In 1968, America was locked in an unwinnable war in Vietnam, incapable of defeating a USSR-backed surrogate. America’s inability to secure victory or stability in Southeast Asia resulted in skepticism in our reliability from vital allies, weakening our international standing, and undermining our position to negotiate globally. But that same year, Republican Richard Nixon won a narrow victory to take the White House. And in a few short years, the tables were turned.
The scandals of Nixon’s administration cloud the evaluation of his administration, but today few experts overlook the drastic change in America’s global strategic position that took place during his presidency. By the time Nixon was forced to resign in 1974, the United States had squeezed out of Vietnam without a technical defeat, commenced friendly relations with the People’s Republic of China, and set Egypt on a path to realign it into the American camp in the Middle East. With Nixon in the White House, the Soviets—so geopolitically secure in 1968—soon found themselves boxed in.
Today, the USSR is gone, but we face a similar situation. For all the public focus on the economy and the global financial crisis, the impact of which candidate is elected president will, in my mind, have little impact on what policies are adopted to counter these problems. Far more important is deciding which candidate has the judgment, knowledge, and strategic understanding to extract America’s military from Iraq and find bargaining chips to use against the motley crew of rogues we face globally. (I’m thinking primarily of the leadership in North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia).
Our geopolitical future was bleak in 1968, and it doesn’t look bright now in 2008. An exit strategy in Iraq is unclear. We are not strong enough to strong-arm Russia out of Georgia, force Venezuela to soften up, or make the DPRK to drop its nuclear weapons. But with smart maneuvering we can be stronger—there remains no clear challenger to American dominance of military, politics and economics through, at minimum, the first half of this century. It won’t be easy.
Just as important as a president with the right judgment will be selecting the right people to run the foreign policy administration. Who would be Secretary of State and Defense, and National Security advisor, in an Obama or McCain administration? I would encourage readers to vote on those grounds—we geneuinely need a modern-day Henry Kissinger.
It’s not clear what president would be better, but my absentee ballot has already been cast for John McCain and I hope he wins this election. I think he has the sufficient experience, time in government, and international exposure to grasp what needs to be done. But I admit there is much room for debate and discussion and would welcome all opinions to weigh in.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « An Argument for Nuclear Power
- » Mapping Flight Traffic
COMMENTS / 22 COMMENTS
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Younghusband’s presidential endorsement added these pithy words on Oct 18 08 at 12:43 pm[...] Curzon and Chirol — the American contributors to Coming Anarchy — have both endorsed John McCain for US president. Today I would like to publish my endorsement. [...]
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » The Overrated Goodwill Factor added these pithy words on Oct 20 08 at 5:56 am[...] my last post on the upcoming US presidential election, I wrote that Americans should vote for the equivalent of Nixon, concluding that McCain was the best choice. Many disagreed—fair enough—but in further [...]
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » It’s 3am… added these pithy words on Nov 18 08 at 8:36 am[...] Clinton to accept offer of secretary of state job. Curzon, what do you think? [See background]. [...]
mihnea added these pithy words on 12 Oct 08 at 9:22 ami don’t think it’s kissinger the US needs as much as a balanced and realpolitik-driven foreign policy. I was actually surprised to read here (I think it was here, anyway) about the fact that US policy towards Afghanistan is actually directed at India and Pakistan. It made perfect and undeniable sense, despite being lost in the mass-media. there has to be a concerted effort on behalf of the us foreign policy decision-makers to understand that if Russia is left unchecked, its area of influence WILL cause problems in central and Eastern Europe, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and virtually anywhere it can reach. Drawing Iran nearer is crucial to stopping that.
TS added these pithy words on 12 Oct 08 at 5:54 pmI’m sorry to hear that you think McCain could fulfill the foreign policy goals you so eloquently outlined. McCain has been anything but eloquent. He continues to espouse the non-strategy of “victory” in Iraq, whatever that means. McC’s hero, Petreus, doesn’t apply such a simplistic term to so messy and complex a situation. I fear that McC’s idea of “victory” in Iraq will look a lot like “victory” in Korea—50+ years later (and he has admitted as much, even referring to 100 years as a timeframe). Mr. O, in contrast, recognizes the complexity of the situation, and has frequently and sensibly spoken of being as careful getting out of Iraq as we were reckless going in.
