July 30, 2024
Dear Friends and Family,
This segment of the series reviews an array of foreign policy items over the last 3 ½ years including a broad look at the Biden/Harris Foreign Policy items, and then specific looks at the Afghanistan withdrawal (a liberal and a conservative view), the Ukraine conflict (a conservative and a liberal view), the War in Israel, the Middle East, and the policies for rest of the world (Latin America, Africa, and China). The policy outcomes from the excerpts are concerning. As I interpret them, they suggest that America’s standing in the world has decreased and the opportunity for maintaining peace through strength has been seriously damaged.
The attached PDF was developed before President Biden’s announcement that he was not running for a second term. However, synthesizing it into the following text was done following in the announcement with the intent of providing insight into how much Kamala Harris would adopt if elected president. I feel it is safe to say that the overall direction would remain the same as she was part of developing and implementing that of the last 3 ½ years plus she would most likely have many of the same advisers. Albeit the views of the progressive wing of the party would be more prominent – more emphasis on domestic issues and less on military, greater potential for terrorism with continued open borders and a Humas bias, and even less emphasis on the Russia, Iran, China and North Korea developing alliance than today. Less funding of hardware and staffing coupled with continued DEI and climate change emphasis will further weaken our military, putting the free world in greater jeopardy.
I initially rated my concern on foreign policy going forward as “Significant Alarm.” With a Harris presidency that alarm would be increased over that of a Biden presidency given her foreign policy inexperience and progressive political bias.
Happy Learning,
Harley
Dear Friends and Family,
This segment of the series reviews an array of foreign policy items over the last 3 ½ years including a broad look at the Biden/Harris Foreign Policy items, and then specific looks at the Afghanistan withdrawal (a liberal and a conservative view), the Ukraine conflict (a conservative and a liberal view), the War in Israel, the Middle East, and the policies for rest of the world (Latin America, Africa, and China). The policy outcomes from the excerpts are concerning. As I interpret them, they suggest that America’s standing in the world has decreased and the opportunity for maintaining peace through strength has been seriously damaged.
The attached PDF was developed before President Biden’s announcement that he was not running for a second term. However, synthesizing it into the following text was done following in the announcement with the intent of providing insight into how much Kamala Harris would adopt if elected president. I feel it is safe to say that the overall direction would remain the same as she was part of developing and implementing that of the last 3 ½ years plus she would most likely have many of the same advisers. Albeit the views of the progressive wing of the party would be more prominent – more emphasis on domestic issues and less on military, greater potential for terrorism with continued open borders and a Humas bias, and even less emphasis on the Russia, Iran, China and North Korea developing alliance than today. Less funding of hardware and staffing coupled with continued DEI and climate change emphasis will further weaken our military, putting the free world in greater jeopardy.
I initially rated my concern on foreign policy going forward as “Significant Alarm.” With a Harris presidency that alarm would be increased over that of a Biden presidency given her foreign policy inexperience and progressive political bias.
Happy Learning,
Harley
WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY – SEGMENT 7
FOREIGN POLICY – EXCERPTS
AN OVERALL LOOK AT THE BIDEN/HARRIS FOREIGN POLICY: The Biden/Harris administration adopted a “lead from behind” strategy while sending repeated signals that the United States is more focused on domestic concerns than on global stability. These signals have emboldened America’s enemies and frustrated America’s allies. Those signals started on day one, when Biden put climate symbolism ahead of the United States’ relationship with one of its strongest allies and closest neighbors – Canada. Biden canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline for cynically political reasons. The pipeline was a central component of Canada’s plan to develop its crude oil fields in Alberta. The Obama State Department found – no less than five times – that the pipeline would make no difference to greenhouse gas emissions. Canadian officials were furious at this U.S. double-cross.
