by Pete Hegseth
Instead, they retreat to warm places and familiar causes. Rather than calling out real threats and abject evil—or, heaven forbid, confronting them—the Left looks around for the mutual understanding mediation groups and global climate change solidarity marches they so eagerly and self-righteously facilitated as graduate students and community organizers. Except this time, they’re in charge; they’re the policy makers, the negotiators, the commander in chief. As such, they lunge for the international equivalents of their campus comforts. They seek an impossible global consensus. They work for peace agreements that are untenably detached from military realities. They declare the need to negotiate without preconditions. They unilaterally withdraw from tough wars. They dismiss growing threats as the “JV team.” They close wartime detention facilities like Guantanamo Bay with no plan to replace them. They apologize profusely for past sins. They provide “nonlethal” aid when the lethal stuff is what is actually needed. They seek moral high ground by “leading from behind,” and they declare the very use of violence a “nineteenth-century behavior.” They secretly and sheepishly hope Iran will defeat the Islamic State for us, so we don’t have to confront the group ourselves. They try to “coexist” with a dangerous, backward, fallen, chaotic world and—surprise, surprise—it doesn’t work.
The result over the past seven years has been an incoherent maze of American interventions, noninterventions, surges, withdrawals, negotiations, high-stakes raids, and plenty of drone attacks. A few different labels have been used to describe the schizophrenic Obama foreign policy, namely “Leading from Behind,” “Don’t Do Stupid Shit,” and “Strategic Patience.” Each phrase pertains to one aspect (“patience”) of their approach, one intervention (“leading from behind” in Libya), or an ongoing obsession with not being “stupid” like their caricatured George W. Bush. But taken together, they are fundamentally incoherent. Hence, America gets intervention in Libya, but no red-line enforcement in Syria; a surge in Afghanistan, but full withdrawal in Iraq; negotiations with Iran, but a worse relationship with Israel; a supposed pivot to China, but only nonlethal aid to Ukraine; the bin Laden raid, and the Bowe Bergdahl swap. What America actually stands for today is unknowable, because America’s leadership doesn’t know what it stands for.
But it wasn’t supposed to be this way. As a candidate, Senator Barack Obama wrote a Foreign Affairs piece titled “Renewing American Leadership,” followed by a very similar speech in July 2008 that laid out five strategic goals for his foreign policy: ending the Iraq War responsibly, finishing the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, securing nuclear weapons from terrorists and rogue states, achieving energy security, and rebuilding America’s alliances. Except for energy security—which happened in spite of his policies—the other four have been utter failures. Iraq is in chaos, the Islamic State has usurped Al Qaeda, the Taliban are swarming Kabul, the Islamic State is actively seeking dirty bomb capabilities and Iran has secured a dangerous nuclear future, and our allies don’t trust America’s word. By any measure, Barack Obama has utterly failed to meet his strategic goals.
But why? Because the list above is neither a plan nor a doctrine; it’s a list of tasks. A doctrine is the lens through which the merits of action—or inaction—are evaluated. Almost all presidents have had one, and all previous forty-three presidents have premised their foreign policy plans on the rightness of American values and virtue of decisive American action. There have been shades of gray in all directions—more engagement, less engagement—but never before a belief that America was the problem and her role should be constrained. That is, until Barack Obama and his coexist foreign policy took the helm.
When asked in April 2015, Barack Obama finally encapsulated six years of incoherence, saying, “You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.” The first, and central, part of the doctrine is engagement. This three-word phrase represents the naked supremacy of his “coexist” worldview. For most, engagement is a means, but for the modern Left, it is an end in and of itself. Engagement seems to work well in the carefully crafted, warm purple spaces of modern academia, so why couldn’t it work with dictators, religious zealots, and international institutions? Even seven years into his presidency, as the world spirals out of control, Obama cites engagement—even with those who hate us, undermine us, and lie to us—as the key to bettering American security and a more peaceful world.
Except the rest of the world didn’t get the memo. The Islamic State doesn’t want to coexist, they want to dominate, subjugate, and terrorize. Al Qaeda doesn’t want to coexist, they still seek to strike the American homeland. China, while a robust trading partner, doesn’t want to merely coexist, they want to take advantage of our equivocation to crack down on internal dissent, expand their sphere of influence, and undermine American hegemony. Vladimir Putin’s Russia doesn’t want to coexist—or hit Hillary’s reset button; they want to assert military and economic dominance over former Soviet satellite states. And, yes, Europe may want to coexist, but they have neither the will—nor the military might—to assert themselves against real threats. Polls taken in June 2015 by the Pew Research Center show that many European countries are much less willing to go to war to save a NATO ally like Poland from a Russian invasion than are American citizens, who are thousands of miles away and across an ocean. Thanks to expensive welfare states, minuscule militaries, and massive demographic complications, European countries have no choice but to coexist . . . and ride the wave of history, hoping that despots like Putin choose to attack someone else.