I’m also really disturbed by McC’s (and Bush’s) truly infantile notion that we shouldn’t talk to our enemies (esp. Iran & DPRK), that we should punish them for uncooperative behavior by denying them our conversation. This is a childish approach to foreign policy, there’s no other word for it. It’s a lack of respect for diplomacy as a tool.
As for McC’s judgment to select a “modern-day Kissinger” and other senior staffers with the abilities and experience to tackle the challenges of our age, I leave you with a one-word rebuttal: Palin.
I respect your knowledge and opinions, Mr. Curzon, but in consideration of your clearly stated foreign policy goals and priorities, you have cast your ballot for the wrong candidate.
jim added these pithy words on 12 Oct 08 at 8:56 pmThe question to me has always been whether Obama is really a member of the hard left (aka “Progressive” ), or just pretending to be one to advance in a Democratic Party that has shifted decidedly to the Left since the 90s.
I find Obama’s past anti-American positions and statements troubling. I hope he was just pandering to the Progressive Left at the time.
Obama also seems eager to be the next FDR - the man who put the Great in the Great Depression. FDR’s policies were disastrous and extended the Great Depression 7 years longer than necessary. Yet the Left still honors that man.
TS added these pithy words on 12 Oct 08 at 9:28 pmJim, let’s stay on target here. No one hates America, and we’re talking about foreign policy. I think Obama’s foreign policy is smart, clear-headed and realistic; while McCain’s is short-sighted, dogmatic, overly militaristic and simplistic. McCain’s “maverick” schtick is a smokescreen for the fact that he has no new foreign policy ideas, and his ideas don’t differ from the failed Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush policies in any significant way.
(BTW, if we’re going to talk about the left getting more lefty, we’ve got to talk about the right moving righter as well. I’ve had enough of dogmatic bullshit from all sides, and like most of the writers and writing on this blog, I want more clear-headed realism.)
Chirol added these pithy words on 13 Oct 08 at 12:53 amI too will be voting for McCain. I’m not too keen on Palin 08, maybe 2012 or 2016 but it’ll have to do. What I do wonder, and it is the Realpolitik in me, is that although I won’t vote for Obama, I wonder if his image and reputation in the world will actually enable him to get more things done FP wise and regain some of the trust and admiration we’ve lost. Again, this is regardless of whether you like him or not, but I think it’s an important question
dj added these pithy words on 13 Oct 08 at 2:04 amAny speculation on Obama’s Secretary of State or Defense?
sun bin added these pithy words on 13 Oct 08 at 2:12 amthat is a great piece, but so non-kaplanistic. :)
maybe what the USD needs, as you said, is a secretary of state—whoever be president makes little difference, as long as he listens. W refused to listen and got into this mess.
anyway, one thing though. if you can’t beat them, join them. so perhaps the russia should be treated like the ‘china in 1971’? after, that Georgia is not one above FL, strategically it is as crucial as Ho Chi Minh City aka Saigon, so is its leader the South Vietnamese leader in 1960s.
sun bin added these pithy words on 13 Oct 08 at 2:14 am“FP wise” ... you surely mean FoPo, right? :)
Gollios added these pithy words on 13 Oct 08 at 2:26 amGood post, Curzon. Although longing for a return of Kissinger may be akin to trying to fight the last war, rather than the one ahead. We (i.e. the U.S. and to a lesser extent the ‘west’) don’t have a uniform (as it was perceived) enemy like Nixon & Kissinger did; instead we have many different enemies that don’t share much beyond a dislike of the U.S. or its policies. Rather than exploiting and accentuating the Sino-Soviet split, the job of our next SecState will be to keep the various policy goals of the unfriendly states from aligning long enough for cooperation to start to occur. In that respect it may prove to be more difficult.
I have no idea who either Senator McCain or Obama would nominate and I’m not sure who would be up to the task. But then again, when Kissinger was appointed N.S.A. did anyone think he could have succeeded where he did? (Seriously—does anyone have any statements from the wonks of the time on what they expected from Kissinger when he was first nominated as SecState? It would be interesting to compare and contrast them with his reputation now . . . ).