Next the administration humiliated the U.S. – on the global stage. Biden’s new ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told a group of American activists that the U.S. would seek to reclaim a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC). She explained to the activist that the only way the U.S. would regain its seat was if it acted with “humility” and “acknowledged” that we were an “imperfect union” from the start, a country where “white supremacy is weaved into our founding document and principles.” Secretary of State Anthony Blinken took it a step further in July, when he formally asked the UN’s human rights officials to investigate U.S. “racism.” The Blinken request was a formal invitation for the world’s rogues to falsely claim the United States has a human rights record worse than their own. It was yet another dangerous projection of American weakness another sign Biden was willing to put his pet political posturing ahead of U.S. power. Biden’s Senate progressives were also eager to set back American foreign policy.
Biden also broadcast his disinterest in U.S. military and defense spending. His first budget, unveiled in April 2021, said it all – and you can bet Putin and China’s Xi Jinping noticed. Biden called for a stunning 16% increase in domestic discretionary spending. The Pentagon? A 1.6% increase. The first rumblings of inflation would have turned that amount into a defense budget cut. And it gets worse. The administration explained in its budget that it also wanted a chunk of that paltry sum to “mitigate impacts of climate change.”
Biden’s proposed cuts showed a stunning lack of concern for growing global threats. The U.S. faces a resurgence of military competition globally, even as its own forces are deteriorating from financial neglect. Yet Biden’s initial budgets proposed paring the overall U.S. fleet down to 280 ships. The U.S. Air Force had approximately 4,000 aircraft in inventory in 1991; todays it has about 2,000 and the average age is nearly 30 years old. U.S, stockpiles of munitions continue to fall, and some experts warn that a wide-scale conflict could deplete them entirely in the space of weeks. The Air Force has too few squadrons, the Marines too few battalions. The Navy doesn’t even have enough maintenance yards to keep up with needed repairs. Biden’s cuts ultimately proved too dangerous for even Senate Democrats to contemplate, and in both of Biden’s first two years a bipartisan Congress voted to overrule him. Yet even with these increases U.S. military spending is still around 3% of GDP. And it’s only there because a few pro-military Democrats were willing to face down progressives who continue to demand even deeper defense cuts.
Source: The Biden Malaise by Kimberley Strassel (2023).
Biden has made America weaker on the world stage. First, by canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, he hobbled American energy production intentionally making our nation less energy independent. Other countries such as Germany had already ceded their energy independence to Russia by shutting down their nuclear power plants. Biden and Secretary of State Tony Blinken knew Germany’s dependence on Russia was a huge liability for our ally. Yet they failed to show leadership and convince the Germans that they were making a mistake that allowed Putin immense leverage.
Biden’s rhetoric wasn’t even tough. When speaking about a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine at a White House news conference on January 19, 2022, Biden said, “Russia will be held accountable if it invades and it depends on what it does.” “It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do, but if they actually do what they’re capable of doing with the forces amassed on the border, it is going to be disaster for Russia if they further invade Ukraine.”
These comments signaled that the U.S. would tolerate a “minor incursion” which was almost certainly seen as a green light for Putin. Biden showed more weakness still when he tried to work with the Russians on an Iranian nuclear deal in the midst of Russia’s Ukraine invasion. Hundreds of retired generals and admirals warned that the pact was “defective,” and they were correct. The crux of the agreement was that the West would drop economic sanctions on Iran so long as Iran accepted restriction on their nuclear program, including inspections. Critics rightly argued that accountability mechanisms were nonexistent, and it was highly likely that Iran would use the infusion of cash for their own nuclear development.
Details of the proposed Iran deal that leaked mere weeks after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine were frightening. “It reportedly offers the regime access to $90 billion in foreign currency, $7 billion in effective ransom for U.S. captives; and sanctions relief for the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps and other notorious terrorists.” The deal was unpopular, even among Democrats. Biden’s Russia doctrine has always been to try to maintain good relations. And there’s only one way to keep good relations with Putin: give him things he wants. They relied on Russia to help broker their nuclear deal with Iran. All this emboldened Putin. In the wake of these deals, Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth shot up from minus 7.8% in 2009 to 4% in 2012. The result was clear: Biden and Obama had strengthened the very geopolitical foe Joe loved to trash-talk.
