Brian M Downing
President Biden faces daunting problems in the world. High on his agenda will be restoring comity and trust with allies. Trump was dismissive of them, even though they’re needed to counter the continuing problem of jihadism and the emerging one of China. He was unaware that the zenith of American greatness came with the victories in WW2 and the Cold War, both of which required important allies.
Restoring ties will not be especially difficult. Allies know the US’s strategic importance and have bided their time until Trump leaves. A more worrisome problem will be the temptation to use military force. The view here has been that Trump, despite a bellicose demeanor, has used armed force much less than his predecessors. He’s threatened Iran since the 2016 campaign but the assassination of Soleimani has been his only major aggressive act, so far. He rattles sabers more than he drops bombs.
How interventionist will Biden be? His foreign policy team does not look the part for making bold decisions regarding disreputable Gulf potentates, ongoing wars, or the use of force. It seeks mainly to restore the status quo ante Trump.
The team’s ideology
Trump’s restraint wasn’t based on Realpolitik, preference for diplomacy, or pacifist beliefs. It was based on cautious dilettantism – refraining from foreign ventures because of practiced ignorance and aversion to risk.
Biden’s team cannot be deemed cautious dilettantes. They are polished alumni of well-funded think tanks, universities, and popular media, they’ve supported interventions to promote democracy and human rights. If there’s a serious problem in the world, the US should help solve it, often with troops, whose missions they are confident will not last long. Only one team member has military experience.
The progressive disposition has been widely supported in the public since WW2. However, it might not be up to facing the coming problems of fiscal crisis in Washington, growing trouble spots, and war-weariness in the military. Nor is its record since 2009 very impressive.
The team’s record
The team itself and their associates and institutions have supported a number of interventions. Many of the problems predate the Obama administration of course, but their remedies brought enduring problems.
Team members and their colleagues helped overthrow Qaddafi in Libya, which though an effort to halt the dictator’s slaughter of opponents, brought ongoing disarray, civil war, increased meddling, and jihadi havens.
When ISIL conquered parts of Iraq and Syria in 2014, the team responded quickly, though too vigorously. Tens of thousands of US troops were deployed. This led to an open-ended presence in areas difficult to supply and inhabited by hostile people.
Ten years ago they responded to a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan by doubling the number of GIs and sharply increasing the use of airstrikes and drones. Air power of course increased collateral damage and local hostility. There was also a breathless adoption of counterinsurgency polices which though well-funded failed to turn the tide. Afghanistan continues to deteriorate.
Mindful of arms contracts and deferent to domestic pressures, they took the MEK off the terrorist list and housed them on a US base in Albania. They also extended support to the Sunni princes in their war on the Shia of Yemen – a sectarian conflict with no relation to US security. The Sunnis use American military hardware and intelligence for bombing targets.
Early modern kings knew that money bought stalwart Swiss troops – Pas d’argent, pas de Suisses. The Sunni princes might have an up-to-date Arabic equivalent for purchasing western forces. Biden’s team should teach them equivalent terms for Realpolitik.
© 2020 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs.Thanks as ever to Susan Ganosellis.