The second aspect of Obama’s doctrine (“we preserve all our capabilities”) is a rhetorical bluff, and ultimately a sham—both morally and materially. Morally, if America’s leaders are not capable of naming our enemies and standing by our allies, then physical capabilities are at best rudderless, and at worst useless. Obama all but banned use of the phrase “Islamic terrorism,” replacing the “Global War on Terrorism” with “Overseas Contingency Operations” and declaring the Islamic State “not Islamic.” Domestic terrorism became “workplace violence” and battlefield deserters were welcomed home with Rose Garden ceremonies. Red-line ultimatums on genocide and the use of chemical weapons were declared on the international stage, and then completely ignored. All the while, America’s closest Middle Eastern ally, Israel, watched as the Obama administration fell over itself to strike a nuclear deal with Iran, yet repeatedly snubbed Israel’s overtures and preferences. As the Obama administration used engagement as an end instead of a means, the moral bottom fell out of American leadership.
Materially, there is little dispute that the past seven years have undercut America’s core military capabilities. One of Obama’s first executive actions was to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, with no plan to replace it. He quickly abandoned missile defense systems in Europe in order to appease an assertive Vladimir Putin. He precipitously removed troops from Iraq with no consideration for conditions on the ground. He tepidly surged in Afghanistan while simultaneously declaring a political timeline for a withdrawal. He allowed sequestration to take effect, leading to dramatic reductions in military manpower and dangerous cuts to defense modernization. He increased drone strikes and used more special operators to paper over these strategic shortfalls, in a failed attempt to stem the global chaos his policies accelerated. But, to be fair, Obama did increase some capabilities at the Pentagon: fairness and tolerance. Combat positions are now open to all women and the era of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is over. Regardless of the merits of both changes, these changes have no material bearing on America’s ability to better fight and win wars. I’m certain, eventually, the Pentagon will (be forced to) lower physical standards in pursuit of a “gender neutral” force—weakening our military from within.
There is no better example of Obama’s “coexist” foreign policy than his Iranian nuclear deal, which also happens to be the issue context in which the president articulated his “Obama Doctrine.”
Under the guise of reducing the Iranian nuclear threat, Obama feverishly engaged an avowed enemy in the hopes of curbing its appetite for a bomb and affirming its desire for peaceful nuclear power. From the beginning, the administration engaged with Tehran’s narrative, without preconditions, and slowly caved to their demand in pursuit of a deal—any deal. But when the deal does not hold together and Iran inevitably and wantonly cheats on the deal, the administration will say, “We preserve all our capabilities!” Except, they don’t. When Obama gives tepid lip service to a military option, the entire world—most especially Iran—knows he would never use it. It is just not in his leadership DNA.
Worse, Israel truly wonders if America would have its back. Following his articulation of the Obama Doctrine, and in the context of Iranian nuclear negotiations, Obama said, “If anyone messes with Israel, America will be there.” But what does “America will be there” really mean? Does it mean military action in conjunction with, or in support of, Israel? If Obama’s track record is any indication, then Israel has cause to seriously question whether his America would take decisive action to either confront Iran or defend Israel. The lessons of Ukraine are apt here. In exchange for tacit security commitments after the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States encouraged Ukraine to give up not only its nuclear arsenal in 1994, but also its long-range bombers and missiles. Then Russia invaded sovereign Ukrainian territory and we did nothing—except send them military Meals, Ready to Eat (MREs). Iran saw this unfold before their eyes and took note.
More likely, Israel could count on America to “be there” at the United Nations, sponsoring a strongly worded (and unenforceable) memorandum. The credible threat of military action against Iran’s nuclear program, while complicated and messy, actually has teeth to it; whereas the United Nations resolutions and “red line” rhetoric this administration sheepishly pursues are meaningless. As a Marine Corps veteran friend often says, “Everyone wants to be a gangster—until it’s time to do gangster shit.” Robust military capabilities are critically important, but the willingness to use them, or your enemies believing you would use them, is even more important. Barack Obama is a wannabe geopolitical gangster—and the world knows it.
This gulf between rhetoric and reality creates an ideologically induced incoherence that impacts every other aspect of U.S. foreign policy and national security. The Obama Doctrine—which perfectly sums up the Left’s coexist foreign policy—is a sham because it’s meaningless. Obama thinks he’s being progressive, yet tough; instead the world sees naïveté and weakness. Of course Obama doesn’t believe his policy is weak, as evidenced by his out-of-character and hawkish Nobel Peace Prize speech from 2009. But the inevitable result of his so-called doctrine is both real and perceived weakness, relegating America to spectator status on the world stage. If America doesn’t have the moral and military conviction to lead, then nefarious international powers with very different values and priorities have freedom of action. The result is exactly what we have seen over the past seven years—enemies of freedom, of which there are many, racing to fill the power vacuum America leaves behind. As it turns out, “leading from behind” is simply following, and we’re reaping the outcome of American followership.