Source: Breaking Biden by Alex Marlow (2023).
AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL – LIBERAL VIEW: On July 8, the president gave another speech from the East Room of the White House. Afterward a reported asked: “Is a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable?” Biden, “No, it is not.” Reporter, “Why?” Biden, “Because the Afghan troops have three hundred thousand well-equipped – as well-equipped as any army in the world – and an air force against something like seventy-five thousand Taliban. It is not inevitable.”
The president seemed to be saying that there’d be plenty of time for U.S. forces to make an orderly retreat. But where had he gotten that idea? This would become the subject of intense debate and bitter acrimony in the months ahead, mostly behind closed doors. Depending upon whom you asked, the shambolic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan was due to an egregious failure by the U.S. intelligence agencies or wishful thinking on the part of the U.S. military about its Afghan allies. Tony Blinken told me that the seeds of the debacle were sown by a stunningly optimistic intelligence assessment, one that turned out to be dead wrong.
But senior CIA officials rejected the notion that the Afghan fiasco was caused by an intelligence failure. President Biden, they insisted, was under no illusions. He understood the fragility of the Afghan military forces and had a clear-eyed view of the weaknesses of the Afghan political leadership. Afterward, behind the scenes, there’d be plenty of finger-pointing between Foggy Bottom and Langley.
Source: The Fight of His Life by Chris Whipple (2023).
AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL – CONSERVATIVE VIEW: Biden wanted out. He had long opposed troops in Afghanistan, even as vice president. And he wanted to be the president who grandly announced the end of America’s involvement twenty years after the events of 9/11. He wanted out so badly, he ignored the counsel of his senior-most advisers, who warned that withdrawing U.S. forces completely risked reversing two decades of U.S. effort. When Biden made his April 2021 announcement of total withdrawal, the press reported that he’d been advise against that course by no less than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Mark Milley, U.S. central Command leader, Gen. Frank McKenzie, and numerous State Department officials. Many told Biden that the best course was to leave a residual force of 2,500 troops to aid the Afghani army, protect U.S. personnel, and guard against the country again becoming a terrorist haven. They noted that the U.S. hadn’t had a single casualty in Afghanistan in the year prior.
The president shamefully ABSOLVED HIMSELF OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. He blamed the mess on Trump’s deal. His dishonestly claimed that his only choices were full withdrawal or an “escalation” of troops. He described the evacuations as a moment of triumph – an “extraordinary success” – rather than an embarrassment. He took a cheap shot at the Afghanis, for not fighting harder. And he falsely claimed this meant that “the war in Afghanistan is now over.” Hardly. The Taliban won a major victory, and the country is already again becoming a recruitment area for terrorists that the United States will face in the future. – only now from a position of weakness. Afghanistan was meanwhile left to rot, and since withdrawal has faced famine, starvation, economic collapse, and the return of a brutal, medieval theocracy.
UKRAINE CONFLICT – CONSERVATIVE VIEW: Americans weren’t the only ones watching this shameful Afghanistan episode. Putin was, too. His takeaways: The U.S. was in retreat; the new president lacked the will for a fight. Biden returned to these policies of appeasement upon taking up residence in the Oval Office. Blinken explained that Biden wanted a “more stable, more predictable relationship” with Russia – not that Putin had shown one iota of interest in reciprocating. Biden’s response to Putin’s April troop buildup on the Ukraine border was to give Putin a win. The administration in May 2021 waived sanctions against the company and CEO developing Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline – slated to provide cheap natural gas from Russia to Europe. Putin couldn’t believe his luck.
Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Biden to his credit responded by sending Ukraine billions in economic aid and military equipment for its fight. Yet the administration also had to be pushed by Congress into every major action. It was slow to deliver true missile-defense systems. It was slow to deliver drones. It was slow to resupply munitions. It was slow to agree to give tanks. It refused outright to provide certain equipment, including aircraft, on the grounds that it would take too long to train Ukrainians to use them. This rationale proved a bigger and bigger loser as the war dragged on and it became clear that earlier delivery might have allowed the Ukrainians to drive Russia out faster and saved lives. Biden also made the mistake of broadcasting his desire to do anything to avoid “escalation.” He drew his red line around defending “every inch” of NATO territory, leading Putin to assume that anything up to that line was allowable – potentially even a chemical attack in Ukraine or the use of a strategic nuke.
Years into his administration Biden had produced no strategic vision for dealing with any part of the globe. Across Europe, allies were furious at the Biden administration abandonment of Afghanistan. Numerous NATO allies had also spent blood and treasure on rebuilding that nation. Britain and Germany were particularly irate. Allies most at risk to continued Putin aggression, like Poland, were appalled by his decision to sign off on Nord Stream 2. Eastern European allies remain unhappy over the administration’s efforts to hamstring their economic flexibility with his global minimum tax plans. Biden in September 2021 signed a smart deal to joint-develop submarines with Australia to counter China. But the administration somehow forgot to tell France, which was blindsided by a pact that lost it a big defense contract. The diplomatic fumble smacked of amateur house and produced unnecessary tension with a key ally.
Source: The Biden Malaise by Kimberley Strassel (2023)
UKRAINE CONFLICT – LIBERAL VIEW: To mark his first year in office, Biden wanted to hold a press conference that put to bed all the swirling speculation about his age and diminishing mental powers. He believed that he was capable of a tour de force, where he dazzled with his command of the intricacies of policy. Since Ukraine would be among the primary topics he could flash the world a glimpse of his statesmanship. The primary problem with such appearances, however, wasn’t Biden’s age or acuity. It was his indiscipline and imprecision, traits that stalked the entirety of his career. Asked how he would hold Russia accountable for an invasion, he replied, “It depends on what it does.” He continued, “it’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.” In his mind, he knew exactly what it meant – and it had impeccable logic. But Biden’s phrasing muddled his message. Just as he intended to send Putin an unambiguous message, he added an unnecessary hint of ambiguity.
In the heat of battle, Ukraine couldn’t assess its needs. But it knew that it needed more firepower. Within the Biden administration, there were competing voices, pushing in different directions. The whole episode was a fiasco. Instead of closely consulting with the Poles, the Biden administration seemed to be negotiating with their ally through press releases. And the fiasco didn’t fade. Rather than letting the issue die, the Poles ambushed the White House with an unworkable proposal: Poland would fly 28 planes to Ramstein Air Base in Germany, an American outpost, where Ukrainian pilots would receive them. This meant that no fighter jets would fly directly from Polish soil. It was a stunt – since it shifted the onus back to the U.S. to be the ultimate naysayer.
By the middle of March, it was increasingly clear that the government in Kyiv would survive – and so would the transatlantic alliance supporting it. Biden began working on a speech worthy of the moment. As Biden sat in the Oval Office dictating, Mark Milley watched and egged the president on. “This is your ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall’ speech,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs told him. Speaking at an excited clip he bellowed, “A dictator bent on rebuilding an empire will never erase a people’s love for liberty. Brutality will never grind down their will to be free. Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia – for free people refuse to live in a world of hopelessness and darkness. We will have a different future – a brighter future rooted in democracy and principle, hope and light, of decency and dignity, of freedom and possibilities.” Then, for a final flourish, with the power of the occasion propelling him forward, he deviated from his text. “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
After delivering the speech that might have earned him the credit he deserved and craved, his improvisation became the headline. It sounded as if he were calling for regime change in Russia. It was a potential propaganda coup for the Kremlin, which always tried to portray the United States as an imperialist meddler. Biden left for home, ending his triumphalist tour, feeling sorry for himself. He knew that he had erred, but then resented his aides for creating the impression that they had cleaned up his mess. Rather than owning his failure, he fumed how he was treated like a toddler. It was striking that he took so few morning meetings or presided over so few public events before 10 a.m. His public persona reflected physical decline and time’s dulling of mental faculties that no pill or exercise regimen can resist. In private, he would occasionally admit to friends that he felt tired.
