Guest Commentary
by Elliot Schroeder
Scandals abound, but Syria is still a mess and the world is looking for Obama to step in. It’s the usual case where the world hates U.S. involvement, but when the U.S. stands aside the world clamors for intervention. As for President Barrack Obama, he did not come into the office with much foreign policy experience. With such a minimal focus on the Iraq pullout, the small surge in Afghanistan and hosting dignitaries it’s pretty clear that he plans to avoid foreign policy. Part of this is feeding American weariness with global news but Obama doesn’t really have a plan for the U.S. role in the world. He has quibbled on his chemical weapon red line and the safe money is that he’ll tread water on Syria and leave it for the next president.
But if push comes to shove and Obama has to get involved where would San Diego stand?
A brief background on Syria. The French artificially carved this nation from the Ottoman Empire. It cobbled competing ethnicities together not out of Western ignorance for the area but to prevent a single power from challenging French rule. These divisions required the competing groups to look to France to settle disputes. But with France gone a strongman had to fill that role and it eventually settled with Assad, a member of the Alawite minority that the French trained as an indigenous forces earlier.
With the Arab Spring revolts spreading across the Arab world, Syria has come undone. There are other factors involved including Iran’s attempts at a Persian arc from Tehran to the eastern Mediterranean but the bottom line is that Assad is losing power and Syria is in a civil war among its various factions. Obama has avoided overt involvement and has left a lot of the support activities to the powers in the region like Turkey and Saudi Arabia on the Sunni side and Iran backing Assad’s Alawites (a Shia offshoot). If Obama were to get involved he would undoubtedly look to Libya as example. As with Libya he would push local powers to lead and the US to provide high-end capabilities like intelligence and airpower (along with covert Special ops and the CIA on the ground). If he does this what is the political response?
The GOP is already split on its response. Neocons, most prominently being Senator John McCain, want intervention. They believe military intervention that leads to the building of democracies in the Mideast is the key to regional stability and keeping Israel safe. The Neo-Isolationists, best expressed by Rand Paul among others along with the Tea Party crowd, don’t want involvement at all. Previously, these Isolationist groups believed that America shouldn’t go beyond the seas that keep it safe. Today’s argument tends to have an economic tone. Iraq was too expensive and we can’t afford any further interventions because of the budget situation and our national debt.
But Obama’s own party is split into two sides. His faction is the Neo-Interventionists. This is the group is that tired of losing the foreign policy debate for the last 40 years and with Osama bin Laden’s killing, Obama was the first Democrat since Kennedy to lead on foreign policy approval in a presidential election. They don’t want to lose that new found credibility. This group pushes for limited strikes that show toughness but has never been vocal about defense build ups. They see Libya as the model to intervene effectively (but Libya is far from a solved situation).
The other side of the Democrats are the Hippies. Sorry no fancy name. They came to the fore with Vietnam and since Johnson they’ve dominated the Left’s defense policy. They believe in Nye’s “soft power” concept and generally think the military is too incompetent to achieve anything overseas. This mix of disdain for the military and disregard for the need to have military might back of diplomacy puts then in an odd position where they want humanitarian missions around the world but don’t realize these efforts are mostly ineffectual without military assistance. They may want the U.S. to help those suffering in Syria but they paradoxically don’t want troops on the ground to do it.
For the Defense Industry in San Diego, it would not benefit from an Obama led operation into Syria. The Libya template provides very limited support with assets on hands. Obama also put the defense cuts up as part of the sequester. He has no desire to boost military spending. Maintenance and replacement contracts may come in but no large orders to boost the force will come in. So the Defense sector in San Diego won’t see much of a boost.
Mideast activist groups in San Diego include a large Muslim population and an Arab Christian population. Although some remittances may go to Syria, neither of these groups have a personal interest in Syria. The Arab Christians are mostly Iraqi Chaldeans and the Muslims are predominantly Somali. I do not see San Diego’s groups getting too involved in this issue.
