With dictatorship, fanaticism, anger, and conflict growing dangerously worldwide, it is obvious that America’s post- Cold War international policy has been poor. The answer to emerging or reemerging risks to the free world’s protection and way of life has been slow, limited, improvised, and inconsistent.
While defenders of freedom have taken control of the day, the United States and its allies have ignored established rules and practices and letting down their watch. Comfortable more than vigilant, reactive more than strategic, presidents and policymakers have, at crucial junctures, such as the prologue to Russia’s complete- scale invasion of Ukraine, squandered America’s inherent moral- democratic leadership and military- strategic advantage.
The troubled world of today exhibits deteriorating British influence and a declining foreign policy. The presently- fierce China, Russia, and Iran” axis” persistently cultivates anti- National dictatorships and forces, frantically spreads disinformation and propaganda, boldly pursues “gray zone” subversion of democracies, and blatantly revives imperialism. While China advances in the South China Sea, Russia engages in a genocidal conflict in the heart of Europe. The Taliban in Afghanistan are resurgent, and Hamas‘s Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel preceded waves of attacks by Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The nuclear, missile, cyber, bio, and space weapons programs of hostile powers are advancing quickly while America’s relative deterrent capability has declined. Meanwhile, the number of countries beset by dictatorship and violent repression of religious, ethnic, and political minorities has steadily increased.
President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump are poor” candidates” for these risky and difficult times, which only makes matters worse. They stand in contrast to Cold War Presidents Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, who met their own fraught and dangerous times with moral clarity, strategic vision, and military strength and resolve.
Forgetting critical lessons learned
Cold War leaders, fleeing from fascists ‘ horrors and total war, vowed to stop expansionist aggression in its tracks and counter extremist ideologies with ideas of political liberty and human worth, and to “never again” allow atrocities and hostilities to spiral out of control. Thus, inspiring presidential speeches for freedom and pro- democracy initiatives such as the Marshall Plan and the Voice of America existed alongside meticulous defense strategies, especially” containment” of the Soviet Union, and robust military alliances, especially NATO. American power, American ideals, and U. S. investment were considered “indispensable” to a traumatized, war- scarred world longing for peace and freedom but faced with communist repression and Soviet aggression.
A recurring Cold War theme was the link between internal dictatorship and external hostility. In an address to Congress, Trump claimed that” the creation of conditions in which we and other nations will have ] a way of life free from coercion” required helping free peoples “maintain their free institutions and their national integrity.” Totalitarian regimes, he warned, “undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States”. Similarly, Reagan, in an address on promising arms reduction talks with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, stipulated that” an improvement of the human condition within the Soviet Union” was “indispensable for an improvement in bilateral relations”. For example,” a government cannot be trusted to keep faith with foreign powers if it will break with its own people.”
During the Cold War, the U. S. dealt with dangers not dissimilar to those we face today. Although threats like cyberattacks and the proliferation of space weapons are recent, the resolve of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea and their anti-democratic allies to subvert and replace the world order that is US-oriented rings a bell. Similar to the severe repression experienced by these regimes, as well as the camps and prisons where innocents languish. Reagan warned against “blindly hoping for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day” in the wake of the Soviet Union’s expansive communism, brutal subjugation of Eastern Europe, and attempts to destabilize and rule over governments in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. ” We know only too well”, he counseled,” that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted”.
Unfortunately, American foreign policy today devalues Reagan’s “peace through strength” strategy. Reagan resurrected the military in order to achieve peace, and he persistently pursued missile defense systems ( who were dubbed” Star Wars” ). In response to rising Russian aggression, Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama resisted signing on agreements to install then-workable missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. Indeed, Biden often responds too little, too late to escalating provocations, hostilities, and atrocities.  , Prevarication when dealing with mounting threats was evident in Biden’s unwise “waiving” of sanctions on Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline and “pausing” of military aid to Ukraine in advance of Russia’s full- scale invasion. It has been demonstrated by the dithering and incrementalism with which the Biden administration has provided weapons to Ukraine, a problem that has been worsened by the House of Representatives ‘ recent, expensive delay in passing a foreign aid package.
U. S. military brass testify that China’s overall military might is on a trajectory to surpass the U. S. and warn about the lethal potential of China, Russia, and Iran combined. Cutting military spending and failing to stay ahead lessen credible deterrence. Especially problematic: U. S. adversaries maintain the energy and resoluteness that a war- weary, world- weary U. S. lacks. State and nonstate “bad actors” are fierce and emboldened, while the U. S., in general, and President Biden in particular, appears to be floundering.
Foreign policy degraded by politics
The weak and ineffective Iran policy adopted by the Biden administration exemplifies the deterioration of the post-World War II US foreign policy framework. The administration, which fought the” snapback” of sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program, granted billions in waivers and estimated billions in unsanctioned oil sales. Iran’s nuclear advances and massive April 14 attack on Israel, and the Houthis ‘ continuous attacks on international shipping, show Iran is undeterred. Moreover, Team Biden is awfully quiet about Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and brutal crackdown on women, religious minorities, and dissidents, as well as about U. S. hostages of Hamas.
Then, there are the repeated attacks by Iran- aligned militias on U. S. forces, bases, and ships and Biden’s tepid response. Remember how he placed troops in a deadly position after making rash and poorly thought-out withdrawal from Afghanistan, and how he abandoned the Afghan people to the Taliban and abandoned U.S. allies to be pursued despite pleas from military personnel. Recently, Biden put U. S. troops in charge of building a humanitarian aid pier in Gaza, possibly placing them in harm’s way. At the pier, Hassan already launched rockets.