Source: The Last Politician by Franklin Foer (2023).
THE ISRAELI – HUMAN WAR: The murderous attack on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, and the responses to it, have changed everything. It has exposed rampant anti-Semitism around the world – especially among university students – even before Israel responded to the Hamas barbarity. It has changed the relationship between Israel and the United States, especially with regard to American pressure on Israel and the possibility of direct American intervention. It has required Israel to consider its nuclear options with regard to destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program and to deploying its nuclear arsenal as a last resort to assure its survival. It has exposed media biases that have been exacerbated with Israel’s vulnerabilities. It has united most Israelis and Jews around the world as never before, despite the deep divisions among them politically, religiously, and ideologically. It has also united many Arabs and Muslims both in America and throughout the world around the Palestinians cause, despite their deep divisions. It has clouded the future of peace between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors and has diminished the proposals for a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has made predictions about the future of the region nearly impossible, except that increasing instability is inevitable.
The Hamas massacres were not designed to bring about a two-state solution, to end the occupation of the West Bank, or to achieve peace. Indeed, part of the motivation was to prevent any resolution of the conflict that left Israel standing. The goal was similar to the Nazi goal in the late 1930 and early 1940 – judenrein – free of Jews. According to Hamas, the ancient land of Israel has to be ethnically cleansed of all Jews, either by murdering them or chasing them out. Now, American anti-Semites on university campuses are echoing the Nazi mantra of “cleansing” the world of Jews. The last thing Hamas wants is a two-state solution—or any solution that leaves Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, regardless of how small it might be. They want a “final solution” akin to the deadly one sought by the Nazis.
The Hamas Massacre of October 7, and the international reaction to Israel’s military response to it – have been game changers. It strengthens Israel’s relationship with both the Democratic and Republican parties, while at the same time weakening its relationship with progressive and woke Democrats, especially among the young. The events of October 7 and the reactions to it, have forever fractured any alliance between liberal Jews and woke progressives. Following the events of October 7, the vast majority of young woke progressives have turned stridently against Israel. Hard-left Democratic members of Congress voted no or present for a resolution in support of Israel that was overwhelmingly passed. Never again will Jews who support Israel be willing or able to work together with woke progressives who oppose its very existence. The Democratic Party will have to make a difficult choice. It’s either them or us. My predictions for the Democratic Party – a party I have supported since I first voted for John F. Kennedy in 1960 – are dire.
The lesson for Israel is clear: the nation-state of the Jewish people must not accept the demands of the international community. It cannot ignore the demands of the United States, but it must remind our leaders and people that Israel has killed far fewer civilians in its effort to destroy Hamas than the American and British did in their combined efforts to destroy ISIS and Al Qaeda – threats that were thousands of miles away from their borders, as contrasted to the immediate and proximate threats from Hamas and Hezbollah. In the end, if Israel is allowed to destroy Hamas without outside pressure the result will be fewer civilian deaths over time and greater likelihood of peace in the region. Strength begets peace. Weakness begets war. To paraphrase what an Israeli leader said many years ago, if Hamas were to lay down its arms and end its terrorism, there would be peace. If Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be genocide. Take your pick. I know what Israel should do.
Source: War Against the Jews by Alan Dershowitz (2023).
THE MIDDLE EAST: Biden frustrated Middle East allies by resurrecting the Obama playbook and restarting negotiation with Iran for a nuclear deal. The smarter approach would have been to build on the Abraham Accords, cementing the relationship and using a more united region to put maximum pressure on Tehran. Especially because most everyone on the planet other than Team Biden seems to understand that Iran isn’t going to stop seeking a bomb even if it does do a deal.
