Dr. Lewis K Griffith Korbel School Univ. of Denver 20 Feb 2014

The Obama Administration Foreign Policy: What Have They Learned? Dr. Lewis K Griffith Korbel School Univ. of Denver 20 Feb 2014

US Foreign Policy Realities: Writ Large Foreign Policy is the Least (Not Un-) Democratic Aspect of US Government Constitutionally Due to Where All Execution Takes Place Due to Its Professionalization Due to the Lack of Consistent, Broad, Informed Public Engagement

US Foreign Policy Realities: Writ Large A Change in Administration Rarely Means A Fundamental Change in Foundational FP The Strategic Context Limits Options The National Security Consensus is Typically Clear FP Rarely Wins Elections or Political Capital, Can Categorically Lose Them

The US FP Spectrum The Left (Typically Democrat) The Right (Typically Republican) Assertive Multilateralism: Assertive Nationalism: Collective Multilateralism Globalists US Leader of Collective, Norm Based International System of Its Own Design Key Reality: It is in US interest to Strengthen Collective Agreement and Action in the name of international stability & the advancement of Western Values Primary Focus: International Order, Stability, and Prosperity Primary Threats: Disorder and Order Changing/Threatening Political Actors US is a Superpower confronted with a complex and potentially hostile international order that threatens overall stability Key Reality: It is in everyone's advantage to insure/accept US Leadership. Primary Focus: US Strength, Freedom of Action, and Promotion of American Values Primary Threats: Anti- American Political, Economic or Military Threats Narrow Nationalist Isolationists

The US FP Spectrum The Left (Typically Democrat) The Right (Typically Republican) Globalists Collective Multilateralism Assertive Multilateralism: Most FP ISSUES Confronting the US Assertive Nationalism Narrow Nationalist Isolationists

The US FP Spectrum The Left (Typically Democrat) The Right (Typically Republican) Globalists Collective Multilateralism Assertive Multilateralism: Most FP ISSUES Confronting the US Assertive Nationalism Narrow Nationalist Isolationists The Foreign Policy Consensus

Least Democratic Does Not Mean Un-Democratic The Level of Control Gives the President an Opportunity for Victory (on their own) But the Level of Control Allocates the Blame Directly to the Executive Branch and the President The Body Politic is Usually Reacting to the Last Foreign Policy Event And Negative Ones Stick The Question of Political Capital and Leading Beyond the Mandate

A Turbulent Time 1948 to 1988 The Cold War Strong FP Consensus Debate About Détente versus Dominance 1988-1992 Cold War Ends, Bush Sr New World Order 1992-2000 Clinton Classic Center Left Multilateralist, Few Threats, All Options 2000 to 2001 Bush Jr Classic Center Right Nationalist: A Less Activist Foreign Policy Centered on US Interests and Traditional (State) Foreign Policy Concerns

The War on Terror: 2002 The National Security Threat is Terrorism But Terrorism is an Act, not a Thing? The Adversary are Terrorists, Those Who Use, Facilitate, or Support the Use of Terrorism All Terrorists, or just global or anti-american terrorists? The End State is the End of a Significant Terrorist Threat to the US and Its Interests How Are We Defining Victory When Will This Threat Be Reduced to Zero? Is That What We Are After? The Way is an Aggressive, Pro-active, Military Centered Conflict Can you reduce terrorism in the long run with force as the primary tool?

The 2006 NSS: The Big Ideas Still a war, but now against an ideology Still responsive, but in a long (think Cold ) war The promotion of democracy The organization of the democracies

Building The Democracy Building Cooperative action on global security (WOT) Global growth through free trade and markets Creation of democracy: Liberalization Towards Viable Representative Government Widen the Circle of Development: Spread the Benefits of Rights and Wealth Economic growth: Create Wealth and Opportunity Champion human dignity: Basic Rights and Security

2006 NSS: In the Meantime Strengthen alliance to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends Work with others to defuse regional conflicts Prevent the threat of WMD Transform America s national security institutions Engage with globalization

Guarding the Site Strengthen alliance to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against us and our friends Work with others to defuse regional conflicts Prevent the threat of WMD Transform America s national security institutions Engage with globalization Creation of democracy: Liberalization Towards Viable Representative Government Widen the Circle of Development: Spread the Benefits of Rights and Wealth Economic growth: Create Wealth and Opportunity Champion human dignity: Basic Rights and Security

2006 NSS: Terrorism - Causes Does Not Cause Poverty Anti-US hostility Palestine Our Response itself Causes Political Alienation Grievances and blame Sub-Cultures of conspiracy Ideology

Defense and Threat: 2000-2006 The National Security Threats to the US Were Foundationally New To Address Them Required a Fundamental Shift in All Things Defense The Buzz Word: TRANSFORMATION

DoD The Environment Traditional states using conventional methods Irregular resort to unconventional methods Catastrophic the use of WMD Disruptive breakthrough technologies to thwart US advantages

2007-2008: Change Rumsfeld as Symbol of Failure The Rise of Condi Rice as Leader of Policy Team The Economic Downturn The Turn to Gates

What Changed With Gates? A new emphasis on potential state based threats (Russia and China Particularly) A overt understanding of the GWOT as a global insurgency against the state system A renewed call for deterrence as a primary means of providing US security Less Transformation, More Risk Management (Less Full Spectrum Dominance, More Cost/Benefit Calculation)

