A Big Enough Stick?

“Can’t we all just get along?”  That was the question, or at least a paraphrased version thereof, that a coworker asked during a conversation about the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.  I expect the young to ask such a question--they usually haven’t yet discovered that world is full of mean, dishonest, and hateful people.  But this coworker is old enough to realize that, regardless of our actions, there are those that hate us and want nothing more than to destroy this country. 

There are a myriad of reason why we, the people of the United States, are hated or disliked by others.  Some of the reasons are truly because of our military actions, but most are because of our belief in democracy, our prosperity, or our religious freedoms.  In fact, the first two targets hit on 9-11 were the World Trade Center Towers, most assuredly not military targets, but symbols of the prosperity of this country.  Regardless, there are those out there that wish to bring harm to the people of this country.

In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama stated that, “America must move off a permanent war footing.” He further stated that our security and leadership “depends on all elements of our power -- including strong and principled diplomacy.”  This sounds good but what happens when diplomacy doesn’t work.

In order for diplomacy to work, all parties must be willing to negotiate in order to reach a peaceful settlement.  That willingness to negotiate is motivated by some logic or reason.  It may be a motivation to avoid war or economic sanctions, or simply to avoid embarrassment. The motivation may be economic or other gains. A more powerful motivation is the threat of military action by the other party.

Theodore Roosevelt, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing about a peaceful conclusion to the Russo-Japanese War, had a foreign policy characterized by the phrase, “speak softly, and carry a big stick.”  The idea behind this policy is negotiating peacefully backed by the threat of military action.  Roosevelt described this as, “"the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis".

Unfortunately, President Obama’s policy seems to be “speak brilliantly and hope no one calls your bluff.”  He promised dire consequences if the Syrian leader crossed “the red line”, but every time the line was crossed, nothing of consequence occurred.  Furthermore, the Russians threatened action against the US if the US took action against Syria without Russian or international approval.  Obama backed off.  Russian involvement concluded when an agreement was reached for Syria to remove or destroy its chemical weapons.  Obama appeared to be “all talk, no action” and Russian leader Vladimir Putin came out looking like the hero.

When the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked and the US Ambassador and three others were killed, the Obama administration at first claimed the attack was a protest over an anti-Muslim film. Once it came to light that the Obama administration’s State Department could have prevented the attack, the President, Secretary of State Clinton, and others seemingly swept the whole mess under the rug.  And it appears that the press, by not vigorously pursuing the story, held the rug while Obama swept.    President Obama promised that “no act of terror will go unpunished.”  Eighteen months have passed since the attack; are we currently trying to find those responsible for the attack?  Or this more “all talk and no action”.

Now Russia has “annexed” Crimea, sending troops into the area.  The US responded by announcing a boycott of the G-8 summit in Russia, suspending trade negotiations with Russia and increasing US military presence in the region, six F-15 fighters to  Lithuania, 12 F-16 fighters and 300 soldiers to Poland.  A senior Russian diplomat said, in response to US actions, “What can one advise our U.S. colleagues to do? Spend more time in the open, practice yoga, stick to food-combining diets, maybe watch some comedy sketch shows on TV. This would be better than winding oneself up and winding up others, knowing that the ship has already sailed ... Tantrums, weeping and hysteria won't help.“

President Obama has pulled our troops from Iraq and publicly announced a time-line for withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Since we left Iraq, Al Qaeda’s presence there has increased.  In the weeks before a Afghanistan presidential election, the Taliban have increased violent attacks in an effort to disrupt voting.  And one has to wonder what will happen in Afghanistan after we leave.  Will the Taliban make a comeback or will the Afghan leaders be able to rein them in?

To add insult to injury, President Obama’s budget proposal for 2015 includes severe cuts to the military--cuts which would leave the military at lowest level since 1940.  Defense Secretary Hagel, in his testimony to Congress, blamed Congress for the mess.  The truth of the matter is the budget cuts are based on budget agreements that Congress passed and Obama signed. Hagel says that the budget “recognizes the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges, the dangerous world we live in, and the American military's unique and indispensable role in the security of this country and in today's volatile world.”  With these cuts, will the military be up to the challenge of protecting America?  Will our adversaries try to take advantage of a smaller military?

The world is full of people willing to do us harm.  But our President should be willing to stand up to these people and protect Americans and American interests around the world.  Flashy rhetoric and empty threats won’t cause a determined enemy to back down.  And if the President does decide to swing the big stick, will it be big enough?