The attentive reader will recall that I
opined on Putin and Marxist thought last week. Today, I'd like to
focus on Obama and the United States.
The world now finds itself with violent
and dangerous brush fires raging widely – Israel-Hamas, Libya,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran negotiations, and our friends in the Ukraine.
( Not to mention Ebola in West Africa - wow! But we'll keep that out of this discussion.) The role of the President at
this time is to sort out priorities – what do you do with whom, in
what time frame, and how. The role of all our opponents is to take
advantage of the chaos to use the distractions to sneak off and do
what they want to do. So while making priorities is hard under duress, doing so also presents an opportunity to show the world where you will put your resources, and what you care about the most.
The Gaza crisis certainly grabs
headlines and strums heartstrings. Kerry is spending a great deal of
time there. This is a mistake. Although there is a humanitarian
crisis, there is really little for the US to do. If you look at the
Middle East, the conservative forces there see the threat of radical
Islamism and are starting to act accordingly, as on the other side Turkey and Qatar try
to take advantage (a couple of years ago when we were in Turkey we
read that Erdogan was doing some Holocaust denying – that's the
kind of guy he is.) They will all sort this out. In the meanwhile,
it is in our interest to let the Israelis clean out the tunnels and
do whatever else they want to do with Hamas. They will live with the
results. Even if we were to be fully, fully engaged, who can
predict what efforts will yield what result? It's just
unpredictable. The Israelis' long term problem is not so much Hamas
as the demographic challenge of their own Ultra Orthodox and other
Rightist-enablers, and once again, there's not a whole lot we can do
about that. So, as a matter of priorities, I would reassign Kerry
and leave this firefighting to someone else. Perhaps Susan Rice –
why let only the Israelis and Hamas be abrasive? We are concerned, we are willing to be helpful, but it's a little bit down on our list.
Libya is going to pot with internecine
warfare. Again, what are we going to do about that? The US has done
the right thing by just getting our people out of the line of fire.
Again, the Arab world has the most fish to fry in this situation, let
them see what they want to do, and if we can help, we will. Our main
task should be to avoid making enemies. This is even further down on our list than Israel-Hamas.
Iraq is another place we can only do so
much. We have called Maliki's bluff very well, and the Iraqis are
now sorting it out themselves, trying to develop a new government
that may or may not be able to govern and to include Sunnis properly.
They can't do worse than Maliki. It's true that a new state run by
extreme Islamists could in time be a threat, and even if it would not
threaten us directly, it is worthwhile blocking Islamic extremists
from having a state of their own. But as threatening as it would be
to us, it would be much more threatening to the regional powers. We
should stand by ready to help, but that's it. I would continue to
have this area staffed at the Assistant Secretary level.
On the other hand, although it is less spectacular than
the wars, the Iran negotiations are in reality more important. What is at stake
is the balance of power in the region and actually in the world, and
how that balance will be addressed. We are trying to maintain the
rules as they have been, with nuclear weapons increasingly
restricted, not proliferated. It would be very useful if the US
could show the importance of this issue by having the President
address this personally from time to time, and having Kerry stop
running around the world and instead concentrating on the
negotiations personally. The Iranians would be pleased. Everyone
wants respect, and attention despite the distractions would show them
lots of it. The President would certainly be taking a chance with
his prestige, but that's the game. It's a better big goal to have
than the stupid one that W attempted. This should be the President's
very strong priority number two.
Finally, number one priority should be
the Ukraine. The stability and prosperity of the world hinges
on a
certain level of trust and stability. If a country is going to
revert to 19th or 18th century land grabs,
neither trust nor stability will be possible. Thus, the collective
world needs to enforce this modern norm, just as they did when Iraq
invaded Kuwait – no land grabs.
What is Putin after? Territory, of
course; a sphere of influence; prestige. I believe he can't have
been anything but severely stung when Obama dissed Russia as a
“regional power” in a Romney debate. “Regional Power, eh?”
you can hear Putin saying. How'd you like this Regional Power
crawling up your ass?
This is really the most difficult of
the tasks. The EU should be concerned, but France still wants to
sell Russia the superships, Germany wants to keep trading, and even
England doesn't want the Russian money to disappear. It's probably
about time for Obama to send them black umbrellas. He should do this
with style, making personal visits and instructing Kerry that this is
his first priority. Kerry should do what Jim Baker did in the run up
to the First Gulf War – globe trot for money and troops. Forget
globe trotting for a cease fire – that's for Susan Rice. Maybe
Obama himself should visit the Ukraine. Certainly the US should be
giving the Ukrainians targets in real time – as long as they do
everything we want them to do to construct a government that works
and doesn't steal. The risk of a shooting war should be a danger to
everyone, and Obama shouldn't do his favorite negotiating with
himself to dissuade him from taking the risk.
Just as with the Iranians, making this
the highest US priority would give Putin the center stage as a World
Power, not a Regional Power. Respect is a precious commodity, but
unlike other commodities, it doesn't deplete any coffers. Like love,
there is always more available. So give it freely. You don't need
to protect your resources of respect. And in giving respect, be
prepared to receive it as well – after some more violence, probably
and a minor game of chicken.
So that's my recommendation. Make your
priorities, Mr. President, and don't bargain with yourself the way
you did domestically. Maybe it's very simplistic. As my friend Michael Nacht, who actually did negotiate with the Russians, likes to say, "What do I know?"
But that's what I think.
Budd Shenkin
No comments:
Post a Comment