Here, we have a more expansive picture. The 1948 Republican platform and Truman at the 1948 Democratic convention put the emphasis on” stopping partisan politics at the water’s edge” in order to establish a standard for international cooperation during the Cold War. In contrast, the Democratic Party’s current- day leftism and catering to the voter base can politicize foreign policy. Thus, the Biden administration has treated domestic oil and gas companies with excessive care while acting in an excessively indulgent manner toward the oil and gas companies of Iran and Venezuela ( and leftist dictatorships in South America in general ). Concern for the youth vote exacerbates Biden’s Israel policy contradictions, as when he suddenly threatened to block the transfer to Israel of U. S. weapons. Meanwhile, Trump mockingly threatens to abandon NATO allies that do n’t spend enough on defense. Undermining or humiliating allies is acceptable, but pressuring them privately is unacceptable, which hurts America’s standing and appeal.
Border policy is so “liberal” that it allows foreigners, including thousands of men in Chinese military service and hundreds of people on terrorism watch lists, to stream across the U.S. border and fentanyl to flood streets. This is yet another bridge too far… taken for the sake of domestic politics. No foreign policy analyst wants to concentrate on the border, but the fact that illegal immigrants have been surveiling and worse by U.S. special operations forces shows this is now a problem for national security.
Similarly politicized, today’s State Department advocates American- progressive tenets internally and abroad ( not the best way to win hearts and minds in developing countries ), and the military must undergo progressivist” training” ( not the best way to attract recruits ). The U. S. Military Academy recently removed the words” Duty, Honor, Country” from its mission statement. Americans would be wise to encourage patriots who are willing to risk their lives for their country by strengthening the military. Military recruitment has fallen precipitously in instances where it is so dangerous that the United States and its allies should prepare for war while doing everything to deter and stop it. The Democratic Party should reevaluate its downward trend to the left after the Cold War. Young Americans need to be educated on the terrible abuses and economic decay that are a part of communism.
The New Right should stop confessing military service with “endless war” and think about selfish, misguided isolationism as well. And the Republican Party should unwaveringly reject and refute Tucker Carlson’s libertarianism, which includes apologetics for Russia and absurdly/implicitly associates Vladimir Putin’s murder with Christian values. Democratic politicians should have higher stakes in mind than their own or their party’s political power, even though it may be an old-fashioned idea that was discarded along with the hard lessons of World War II.
Rediscovering America’s voice
Truman frequently referred to the” truth” of communism and warned that those who reject the collectivist ideology will reap rewards for their actions with “deceit and mockery, poverty and tyranny.” However, just as American foreign policy today devalues the need for peace through force, it also devalues the power of truth when it is raised against propaganda. While Trumanesque and Reaganesque statements laying out threats to democracies and making the case for freedom are conspicuously absent, the United States should know and explain what it stands for and why. America’s “voice” is only a whisper on the world stage.
Reagan said America’s greatest allies in the Cold War were Soviet subjects and spoke frequently of universal, God- given human rights. Biden, in contrast, rarely talks to or advocates for those who are ensnared in oppressive regimes ( such as Uyghurs in China ). Although Trump’s first- term policies were, in certain regards, tougher on adversaries than Biden’s, he, too, had little to say for the oppressed and even went so far as to speak flatteringly of dictators occasionally.
Moreover, Trump’s campaign rhetoric indicates that a second term could involve unprincipled, unwise “deals” with dictators, even Putin.
How far away are we from Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy’s passionate appeals to the people who occupied the Iron Curtain as they sat by the Berlin Wall. Kennedy:” All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words ‘ Ich bin ein Berliner!'” Reagan:” Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”!
Today, America is in a propaganda war in which it is hardly participating. American leaders should respond to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s purported enthusiasm for concepts such as multilateralism, peaceful coexistence, and noninterference with truth- telling. The truth is that when Chinese elites say Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Tibet are “internal affairs”, they mean China must be free to crush them. China is a true imperialist power that intends to subjugate Taiwan. Washington should compellingly counter China, Russia, and Iran’s insidious falsehoods about democracies and expose their attempts to destabilize democracies. For, around the world, they are exploiting moral, military, and strategic deficits in the U. S. posture and pushing the idea of a new world order hard. Even in Latin America, the three countries have significantly increased their military presence, backing of dictatorships, and dissemination of propaganda and disinformation.
The U. S. must re- find hard and soft power backbone and resourcefulness. For the Ukraine to win, the United States and NATO should immediately devise a winning strategy, not just cling on. Voice of America-style programs, which were necessary during the Cold War, should be revived and updated for the digital era. An American foreign policy priority should be the creation of alternative global initiatives to China’s Belt and Road, Global Security, and Global Development initiatives. More effort should go into strengthening commercial ties, liberalizing trade agreements, and demonstrating humanitarianism. Atrocities and illicit weapons programs should be subject to stricter sanctions. China, Russia, and Iran’s feverish espionage and disinformation, blackmail and bribes, cyberattacks and” cognitive warfare”, and hostage- taking and transnational repression should meet staunch resistance. Critical supply chains must be diversified away from China, and U.S. technology and capital must never be allowed to support China’s military development and human rights violations.
WASHINGTON EXAMINER CLICK HERE TO ACCESS MORE INFORMATION
Of course, none of this is a substitute for superior military- industrial capability, strong alliances, and demonstrated resolve, so that adversaries ‘ calculations include fear of overwhelming retaliation. The unfounded expectation that diplomatic engagement will significantly alter the course of extremist regimes and organizations is unfounded.
On the other hand, engagement with peoples China, Russia, and Iran seek to control could help thwart totalitarian/imperial ambitions. Reagan saw U. S.commitment to universal rights and the corollary “ability to inspire” as America’s “key strategic advantage”. Trump remarked that the advantage would be squandered if” the story is going untold” in “many parts of the world.”
Anne R. Pierce is an author of books and articles on American presidents, American foreign policy, and American society. Follow her @AnneRPierce.