Curzon added these pithy words on 13 Oct 08 at 12:10 pmTS, great comments—but as much as I hear your anti-McCain sentiments, I don’t see any reason to believe that Obama would be better. McCain took a gamble on Palin, yes—but once he becomes president, I think we’ll see the foreign policy McCain we’ve always seen: realist, tough, erratic, perhaps even a bit crazy—just like Nixon. The only thing Obama has to offer is that his election would bring a little goodwill to America from Old Europe and other assorted nations. But that would have a halflife if 10 minutes. He would have to be president sometime, and from what I’ve heard of his instincts on foreign policy doesn’t recommend him to me.
eddie added these pithy words on 13 Oct 08 at 6:21 pmIts questionable McCain will survive his term in office, making Sarah Palin president. That must not happen. Hitch says its best this week about her:
“It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed.”
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2202163 She’s a skilled pol and not much else, a manufactured fraud of the highest order.Consider also McCain is still committed to the neoconservative line of “Rogue state rollback” and has a misplaced faith in the universality of democracy. His foreign policy advisers with rare exceptions (Scowcroft, who seems like a shadow of himself when speaking of the McCain foreign policy) hew to this line.
Considering his decision making on the three most important issues in foreign policy America has made over the past few years (Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan), he is close to pathetic.
He was wrong on Iraq from the get-go, cannot or does not understand the reality of the Surge (which he explains was the result of the American troop surges, not the sort of pragmatism Petraeus and co. displayed in dealing with the tribes and the Shia alike) and wants to risk the fragile stability there to further threaten and possibly attack Iran. Do we need to discuss his trumpeting of Ahmed Chalabi, the great fraud, as a true patriot and his arrangement for funding him and his ilk to the tune of nearly $100 million?He said we could muddle through in Afghanistan and now we see where that has gotten us. He insisted time and again Musharraf was our guy and that we could use him in Pakistan, when in reality he was a failure and our interests have been seriously harmed by our insistence on building a relationship thru Musharraf, not the Pakistani government.
That’s realist and tough? It seems erratic, crazy and stupid taken over the last 8 years.
Obama could choose Chuck Hagel as Secretary of State (Holbrooke is not close to him and Biden is his VP) and his camp has put out numerous feelers about wanting to keep Gates at Defense. Sam Nunn will find his way in the FP team somewhere, probably Samantha Power, Richard Danzig or Richard Lugar as well. Tony Zinni could be his NSA.
You consider who is in the Republican stable for McCain and shudder. Lieberman? Graham? His top FP advisor is a leading neocon with little credibility on anything, Randy Scheunemann, who most recently was being paid $250,000 a year to advise Georgia’s president. Great job he did!
Jeremiah added these pithy words on 13 Oct 08 at 7:56 pmCurzon,
I don’t see how you can say McCain is a realist. It’s inarguable that McCain used to be a realist. Ever since the rise of the Weekly Standard and the Neoconservative movement he has been closely aligned with both. His top foreign policy is Randy Scheunemann, a committed. He no longer mentions that he meets with Scowcroft or Kissinger. In fact, even though Kissinger is listed as an advisor to McCain, Kissinger’s desire to talk to Iran without preconditions directly contradicts the views of the man he’s supposedly advising.His basic views of the world are fundamentally un-realist. From this NY Times profile of McCain (with which cooperated), we can see his rejection of basic realist tenets. He rejects that stability is found in the relationship between states. He starts from the position that moral reasons alone, not national security interests, can justify an intervention in another country. McCain often places his ideology above opportunities to advance the national interest.
Going beyond whether or not McCain is a neocon, I fundamentally dislike that his foreign policy is based on vastly over exaggerating threats and situations. This piece in Reason goes through all of the examples of McCain saying a situation is the most serious threat to American. Building on that, McCain has a tendency to overreact to every situations; he’s more like a partisan TV pundit than someone who wants to lead American. The idea of putting a hothead who if not actually a neocon at the very least has very hard neocon leanings as Commander in Chief quite frankly scares me.