THE REST OF THE WORLD: In Latin America, Biden’s domestic politics have eroded ties. The president’s reactionary stance to Trump’s presidency led him to immediately reverse a number of border policies, exacerbating a migratory and humanitarian crisis. The president snubbed two key allies in the region – Brazil and Guatemala – mostly because of their center-right political leaders. And he’s been unwilling to take a strong stance against left-leaning strongmen, for fear of upsetting America’s left-leaning progressive base. China has significantly increased its own trade and diplomatic presence in the region in recent years.
Africa? The Biden administration seems to have no policy whatsoever.
Most perplexing is Biden’s inaction on China and the growing threat in the Asia-Pacific sphere. Biden claimed this would be his top priority, and when in July 2021 he gave an update on the withdrawal from Afghanistan he justified it in part on the grounds that America needed to “focus on shoring up America’s core strengths to meet the strategic competition with China.” The U.S. has failed to press China for more answers about its role in the origins of Covid-19. The Biden State Department also sat back and allowed China to treat American diplomats with impunity as part of its “zero Covid” strategy. Whistleblowers reported to Congress that dozens of American diplomats had been confined for weeks or even months at a time in China’s “fever” facilities – locked in barred rooms where they were given little food or water and subjected to intrusive Chinese testing.
The Biden administration has showed little interest in challenging China’s growing military dominance in the Pacific. The administration hasn’t even attempted to gin up new economic or tech initiatives with Europe to compete with Chinese. Critics worry the administration is almost obsessively focused on coaxing the Asian Giant into agreeing to carbon emissions reductions. At the same time, Biden’s diplomatic gaffes have exacerbated tensions – especially with his random comments about Taiwan.
But, overall, the president seems unwilling to acknowledge the U.S. is facing a new global disorder, one in which illiberalism is spreading, and old nemeses – Russia, Iran, and China – are seeking to reestablish dominance. Putin doesn’t just want Ukraine; he wants to reassemble the former Soviet Union and he wants NATO out of Central and Eastern Europe. China doesn’t want to just dominate the Asia Pacific region; it wants to be the global superpower. Iran wants a bomb, which would give it frightening new power to dictate the contours of the Middle East. Growing cyberthreats, proliferation, and regional bad actors are not just distant problems. They are a threat to American freedom and prosperity.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was Biden’s opportunity to acknowledge this changing environment and to shift his presidency. The American public was shocked by Putin’s aggression and would have backed a new Biden agenda that turned rebuilding the military, to empowering the American energy sector, and to working with national security Republicans. Biden did none of that. Biden didn’t even warn off Putin from launching missiles into civilian neighborhoods or from starving cities. He instead signaled to Putin that he could take any action in Ukraine, no matter how atrocious.
The president has one thing right: He describes today’s world as a fight between autocracy and democracy. That’s all fine and good, but America needs a president willing to make sure the right side wins.
Source: The Biden Malaise by Kimberley Strassel (2023).
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
FOREIGN POLICY – EXCERPTS
AN OVERALL LOOK AT THE BIDEN/HARRIS FOREIGN POLICY: The Biden/Harris administration adopted a “lead from behind” strategy while sending repeated signals that the United States is more focused on domestic concerns than on global stability. These signals have emboldened America’s enemies and frustrated America’s allies. Those signals started on day one, when Biden put climate symbolism ahead of the United States’ relationship with one of its strongest allies and closest neighbors – Canada. Biden canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline for cynically political reasons. The pipeline was a central component of Canada’s plan to develop its crude oil fields in Alberta. The Obama State Department found – no less than five times – that the pipeline would make no difference to greenhouse gas emissions. Canadian officials were furious at this U.S. double-cross.
