Note: The opinions and comments stated in the following article, and views expressed by any contributor to In Homeland Security, do not represent the views of American Military University, American Public University System, its management or employees.
By John Ubaldi
Contributor, In Homeland Security
With the vast array of political debates behind us, it’s now clear that the U.S. lacks a coherent global strategy.
Throughout the presidential election cycle, both Democratic and Republican candidates have not articulated a comprehensive global strategy beyond campaign rhetoric.
All the candidates have resorted to bold strategies that appeal to the base of their parties. Republicans often chide each other about who can be the toughest against international terrorism, most notably how they would deal with ISIS.
Republican candidate Senator Ted Cruz stated in December that his approach would be to “utterly destroy ISIS. We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out.”
The problem with this approach is twofold: First, it’s been outlawed by the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, and secondly, it misinterprets the definition of “carpet bombing’, especially as it relates to U.S. military operations in the Gulf War, which Cruz often points to.
Even Republican front-runner Donald Trump stated, “I would bomb the s— out of ’em. I would just bomb those suckers. That’s right. I’d blow up the pipes. … I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left. And you know what, you’ll get Exxon to come in there and in two months, you ever see these guys, how good they are, the great oil companies? They’ll rebuild that sucker, brand new — it’ll be beautiful.”
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in both the Bush and Obama administrations commented that, “These men and women are making these pronouncements, and it’s clear they don’t know what they are talking about.”
Even during the Democratic debates, when the discussion eventually turned to ISIS, it was always in the vain of what the U.S. should not do, all with the repeated moniker of the “Iraq war was a mistake.” Missing from all the Democratic candidates is: their actual strategy.
Gates has also leveled criticism at the Obama administration on how it has handled ISIS. “I think the president has all along misestimated ISIS and has underestimated the degree of fear they have been able to provoke,” said Gates. “[He has] completely misread the psychological impact of these lone wolf attacks or these ‘small scale attacks’ that have resulted in multiple casualties.”
Throughout the debates, the media has failed to challenge the presidential candidates, and has never pressed them fully on their statements.
Far too often all presidential candidates have stressed that the Sunni Arabs need to do more in confronting ISIS, but reality on the ground is far different then campaign rhetoric by the various candidates.
The media has never followed up with the candidates on how they would gain the support of the Sunni Arabs in defeating ISIS when they view the threat differently from the United States. To the Sunni Arabs, they view Iran as the more immediate threat, not ISIS.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders place great stock in the recent Iran nuclear negotiations, but the very Sunni Arabs that we need to defeat ISIS, are horrified that this agreement now lifts the crippling sanctions against Iran, transfers over $100 billion to Tehran, all the while leaving their nuclear infrastructure intact.
With Democratic candidates praising the foreign policy of President Obama they are signaling to the world what former Central Command (CENTCOM) commander James Mattis stated at a Heritage Foundation audience when he said, “the perception is we’re pulling back” on America’s commitment to its allies and partners, leaving them adrift in a changing world. “We have strategic atrophy.”
Throughout the presidential debates very little was mentioned about other regions of the world, most notably how the candidates would deal with China. All we have is Trump advocating a proposal to levy a 45 percent tax on Chinese products coming into the U.S.
Many economists reacted negatively to this proposal, as it is reminiscent of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which was passed in the early stages of the Great Depression, which many believe contributed to long duration of economic stagnation here in the U.S. and around the globe.
As we now begin to enter the primary and caucuses to determine who the next president will be, we need the candidates to be challenged on their foreign policy pronouncements, and not allow them to wallow in rhetorical campaign rhetoric.
What is need right now is to know the global strategy of each candidate, because at this point we don’t have one!