RSS

Charles Krauthammer outlined the synchronicity between President Obama's foreign policy and his grand designs for domestic changes within the United States.  If Obama is successful at home in creating a much more robust social welfare state, that success will inevitably force the US to make choices inherently limiting its capacity for response to potential unforeseen shifts in great power policy, not to mention threats nurtured in areas that have yet to become integrated into the rapidly emerging "globalized" system.  Essentially, Obama is setting the stage for the classic "guns vs. butter" argument and is on the side of "butter." 

Of course, only those prone to hyperventilation would state that all of this is going to happen today or tomorrow.  It won't.  The problem is more subversive and long-term than the President's knee-jerk critics assert. 

In twenty years, with our current trajectory, the US will not be able to underwrite global stability if its domestic financial situation remains as skewed (or even more so) than it is today.  It is in this time period as America deals with the ramifications of its past profligacy where latent threats can materialize both within the globalized system as well as on the periphery. 

Given the democratization of technology to empower small groups to wreak the type of harm previously requiring either a state's backing or, at least large military campaigns, it is not an absurdity to be concerned about the severity of the threats churning in those areas not currently connected to the global system. 

The great bogeyman of the moment, Iran, is a useful illustration of where state-centric behavior can metastasize into non-state threats.  Without a doubt, a nuclear armed Iran will not dominate the world.  However, it will change much of what has allowed the world to remain peaceful as its nuclear weaponization (and others like North Korea) will firmly end the non-proliferation regime.  At that point, it is very possible that other nations will seek their own hedges, despite the calls from the UN for a "non-nuclear" world. 

Indeed, the threats from Iran are not so much those often pointed to by armchair hawks, but are broader, more diffuse.  It dramatically raises the potential of accidents, stolen material, and terrorist actions due to the presence of more material in more hands and quite possibly in hands that are not as secure as the current nuclear powers.  This will be especially pronounced if the US begins to retrench itself, forcing others to develop their own indigenous capacities to a greater extent than under current circumstances.  This is where overt arms races can become reignited on a larger scale than we have seen in the last several decades.

It should also be pointed out that rationality and logic do not always guide the policy of nations under all circumstances even if they do under normal ones.  It would seem ridiculous to envision a Chinese-American conflict.  Indeed, I do not foresee this as a likely scenario.  That said; we do not know what a future Chinese leadership may be like.  China will probably continue becoming ensconced in international institutions and avoiding untoward actions that will make their Asian neighbors nervous. However, much like American decline, Chinese ascendancy is not pre-ordained.  Unforeseen situations could yield extremely unexpected and even "irrational" policy changes. 

Additionally, what of a revanchist Russia, a newly empowered Turkey, a swaggering Venezuela, a nervous and economically challenged Japan, etc?  Individually, none of these are reasons to lose sleep, but collectively, they could coalesce into much greater challenges as the years pass.  Consequently, America must remain ready to act.   

Obama wants to manage conflict through the institutionalization of cooperation while focusing on domestic concerns.  It's an intriguing wager: betting that others will take on responsibility and be willing to cooperate effectively enough that we can greatly reduce our international responsibilities while reforming our society. 

We should pause, reflect and consider the consequences if the wager is wrong. What if global order is about not only cooperation, but also the ability to project meaningful diplomatic and military force when needed?  We won't get another chance to make another bet.

Mr. Lawson is the Director of Communications for a US based political advocacy organization and is a life long observer of political and foreign affairs.