Next the administration humiliated the U.S. – on the global stage. Biden’s new ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told a group of American activists that the U.S. would seek to reclaim a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC). She explained to the activist that the only way the U.S. would regain its seat was if it acted with “humility” and “acknowledged” that we were an “imperfect union” from the start, a country where “white supremacy is weaved into our founding document and principles.” Secretary of State Anthony Blinken took it a step further in July, when he formally asked the UN’s human rights officials to investigate U.S. “racism.” The Blinken request was a formal invitation for the world’s rogues to falsely claim the United States has a human rights record worse than their own. It was yet another dangerous projection of American weakness another sign Biden was willing to put his pet political posturing ahead of U.S. power. Biden’s Senate progressives were also eager to set back American foreign policy.
Biden also broadcast his disinterest in U.S. military and defense spending. His first budget, unveiled in April 2021, said it all – and you can bet Putin and China’s Xi Jinping noticed. Biden called for a stunning 16% increase in domestic discretionary spending. The Pentagon? A 1.6% increase. The first rumblings of inflation would have turned that amount into a defense budget cut. And it gets worse. The administration explained in its budget that it also wanted a chunk of that paltry sum to “mitigate impacts of climate change.”
Biden’s proposed cuts showed a stunning lack of concern for growing global threats. The U.S. faces a resurgence of military competition globally, even as its own forces are deteriorating from financial neglect. Yet Biden’s initial budgets proposed paring the overall U.S. fleet down to 280 ships. The U.S. Air Force had approximately 4,000 aircraft in inventory in 1991; todays it has about 2,000 and the average age is nearly 30 years old. U.S, stockpiles of munitions continue to fall, and some experts warn that a wide-scale conflict could deplete them entirely in the space of weeks. The Air Force has too few squadrons, the Marines too few battalions. The Navy doesn’t even have enough maintenance yards to keep up with needed repairs. Biden’s cuts ultimately proved too dangerous for even Senate Democrats to contemplate, and in both of Biden’s first two years a bipartisan Congress voted to overrule him. Yet even with these increases U.S. military spending is still around 3% of GDP. And it’s only there because a few pro-military Democrats were willing to face down progressives who continue to demand even deeper defense cuts.
Source: The Biden Malaise by Kimberley Strassel (2023).
Biden has made America weaker on the world stage. First, by canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, he hobbled American energy production intentionally making our nation less energy independent. Other countries such as Germany had already ceded their energy independence to Russia by shutting down their nuclear power plants. Biden and Secretary of State Tony Blinken knew Germany’s dependence on Russia was a huge liability for our ally. Yet they failed to show leadership and convince the Germans that they were making a mistake that allowed Putin immense leverage.
Biden’s rhetoric wasn’t even tough. When speaking about a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine at a White House news conference on January 19, 2022, Biden said, “Russia will be held accountable if it invades and it depends on what it does.” “It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do, but if they actually do what they’re capable of doing with the forces amassed on the border, it is going to be disaster for Russia if they further invade Ukraine.”
These comments signaled that the U.S. would tolerate a “minor incursion” which was almost certainly seen as a green light for Putin. Biden showed more weakness still when he tried to work with the Russians on an Iranian nuclear deal in the midst of Russia’s Ukraine invasion. Hundreds of retired generals and admirals warned that the pact was “defective,” and they were correct. The crux of the agreement was that the West would drop economic sanctions on Iran so long as Iran accepted restriction on their nuclear program, including inspections. Critics rightly argued that accountability mechanisms were nonexistent, and it was highly likely that Iran would use the infusion of cash for their own nuclear development.
Details of the proposed Iran deal that leaked mere weeks after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine were frightening. “It reportedly offers the regime access to $90 billion in foreign currency, $7 billion in effective ransom for U.S. captives; and sanctions relief for the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps and other notorious terrorists.” The deal was unpopular, even among Democrats. Biden’s Russia doctrine has always been to try to maintain good relations. And there’s only one way to keep good relations with Putin: give him things he wants. They relied on Russia to help broker their nuclear deal with Iran. All this emboldened Putin. In the wake of these deals, Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth shot up from minus 7.8% in 2009 to 4% in 2012. The result was clear: Biden and Obama had strengthened the very geopolitical foe Joe loved to trash-talk.
