysis of 2009 and beyond.
Friday, November 21, 2008 at 14:05