As for San Diego’s congressional representatives, the vote would fall to party lines. Darrell Issa opposed the Libya action as unconstitutional since Obama did it without asking Congress. Assuming Obama does the same, Issa would oppose it. On the other hand Duncan D. Hunter initially supported involvement in Libya but ultimately opposed Obama’s approach. With Obama likely to try the same approach with Syria I’d assume that Hunter would oppose involvement. Among the Democrats, Susan Davis seems to line up with Obama as a Neo-Interventionist. She voted NO on banning armed forces in Libya and will likely do the same.
The newcomers, Scott Peters and Juan Vargas are the question. Peters has been given amazing leeway on votes because the Democrats want him to stay competitive. With Coronado and other veterans in CA52 he will attempt a strong military position. La Jolla also possesses a large Jewish population and if there is the possibility that Israel is threatened he would support intervention to maintain their backing. My bet on Vargas is that he’d tow the line with the President. He’s part of the new Democrat crowd and the Neo-Interventionists are getting a stronger voice in the Democrat party. He wouldn’t challenge that.
# # #
Elliot Schroeder is a San Diego County native and graduate of West Point. He served as the Coalition Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) Commanding General’s War Room Operations Officer during the invasion of Iraq (OIF1). He currently works as a Drone Program Manager in Poway.
Comments 5
I think that the Arab Christians in San Diego county have a large stake in the Syrian civil War. While there is a large Chaldean population, because of the instability in Iraq and the attacks and persecution of Christians there, large numbers have immigrated to Syria. The fact that a large number of the “rebels” have ties to Al-Qaeda and other jihadist terrorist groups, who are determined to exterminate Christianity in the middle east probably also brings concern to them and other Christians. Being an Alawite, The Asaads have always worked with, and helped protect the large Syrian Christian population from Islamic jihadist and worked with them in ruling the country
Regarding the Muslim population of San Diego county, while they may be Somalians, they are Sunnis, and Islamic terrorism has never been about race, ethnicity, or geography, but about Islam and which branch they are affiliated with. As the majority of rebels are Sunni backed, if there is any allegiance, it would be toward them, not an offshoot of Shia, than many Muslims consider heretical.
With all that said, I doubt either group influences Peters or Vargas.
Neo-isolationists? What exactly is that? Were the Founders “isolationists”?
“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”–Geo Washington
“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.”–Thom. Jefferson
Isolationism is the EXACT approach the neo-conservatives use prior to going to war; economic sanctions.
Non-intervention however understands that actions have consequences, some of which are unintended. Foreign aid is a good example of those consequences. It follows the advice of President Geo Washington : ”
When the author uses the propaganda term “neo-isolationists”, he shows his ignorance to what what was traditionally known, until Woodrow Wilson said “everything is everybody’s business” as American constitutional foreign policy
Brian,
Thank you for your reply. I’m not sure how you can make the assertion that I’m ignorant of Pre-Wilson foreign policy when my article was about Syria, the competing outlooks in each party, and how San Diego could react. But since I like discussing history, let’s go down the founder’s foreign policy rabbit hole.
When Washington and Jefferson would speak of avoiding entangling alliances and conflict with other powers they only saw it in terms of the power disparity between the US and Europe. They wanted to avoid conflicts with the more powerful European Empires who posed an existential threat to our young nation. However, America from the beginning had no qualms interfering with weaker powers like the Barbary States, Native American tribes or, as proven by the Monroe doctrine, the Caribbean and South America.
Washington’s Farewell Address is a great warning against getting involved in Europe power politics. At the time of his address America was still recovering from the Independence War’s destruction and suffered massive debt. It possessed an Army barely the size of a brigade and had no force projection capabilities with the disbanding of the US Navy. It would be folly for him to say anything other than stay away from Europe.
I do find it ironic that you quoted Thomas Jefferson since he put more boots on the ground in (what is today) Libya than Obama. The First Barbary War also included US intrigue trying to restore the deposed brother of the Pasha of Tripoli. His Embargo Act of 1807 was a method of economic sanctions which can be seen as an interventionist approach to dealing with foreign powers (as you said the neo-cons use it). Jefferson even let arms get smuggled into Haiti. Something we as conservatives are trying to prevent from happening in Syria. So I’m not sure he was a proponent of non-intervention. He can be quoted as saying one thing but his actions clearly point elsewhere.