Another gripe I have with the ontological bases of McCain’s foreign policy is that he shows no nuance in his understanding of the world. At Rick Warren’s Presidential Forum when asked how he would face evil, he said he would simply defeat it as if evil can actually be defeated. It’s nothing more than a childish answer. His Iraq policy has similar features; instead of laying out a concrete plan for how he would accomplish anything, he repeatedly uses empty sloganeering about victory, even after the Petraeus he mentions at least every day says there will be no ‘victory’ in Iraq.
Mitch H. added these pithy words on 13 Oct 08 at 7:57 pmSo you think Obama will hire a Republican administration? Wow, your cognitive dissonance is impressive and frightening, like a carousel built of razor-blades and spring-steel. And the idea that you think Hagel has the capacity to run anything bigger than a senate staff is somewhat puzzling.
As for Nixon… you’ll note that no-one has ever praised Nixon for his rhetorical capacity. And his term in office was an economic disaster almost as profound as what we seem to be slipping into this season. At least this time ‘round we seem to be avoiding the whole price-and-wage control thing.
So far.
eddie added these pithy words on 13 Oct 08 at 8:25 pmI have heard little but good about Hagel over the years. Obama has spoken often of bringing Republicans into his administration and I have little doubt that will be the case if he wins. There will be plenty of Democrats at AG, Treasury and elsewhere, but on his foreign policy, he is happy to give Biden a go working with Gates and others. They have no other reason to be praising Gates early and often unless they want to try to keep him. It helps that the Democratic talent base (like the Republican talent base) is not exactly busting at the seams with obvious stars.
dj added these pithy words on 14 Oct 08 at 6:08 amSamantha Power in his cabinet? Have you read anything she has written?
What about Susan Rice?
Judging by these people we wont see troops coming home in the near future but rather just shifted to Sudan and the West Bank (really, just read Power’s work on Israel/Palestine)
jon added these pithy words on 14 Oct 08 at 3:00 pmI think Sen. McCain still sees the world as a fighter pilot. Any other object out there has only one of three categorizations. Friendly, enemy, or unknown, to be shortly determined. This is not a bad trait for a Senator or a commentator. But I don’t want the President to view the world with the same Manichean outlook as the current President.
dj added these pithy words on 15 Oct 08 at 5:27 amMcCain was not a fighter Pilot. He flew A-4 Skyhawks. “A” means “Attack”. So he was not fighting other aircraft (they had escorts) but rather making bombing runs through very dangerous airspace. Specifically as the leader of an Carrier Attack Squadron. Meaning his job was to lead flights into a territory where the chance of death (or worse) was a great possibility.
I think McCain knows a little bit about leadership and being stuck with choices you would rather not have to make. Has Obama ever been in that type of Managerial/Executive position? (I guess you can count the Annenberg Challenge.)
Howard added these pithy words on 28 Oct 08 at 6:23 pmOf course a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel. For TWENTY YEARS Obama supported Jeremiah Wright, who gave a life time achievement award to Jew Hater Louis Farrakhan … Obama’s affiliations are riddled with Pro Palestinian – Anti Israel supporters. Obama will say, or do anything to get elected … but, once elected, he’ll throw Israel under the bus in a heartbeat, just like he threw his friend of 20 years under the bus, for personal ambition and political expediency.
Cybercorrespondent added these pithy words on 28 Oct 08 at 6:33 pmQuestioning the American Bolshevik views
1. Is wealth redistribution taking money from stockholders and redistributing it to those who don’t pay taxes?
2. Is it more important to make sure that illegal votes are not disenfranchised or making sure that groups like ACORN do not nullify honest votes.
3. Would premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq grand jihadists a victory and make all of our accomplishments, money spent and lives lost a big waist?
4. Can this country afford to grant socialist Democrats total control of the government and allow them to sacrifice our safety by cutting the military budget by 25%?
Now comes the big question. How do we stop socialism from ruining our lives?
The answer is simple. Don’t vote American Bolsheviks into power and boycott the socialist propaganda media into bankruptcy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjvBEKrGkDI
Cybercorrespondent
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