Setting aside the diminished credibility and capabilities of America, the threats created by Barack Obama’s ideological naïveté have sowed the seeds of international chaos and American vulnerability. In a matter of seven years, Iraq went from a fragile but stable success story to an Islamic State caliphate with international ambitions. Syria is even worse, an Islamist and humanitarian disaster of biblical proportions. America hastened Libyan revolution with no investment in the aftermath, creating a vacuum that vicious Islamists, including the Islamic State, have filled. Rinse and repeat strategic failure in Yemen. Afghanistan has slowly and steadily slid back into the hands of the Taliban, following a halfhearted surge. An emboldened Russia invaded Ukraine and militarily propped up Syria’s ruling dictator, “resetting” only one thing: the Cold War. China is rapidly expanding its military reach and ambitions, taking provocative—and unchallenged—actions in the Pacific. Worst of all, Iran is now on the fast track to nuclear weapons capabilities, triggering a fast-paced Middle East arms race. Their pursuit of nuclear weapons, whether we officially recognize it or not, has set off a spiraling Sunni-Shia civil war of game-changing proportions, as America’s (former) Sunni allies start to fend for themselves and eventually get their own nuclear weapons.
Turns out, weakness really is dangerous, and a threat to the American way of life—and the free world—in the twenty-first century.
• • •
In the eyes of Roosevelt’s critics, at the time of his speech Teddy was a bellicose American cowboy wielding an unnecessarily large stick. But for Roosevelt, whose views were forged on the battlefield and grounded in a proper understanding of America’s exceptionalism, strength was the foundational ingredient for securing freedom. Following his personal exploits on San Juan Hill, and after America’s resounding triumph in the Spanish-American War, President Roosevelt continued to project U.S. strength and influence by extending the Monroe Doctrine (via his “Roosevelt Corollary”) to the Western Hemisphere, taking the Panama Canal by force, and sending U.S. Navy warships—the “Great White Fleet”—to circumvent the globe. Teddy Roosevelt was proud of a young, free, and increasingly powerful America—and was unabashed in his belief that projecting that power would both serve the interests of Americans and lead to a safer, and freer, world.
Roosevelt carried a big stick not because he was an arrogant warmonger, but because he understood that looking tough—and yes, being tough when required—goes a long way in a dangerous world. It both deters threats and, if necessary, defeats them. Like presidents before and after him, that did not mean Teddy was “pro-war.” Nobody seeks to instigate war; least of all those who have experienced it like Teddy Roosevelt.
Beyond that big stick, Teddy Roosevelt understood an even more central truth that is lost on America’s current “coexist” leadership: that in order to be a good global citizen, you must first be a good patriot. A big stick in the hands of the wrong cause—communism, Nazism, Islamism—is horrific; conversely, a big stick in the hands of a “global citizen” stays on the shoulder even in the face of the worst threats. But a big stick in the hands of a good patriot serves not just the interests of America, but also of the free world. A good patriot does what is necessary—by force of arms, and alone, if required—to defend the freedoms we hold so dear.
To the ears of Barack Obama, Dan Wachtell, and the modern Left, these words—like the editorial response we wrote in the Daily Princetonian a week after 9/11—sound outdated and militaristic (insert “trigger warning” here). To the coexist crowd, defending America by force of arms, and doing so alone without the permission of international arbitrators, is so nineteenth century—as Secretary of State John Kerry asserted. Secretary Kerry, a textbook “perpetual pragmatist” who has seen both sides of every big foreign policy issue, also recently declared the Monroe Doctrine “dead”—and along with it, the Roosevelt Corollary to that doctrine. In effect, the Obama administration ended nearly two centuries of American leadership in the Western Hemisphere. This unilateral declaration, made to level the playing field of international politics—to better “coexist”—underscores how right Teddy Roosevelt (a man forged in the nineteenth century, I might add) was about the consequences of “citizens of the world.”
Large threats—some new, some old, and some self-made—loom large both in the present day and on the horizon. How America confronts those threats will determine whether the next century is an American century, or is instead one marred by chaos, indiscriminate violence, and the rise of anti-freedom ideologies and institutions. America is going to need a big stick, because the future—the arena—remains as dangerous, disputed, and uncertain as it has always been.
This also means learning the right lessons from the wars that we fight, a subject I’ve been immersed in—abro
ad and at home—since the towers fell in 2001. While others might be “war weary,” those who have faced America’s enemies over the past fifteen years realize that our generation’s fight is far from over. We may be tired of conflict, but our zealous enemies remain committed to their apocalyptic cause. Our ability to prevail in our fight against Islamism—like we did against Nazism and communism—will require learning the right lessons from the wars we fight and having the courage to apply those lessons to future fronts in a long and difficult war we cannot afford to quit . . . or lose.
FIVE
Is It Right to Prevail?: Our Fight for Iraq
War is a dreadful thing, and unjust war is a crime against humanity. But it is such a crime because it is unjust, not because it is a war. The choice must ever be in favor of righteousness, and this is whether the alternative be peace or whether the alternative be war. The question must not be merely, Is there to be peace or war? The question must be, Is it right to prevail? Are the great laws of righteousness once more to be fulfilled? And the answer from a strong and virile people must be “Yes,” whatever the cost.