American foreign policy blunders following World War II have been numerous, and costly.
If we were to list the most urgent foreign policy issues of today, Communist Vietnam would not even be on the list. Vietnam had a long history of being dominated by China, colonized by France, occupied by Japan during WWII, then re-colonized by France. Ending with the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the Vietnamese finally got rid of the French. Instead of seeing this as an anti-colonial movement, the U.S. saw this as dangerous expansion of communism in Southeast Asia.
The "domino theory" held that if Vietnam fell to the communists, the rest of Southeast Asia would follow and endanger the entire "free world." That theory never made any sense to some Americans, or to our European or other Asian allies. The long, costly war was strictly an American enterprise. American relations with communist Vietnam are now cordial.
The American invasion of Iraq was billed as preventing Iraq from potentially using its "weapons of mass destruction." Those weapons didn't exist. Some believed they did; others were skeptical. But it's hard to excuse cherry picking intelligence and shaping it to support a war that was desired in advance.
It's also hard to excuse the mass media for not asking hard questions in advance. But then one has not to be overly cynical to conclude that the broadcast media sees war, as long as it's waged at a safe distance, to be good for ratings and profits. Apologists insist that Iraq is now better off. Many of us disagree, or at least insist that any change was too costly in blood and treasure.
Then there is the continuing war in Afghanistan, from 2001 and on into the indefinite future. But as long as the ranks are filled by volunteers, men and women from Middle America, rather than led by sons of our corporate and political elite, well, "thanks for your service," they say. Resumption of the draft - no college deferments - would put this insanity to the test real fast.
The inclination toward military solution continues with North Korea. Yes, there was reason for intervention in Korea in 1950. Although ending in stalemate, intervention was successful in that it kept South Korea out of communist hands. South Korea has prospered. The continued American presence has prevented a renewed North Korean attack on South Korea.
The problem is that our multi-decade alliance with South Korea has ossified the American foreign policy mindset. The reason for our enmity with North Korea is because it is seen as a menace to South Korea. If North and South Korea can develop relations such that North Korea is no longer a military threat to South Korea, the reason for hostile relations between the U.S. and North Korea diminishes, if not completely goes away.
Instead of welcoming negotiations with the possibility of better relations between North and South Korea, our American foreign policy hardliners spin this as "driving a wedge" between South Korea and the U.S. It's as if our hardliners insist on maintaining an enemy even if the reason for it diminishes.
President Trump and his hardliners are carrying counterproductive foreign policy even further with Iran - working against and undermining Iranian moderates, while feeding raw meat to Iranian religious hardliners.
The so-called "Iran deal" was never intended to resolve all our issues with Iran. It had the more limited objective of halting further Iranian development of nuclear weapons. In return, economic sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy would be eased, and the millions of frozen Iranian dollars in American banks released.
When the deal was approved by all parties, ordinary Iranians danced in the street. The vast majority of Iranians were not even born during the earlier saga of kidnapped Americans. Young Iranians and businessmen desperately want to participate in the broader world community. We need to encourage this, as it rewards Iranian moderation and pragmatism.
President Trump has panned the Iranian deal as "the worst deal ever" and an "embarrassment" to America.
This tough talk is more Trumpian eyewash. There is nothing embarrassing about working with the EU, France, Germany, the UK, Russia and China in damping down development of nuclear weapons. One would believe, or at least hope, that the businessman and self-proclaimed "master deal maker" would relish the possibility of a giant sale of airliners to Iran, with consequent employment of American workers at Boeing.
Trump's military advisors - they are certainly not flaming liberals - counsel him that Iran is living up to its end of the deal and that we should continue to honor our end of it. Reneging on the deal would reduce world trust in the U.S. for other negotiations, whether for defense, trade or anything else.
American hardliners complain that the deal ends in 10 years. Nevertheless, that period buys time for the real, even likely if we give it a chance, possibility of welcome change in Iran. Very few American politicians have any knowledge of Iran beyond seeing it as an enemy. Few politicians, or American broadcast media pundits for that matter, understand that there is a range of opinion in Iran. Iran's future is for Iranians to determine. But our overall strategy should be geared toward supporting moderates who themselves want change, and to reduce the power and influence of their own religious hardliners. Honoring the deal is key to this strategy.
Ripping up the deal, or taking measures to make it less effective, plays into the hands of Iran's extremists who resist change. Ripping up the deal undercuts the efforts of Iranian reformers. It is revealing that the most strident opposition to the deal is shared by both Iranian and American hardliners.
While one cannot predict the future of Iran, the deal is an opening, buys time and should be honored in such a way that Iranian moderates are encouraged.
