AMU Homeland Security Opinion

Highlights and Thoughts on the President’s West Point Speech

By Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security

On Wednesday, the president addressed the graduating cadets from a West Point Academy Commencement Ceremony with a slightly greater coherency on US foreign policy objectives. His main emphasis was to continue with military options where needed, even those of unilateral actions when absolutely necessary, but to resort to internationalist and multi-nationalist security as foundational in Washington’s security and conflict stabilization efforts.

The president has been hit hard by foreign policy hawks that want more US military options on the table; more than the administration was willing to provide in combat against the various and mounting conflicts and unstable events worldwide. Cost was another issue that tied hands and even more so the Great Recession and budgetary restraint.

Yet we remain a nation divided when it comes to foreign policy as well. Syria is one such divide. The U.S. has thus far been limited to non-lethal aid to rebels against the Bashar al Assad regime, against the wishes of American hawks, but may change soon as the president considers aiding “moderate” rebel Islamists in Syria; most of these are reportedly of the Muslim Brotherhood variant, not much different from their age-old brothers put on trial simultaneously in Egypt. Ironically, their end goals would be the same or give rise to more extremists thought in Syria as they had in Egypt. Yet the Washington supports the nationalists against the Islamists, while condemning the actions of the Egyptian leadership, and now seeks to support the same types of Islamist groups in Syria.

Unfortunately, many such jihadists in Syria are under the instigation of Arabian Islamic radicalism and this has been the hesitancy of the president to back their desire to overthrow the malign dictator of Syria, Bashar al Assad.

With regards to Syria, the president is planning on bolstering more economic and security assistance to Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey which is greatly needed; however, the early fear of training and supplying weapons to any jihadists to enter Syria all seems grave folly in the wake of dealing with al-Qaida and the Taliban and now US troops leaving Afghanistan. Also, Israel and the surrounding states may actually be accelerated into far worse threat scenarios if the U.S. supply to Syrian rebel fighters is intensified and those arms potentially proliferate into wider circles and interests as well; and or the Syrian pro-government forces push them or keep them out.

There seems to have reached a clear Assad gain for now with the help of Russia and Iran since last year as the tipping point. The worst part is that the morale has shifted into Assad’s Syrian government, who now feels victory for him is assured where it once called for stalemate and participation in peace accords. The lack of US low-intensity commitment and solidarity with Arab states on the matter was a matter of the president’s special trip to Saudi Arabia months back. Refugees and internally displaced peoples remain the biggest concern and should be the forefront of all US statecraft and undertaking; before aggression. This way, the U.S. will act with enough international partners and even coax Russia to act according to their earlier pledge to do so and hold all accountable afterward.

At the same time Syria should be tied to Ukraine and Russian movements in Eastern Europe under any wider US-Russian foreign policy consideration. With Russia’s eagerness to retake Ukraine after Kiev tilted Westward during the Winter Olympics, the U.S. is countering them all around for the time being; thus, containing Russia is hinted at beyond the bounds of Ukraine.

Moscow and Tehran hold Syria’s President Assad in power so they are the real pillars of strength. The Obama administration was hopping for more from the Chemical Weapons Ban in Syria and Iranian nuclear arms talks and sanctions lift to take effect. It was really a two for one deal that sadly came out of another state’s Civil War.

Diplomacy has been slow but positive gains could be achieved if new longer-term alliances could be considered. The hurdle will be facing staunch opponents and old lobbies against such long-term experiments and gradual ally shifts or realignments. Either the U.S. initiates them first or the countries in question feed off the U.S. to their own advantage with little or no recompense to the American people and the American way of life.

The Ukrainian political balancing act is now portrayed loudly on the surface for the public spectacle; as it is behind the scenes. Yet formerly and post-present conflict, it is likely to go back into the depths of those shadowy criminal networks both from strong nationalists and Russia ethnic camps. States and private interests collude and comprise the on-going crisis at hand. Thugs form the back bone of antagonism well around the divide.

Africa was a focal point in the president’s speech; especially around the kidnapped Nigerian school girls and counterterrorism. This goes with a strong sense of morality to be inserted into US foreign policy considerations, as well as democracy and human rights promotions abroad.

China and South Asia Pivot policy was discussed but the president noted some hypocrisy in expecting China to abide by international rules that the U.S. did not adhere to either (e.g., The Law of the Sea Convention ratification by the U.S.). Fortunately, the administration is seeing that any hypocrisy at all at this point in the game will be devastating to long term US political interests in the region and elsewhere. Thus there was room for reconciliation with China but also larger US actions and commitments beyond its borders and a responsibility to promote a more peacefully international system with the cooperation of such states.

President Obama understands that the U.S. cannot apply the military option as strongly as the past. Unfortunately, he did not at this time offer a clearly revolutionary function for US global political leadership to replace that of military might. Other than using alliances (but not willing to lose old ones that have stagnated or form new ones that are needed or essential) the policy remains that of “leading from behind” and sadly, hypocrisy like that stated.

Targeting imminent threats alone in regards to terrorism and national security are key points rather than broad unsustainable international counterterrorism polices. That much was a repeat of statements at one setting, as the many above the White House has stressed many times before.

The president’s “lead from behind” strategy is slightly turning into the America must “lead by example” strategy. The president emphasized US exceptionalism and underwrote the merits of isolationism and even internationalism in purist forms.

Yet if the administration wants to take this tone, it must abandon the hypocritical security alliances it retains that are undemocratic and unresponsive to its bilateral and regional political values as well as objectives. Importantly, this does not mean abandoning any bilateral relations or not having good relations where possible but simply a firm foreign policy of not aiding undemocratic activities and friendships that are rooted not in words but in deeds united by common political beliefs.

As the president supports foreign policy adherence to international norms and laws and revamped institutions by exporting American values, Washington continues to struggle to find a revolutionary ideological antidote that is fitting for the world at present. If it does not find one sooner rather than latter, America risks a fallback into ordinary status with multiple challenger states rising to power to reshape the world or rather descend it into chaos without universal guiding principles.

Comments are closed.