Obama: The Candidate Afghanistan is the WOAQ, Iraq is not The Bush Administration s Unilateralism and American Exceptionalism is Counterproductive US Policy Must Be: Less unilateral (with us or against us) More collective (US leadership within global community) Less reactionary, more long term Less military, more core politics

Changing the Tone: The Three Speeches Prague Nuclear Disarmament as a National Security Priority Cairo The West and the Muslim World Oslo The Just Use of Force and US Power

Reaching Out a Hand End of the Axis of Evil Willingness to Talk and Listen to Anyone The US as Example, Not as Lecturer

Full Court Diplomacy A Front and Center DoS A Re-Definition of Strategic Communication A Diplomacy First Approach A Busy Schedule

Meanwhile at Defense Continuity Gates Remains, Then The Ultimate Insider in Panetta The Afghan Surge Drone Strikes and Spec Ops on the Rise The Same With Less

Obama National Security Strategy: First Term The US cannot lead unilaterally by force alone, must be confident in its example The Budget is in itself a risk, thus we need to assume more military risk in maintaining the force The majority of conventional threats can be deterred The DoD must be part, if not lead, an improved interagency process (WOG) The primary threat to the US is nuclear and other forms of mass attack terrorism

QDR: The Bumper Sticker Less Money for Future Systems (F-22, DDG-1000, CG(X), Future Combat System) to replace existing capabilities More Money and Emphasis on new systems for new, broader capabilities needed right now (missile defense, cyber, ISR, RPVs)

Obama First Term: Scored as Success Bush Wars (Iraq) & bin Laden Ended WOAQ Works The Libya Intervention The Model US Intervention Survived the Downturn with Street Creed Intact Continued Progress on Arms Control Engagement with Developing World

Obama First Term: Struggles Israel, Palestine, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and Good Old Fashioned Geo-Politics No Major Set Backs, No Real Progress With Allies Like These Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the Arab World The EU Crisis Domestic Grid-Lock and the Public Mood

Obama First Term: Questions on Table for Second Term The Shift to Asia What Does that Imply & What Obligations Have Been Taken On? The Arab Spring Was Libya a One off? Who are the good guys in Egypt? Syria? Bahrain? Afghanistan & Pakistan & WOAQ Declaring a War Over and Ending a War are Very Different Things Multilateralism in Word and Deed The US talks and acts Multilateral, but no real treaty or binding progress on locking in the agenda

Obama First Term - Assessment Tone Really Did Change But the Policies By and Large Did Not Bush Wars & bin Laden Ended: The Transition to Terrorism as a Threat, Not The Threat Made But There Was No Real Break or Homeland Security Dividend Management of Events Was Sound But The US Agenda Was Re-active, Leadership Not Questioned, But Not Inspiring Confidence

Second Term Reset (What They Thought They Learned) Willingness to Talk is One-Thing, Insisting and Shaping Serious Dialogue is Another Having DoD on Your Side is Not Cover With the US Public Either Way The US gets credit for engagement internationally: Presidents get credit for engagement domestically Defending the Homeland is a Single Failure Realm Not Being Bush Does Not Equal Being Obama

Is This the Right Glass? How Important is this Glass? Second Term: Options for Interpretation How Breakable is this Glass? How Much Damage does this glass do if it spills?

The Shift to Asia: Half Full China Played a Very Sensible and Mature Roll in Recovery From Global Recession Japan and Most Long Term Allies in Region Pleased with Increased US Commitment and Increasing Their Own Roles in Regional Security North Korea, Taiwan, India-Pakistan all militarily stable (or as stable as ever)

Shift to Asia: Half Empty So does anybody know what the shift means? China, the ADIZ, The Nine- Dashed Line and the South China Sea (they don t seem deterred ) China s rise remains unchallenged, Allies remain demanding and skeptical

Syria: Half - Empty Thousands have died in a humanitarian disaster Many in the Obama Administration and who supported him have expressed their frustration with inaction Syria has become a haven for dangerous extremist groups Russia and Iran calling shots while US watches and talks

Syria Half Full The Chemical Weapons Disarmament Plan if executed is unprecedented and potentially important Americans are clear: they don t want to intervene in Syria Nor do any of the major US allies in the region want a US intervention The US in not engaged in supporting extremists just to reach a short term objective

The WOAQ/Terrorism: Half Full Drone Strikes, Constant Pressure on AQ Leadership has destabilized AQ Central No Terror attacks of scale in the West The Annan Declaration, The Arab Spring, and a Political Opening

The WOAQ/Terrorism: Half Empty A Fractured AQAM has become a more proliferated AQAM that is more dangerous to more people The National Security State is as Strong Today as Ever And Remains Intrusive --- There has been no Anti- Terrorism Dividend

US Global Leadership: Half Full Normalcy in US international relations have returned its okay to like the US US role as regional stabilizer seen as a net good, US as representative of global norms not hypocritical US heavily engaged globally without heavy military commitments

US Global Leadership: Half- Empty US may be more likable, but between economic and military decline, nobody is secure in or afraid of the US at the regional level The US may be present without resentment, but confidence in US leadership is not there (no longer the indepensible power) Obama lacks vision beyond not being Bush muddling through

Others We Could Discuss Israel - Palestine Immigration as Foreign Policy and Security Issue Iran The Role of the Dollar as Reserve Currency But instead of my guessing what you want to talk about You pick

Questions?