As for how it applies to the other Founding Fathers, well we had two different strategic approaches. We had the Federalists, most prominently Alexander Hamilton, who strongly advocated America being a commercial power that would compete with Britain. Competition not only meant manufactures but a strong maritime presence. As the First Barbary War makes clear, defending maritime commerce quickly gets you into conflicts with pirates but as the period after the Civil War shows you start competing for coaling stations and markets in a mercantilist world. I doubt the Federalists assumed that trade would be only a peaceful activity. You don’t get a thalassocracy by being peaceful.
With the Democratic-Republicans, Jefferson’s group, their focus was not the Atlantic but westward. The Louisiana Purchase was a peaceful deal with Napoleon since French Territory was the first for us to run into. But it was also this group that gave us the “War Hawks” who invaded Canada. Aaron Burr’s Conspiracy wasn’t national policy but he was a Founding Father. Then it was also the next generation of Jeffersonians that pushed for Manifest Destiny – giving us our hometown after a war with Mexico.
I accept that the term isolationism can come across as a loaded term. Non-intervention may better cover the spectrum spanning the old isolationists of the 40s mindset to those that just want to see constitutional limits on our foreign policy.
Though I think non-intervention is a sound ideal, it certainly hasn’t been the bedrock of our nation’s foreign policy. Believe it or not, I’d say I’m more on your side of the fence with non-intervention than the neocons in our party. The neocons are, as Bill Kristol put it, “liberalism grown-up” so it’s just a new twist on Wilsonianism. I think some military activity has to occur and when it does our objectives must be clear and our forces properly tasked for it and our constitution followed.
“I accept that the term isolationism can come across as a loaded term. Non-intervention may better cover the spectrum spanning the old isolationists of the 40s mindset to those that just want to see constitutional limits on our foreign policy. ”
Thanks for the clarification. That was my real point. The rest of my comments will be non-confrontational questions for your opinion and only asked to satisfy my curiosity.
“When Washington and Jefferson would speak of avoiding entangling alliances and conflict with other powers they only saw it in terms of the power disparity between the US and Europe.”
Are you saying that the Founders believed that “might makes right” and only suggested retreat when might was outmatched? The War of 1812 suggest differently, doesn’t it?
“I doubt the Federalists assumed that trade would be only a peaceful activity. You don’t get a thalassocracy by being peaceful”
Mercantilists rarely do believe in free and peaceful trade; they believe might does make right…and make you rich. I don’t subscribe to the idea that protecting sea lanes is not a worthy cause but I do oppose economic sanctions as a precursor to eventual war. There is a difference between protecting merchant ships and preventing France from delivering grain to Russia (arbitrary example).
“I do find it ironic that you quoted Thomas Jefferson since he put more boots on the ground in (what is today) Libya than Obama.”
But Jefferson did that with a Congressional authorization (passed prior to his inauguration). Jefferson certainly acted within his jurisdiction, when confronting the Pasha (after he cut the down flagstaff), but halted at invasion until Congress gave him a Letter of Marque and Reprisal—I think it was officially called something else.
“The neocons are, as Bill Kristol put it, “liberalism grown-up” so it’s just a new twist on Wilsonianism.”
Oh that is too rich! Thanks for that little gem.
I appreciate your response, Elliot.
Hey, Brian. I see we like some of the same topics.
“Are you saying that the Founders believed that “might makes right” and only suggested retreat when might was outmatched? The War of 1812 suggest differently, doesn’t it?”
I don’t think the Founder’s believed “might makes right.” I think they wanted to change that with rule of law and the constitution but they were smart guys and realized that the world they lived in was dictated by the European Great Powers at the time. With that outlook I think they were trying to tell Europe that they aren’t going to take sides so let us do our thing which immediately after 1783 was to rebuild and secure the west. It’s interesting now that the power disparity is reversed that some people in the US think we should act as Europe once did.
