Course Corrections
The University of Pittsburgh's Michael Brenner, participating in the National Journal's debate on the future of American grand strategy, laments the consensus:
The other noteworthy feature is the preponderant view that the past three presidents have gotten it just about right in setting aims and purposes. The judgment is that execution has varied and that there is room for criticism about the manner of execution. The ‘war on terror’ a la Bush and now Obama is taken as pretty much given, as are its derivatives in what we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Patrick Lang, Andrew Bacevich and I (along with Edward Luttwak in his idiosyncratic way) are in a distinct minority. What is disappointing is that the skeptical questions we pose at the strategic level are not engaged. The reaction seems to be equal parts tolerance for dissenting views and an implicit message that you guys really have to do better than this to warrant a direct response. This is also the way it is playing out in the national forum.......Objectively speaking, the shoe should be on the other foot. The prevailing strategy manifest in military interventions and, let’s not forget, political meddling, has registered serial failure: in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Islamabad, in Somalia, in Israel’s war on Hezbollah which we encouraged, in Israel’s assault on Gaza which we encouraged, etc. To my mind, recitation of these self defeating and counter-productive enterprises reveals two stunning truths about the state of American foreign policy. The country has invested enormously in unfruitful projects relieved only by the modest success of dislodging the Taliban – temporarily. Yet, the global struggle goes on against enemies real and imagined without any appreciable change in strategic thinking. Its sole convincing victory has been mastery of the American public mind.
I think this is correct, but I wonder about the very last part - winning over the American public. The American public holds a variety of often conflicting and frequently misinformed views about American foreign policy. Reading through this survey on public attitudes on the U.S. role in the world, the sentiment is all over the map.
None of these views or public opinion in general appear to be decisive in the formulation of U.S. policy. Are we really sending arms and money to Somalia because the American people demand it? President Bush sustained the Iraq war despite its deep unpopularity and began an air war in Pakistan with nary a public appeal. Numerous presidents pour money into foreign aid despite the public's unease over such investments.
That's not to say public opinion is irrelevant. But I don't believe that Washington sustains the current status quo simply because it has won over the American people. In fact, Washington has a number of means of deferring or otherwise hiding the costs of its policies from the American people. Deficit spending punts the financial bill to future generations. A volunteer military, coupled with the extensive use of private contractors, ensures that the disruption of repeated deployments is born by a small minority of the country.
Were the American people expected to finance the reconstruction of Afghanistan and Iraq up front - with conscription and higher taxes - both projects would be put to bed in short order.