At the least, let's give peace a chance.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in the Monroe Times.
If we were to list the most urgent foreign policy issues of today, Communist Vietnam would not even be on the list. Vietnam had a long history of being dominated by China, colonized by France, occupied by Japan during WWII, then re-colonized by France. Ending with the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the Vietnamese finally got rid of the French. Instead of seeing this as an anti-colonial movement, the U.S. saw this as dangerous expansion of communism in Southeast Asia.
The "domino theory" held that if Vietnam fell to the communists, the rest of Southeast Asia would follow and endanger the entire "free world." That theory never made any sense to some Americans, or to our European or other Asian allies. The long, costly war was strictly an American enterprise. American relations with communist Vietnam are now cordial.
The American invasion of Iraq was billed as preventing Iraq from potentially using its "weapons of mass destruction." Those weapons didn't exist. Some believed they did; others were skeptical. But it's hard to excuse cherry picking intelligence and shaping it to support a war that was desired in advance.
It's also hard to excuse the mass media for not asking hard questions in advance. But then one has not to be overly cynical to conclude that the broadcast media sees war, as long as it's waged at a safe distance, to be good for ratings and profits. Apologists insist that Iraq is now better off. Many of us disagree, or at least insist that any change was too costly in blood and treasure.
Then there is the continuing war in Afghanistan, from 2001 and on into the indefinite future. But as long as the ranks are filled by volunteers, men and women from Middle America, rather than led by sons of our corporate and political elite, well, "thanks for your service," they say. Resumption of the draft - no college deferments - would put this insanity to the test real fast.
The inclination toward military solution continues with North Korea. Yes, there was reason for intervention in Korea in 1950. Although ending in stalemate, intervention was successful in that it kept South Korea out of communist hands. South Korea has prospered. The continued American presence has prevented a renewed North Korean attack on South Korea.
The problem is that our multi-decade alliance with South Korea has ossified the American foreign policy mindset. The reason for our enmity with North Korea is because it is seen as a menace to South Korea. If North and South Korea can develop relations such that North Korea is no longer a military threat to South Korea, the reason for hostile relations between the U.S. and North Korea diminishes, if not completely goes away.
Instead of welcoming negotiations with the possibility of better relations between North and South Korea, our American foreign policy hardliners spin this as "driving a wedge" between South Korea and the U.S. It's as if our hardliners insist on maintaining an enemy even if the reason for it diminishes.
President Trump and his hardliners are carrying counterproductive foreign policy even further with Iran - working against and undermining Iranian moderates, while feeding raw meat to Iranian religious hardliners.
The so-called "Iran deal" was never intended to resolve all our issues with Iran. It had the more limited objective of halting further Iranian development of nuclear weapons. In return, economic sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy would be eased, and the millions of frozen Iranian dollars in American banks released.
When the deal was approved by all parties, ordinary Iranians danced in the street. The vast majority of Iranians were not even born during the earlier saga of kidnapped Americans. Young Iranians and businessmen desperately want to participate in the broader world community. We need to encourage this, as it rewards Iranian moderation and pragmatism.
President Trump has panned the Iranian deal as "the worst deal ever" and an "embarrassment" to America.
This tough talk is more Trumpian eyewash. There is nothing embarrassing about working with the EU, France, Germany, the UK, Russia and China in damping down development of nuclear weapons. One would believe, or at least hope, that the businessman and self-proclaimed "master deal maker" would relish the possibility of a giant sale of airliners to Iran, with consequent employment of American workers at Boeing.
Trump's military advisors - they are certainly not flaming liberals - counsel him that Iran is living up to its end of the deal and that we should continue to honor our end of it. Reneging on the deal would reduce world trust in the U.S. for other negotiations, whether for defense, trade or anything else.
American hardliners complain that the deal ends in 10 years. Nevertheless, that period buys time for the real, even likely if we give it a chance, possibility of welcome change in Iran. Very few American politicians have any knowledge of Iran beyond seeing it as an enemy. Few politicians, or American broadcast media pundits for that matter, understand that there is a range of opinion in Iran. Iran's future is for Iranians to determine. But our overall strategy should be geared toward supporting moderates who themselves want change, and to reduce the power and influence of their own religious hardliners. Honoring the deal is key to this strategy.
Ripping up the deal, or taking measures to make it less effective, plays into the hands of Iran's extremists who resist change. Ripping up the deal undercuts the efforts of Iranian reformers. It is revealing that the most strident opposition to the deal is shared by both Iranian and American hardliners.
While one cannot predict the future of Iran, the deal is an opening, buys time and should be honored in such a way that Iranian moderates are encouraged.
At the least, let's give peace a chance.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in the Monroe Times.