I don’t think the Founder’s suggested retreat when outmatched, I think they played diplomacy pitting European powers against each other. The UK was our largest trading partner but our government was very sympathetic to the French. Similar to what Kuwait does where it cuts deals with several nations so it’s not reliant on one nation for security. This way several countries have an interest in it being independent.
For the War of 1812, this wasn’t an exercise of might but an attempt to eliminate an existential threat on our continent. Great Britain running Canada was a scary thing to the newly independent colonists. So I think it was the US’s chance to take advantage of Great Britain while it was preoccupied with Napoleon. When Napoleon was beaten at Leipzig in 1813 the UK was freed up to send reinforcements to its North American War. With that change of events, the US went for the peace deal. Good thing Jackson took New Orleans before word got back that the treaty was signed!
“Mercantilists rarely do believe in free and peaceful trade; they believe might does make right…and make you rich. I don’t subscribe to the idea that protecting sea lanes is not a worthy cause but I do oppose economic sanctions as a precursor to eventual war. There is a difference between protecting merchant ships and preventing France from delivering grain to Russia (arbitrary example).”
I think economic sanctions are used a variety of ways. Weakening an enemy prior to war is one. Testing the waters on how the public views another country could be another. I’ve seen one argument that America passive-aggressively gets into conflicts. It’s something like this: in the Mexican-American War we sent troops into a disputed area and then when Mexico struck, Polk said “they started it!” (Lincoln questioned if this was a just war). Then later Lincoln himself kept troops at Fort Sumter prodding the South to attack first. USS Maine in Cuba we now know was a boiler explosion but that also came after US protests of the treatment of Cubans (even though we were still fighting the Indian Wars). Wilson kept supply Britain aggravating Germany so they had to sink ships to break the UK. FDR placed oil sanctions on Japan until they had to take the Philippines to get to Indonesian oil. But to do that they had to take out the fleet at Pearl Harbor. So the argument is that the US gives a non-violent stranglehold on its opponent until the opponent has to do a violent response and thereby give the President the justification for war.
“But Jefferson did that with a Congressional authorization (passed prior to his inauguration). Jefferson certainly acted within his jurisdiction, when confronting the Pasha (after he cut the down flagstaff), but halted at invasion until Congress gave him a Letter of Marque and Reprisal—I think it was officially called something else.”
True, he did it with Congressional Authorization and he ended up working with Sweden and Sicily for support and some other arrangements. But he could have ignored the Pasha, that guy’s declaration of war was no different than burning TJ in effigy. This guy couldn’t invade the US. So TJ could have just authorized an increased fleet and escort our merchant ships instead of invading. I don’t know if that was debated at the time though, I haven’t dug that deep. I do think Jefferson wanted to demonstrate American resolve since Europe was in turmoil and it was a way to show that the US was capable of defending its interests. Jefferson was just such a complex guy, his words are profound but his actions were sometimes the exact opposite.
“The neocons are, as Bill Kristol put it, “liberalism grown-up” so it’s just a new twist on Wilsonianism.”
It is mind-blowing how the neocons quickly took over GOP foreign policy during the Bush years. Being in the Army at the time I was happy to hear in 2000 how Bush opposed Clinton’s Nation-Building. But after 9/11, realism and non-intervention traditions were both cast aside for this neocon policy of trying to test de Tocqueville’s peaceful democracies around the world theory. I think the hardest thing is that the non-interventionalist side of the GOP hasn’t articulated a consistent policy stance. At least one that resonates with the public. It was used against Ron Paul and could be used against a future Tea Party candidate. I think the hardest part is that a lot of business interests are also global businesses so they’d like to see an active US policy abroad. Do you think the non-interventionist wing can make a good case in 2016? If Hillary runs she’ll play up her secretary of state experience even though it was pretty uneventful. We’d need to have a good response because the Democrats want to keep the advantage they had on foreign affairs.
Thanks! This has been a fun discussion.