Source: Breaking Biden by Alex Marlow (2023).
AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL – LIBERAL VIEW: On July 8, the president gave another speech from the East Room of the White House. Afterward a reported asked: “Is a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable?” Biden, “No, it is not.” Reporter, “Why?” Biden, “Because the Afghan troops have three hundred thousand well-equipped – as well-equipped as any army in the world – and an air force against something like seventy-five thousand Taliban. It is not inevitable.”
The president seemed to be saying that there’d be plenty of time for U.S. forces to make an orderly retreat. But where had he gotten that idea? This would become the subject of intense debate and bitter acrimony in the months ahead, mostly behind closed doors. Depending upon whom you asked, the shambolic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan was due to an egregious failure by the U.S. intelligence agencies or wishful thinking on the part of the U.S. military about its Afghan allies. Tony Blinken told me that the seeds of the debacle were sown by a stunningly optimistic intelligence assessment, one that turned out to be dead wrong.
But senior CIA officials rejected the notion that the Afghan fiasco was caused by an intelligence failure. President Biden, they insisted, was under no illusions. He understood the fragility of the Afghan military forces and had a clear-eyed view of the weaknesses of the Afghan political leadership. Afterward, behind the scenes, there’d be plenty of finger-pointing between Foggy Bottom and Langley.
Source: The Fight of His Life by Chris Whipple (2023).
AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL – CONSERVATIVE VIEW: Biden wanted out. He had long opposed troops in Afghanistan, even as vice president. And he wanted to be the president who grandly announced the end of America’s involvement twenty years after the events of 9/11. He wanted out so badly, he ignored the counsel of his senior-most advisers, who warned that withdrawing U.S. forces completely risked reversing two decades of U.S. effort. When Biden made his April 2021 announcement of total withdrawal, the press reported that he’d been advise against that course by no less than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Mark Milley, U.S. central Command leader, Gen. Frank McKenzie, and numerous State Department officials. Many told Biden that the best course was to leave a residual force of 2,500 troops to aid the Afghani army, protect U.S. personnel, and guard against the country again becoming a terrorist haven. They noted that the U.S. hadn’t had a single casualty in Afghanistan in the year prior.
The president shamefully ABSOLVED HIMSELF OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. He blamed the mess on Trump’s deal. His dishonestly claimed that his only choices were full withdrawal or an “escalation” of troops. He described the evacuations as a moment of triumph – an “extraordinary success” – rather than an embarrassment. He took a cheap shot at the Afghanis, for not fighting harder. And he falsely claimed this meant that “the war in Afghanistan is now over.” Hardly. The Taliban won a major victory, and the country is already again becoming a recruitment area for terrorists that the United States will face in the future. – only now from a position of weakness. Afghanistan was meanwhile left to rot, and since withdrawal has faced famine, starvation, economic collapse, and the return of a brutal, medieval theocracy.
UKRAINE CONFLICT – CONSERVATIVE VIEW: Americans weren’t the only ones watching this shameful Afghanistan episode. Putin was, too. His takeaways: The U.S. was in retreat; the new president lacked the will for a fight. Biden returned to these policies of appeasement upon taking up residence in the Oval Office. Blinken explained that Biden wanted a “more stable, more predictable relationship” with Russia – not that Putin had shown one iota of interest in reciprocating. Biden’s response to Putin’s April troop buildup on the Ukraine border was to give Putin a win. The administration in May 2021 waived sanctions against the company and CEO developing Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline – slated to provide cheap natural gas from Russia to Europe. Putin couldn’t believe his luck.
Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Biden to his credit responded by sending Ukraine billions in economic aid and military equipment for its fight. Yet the administration also had to be pushed by Congress into every major action. It was slow to deliver true missile-defense systems. It was slow to deliver drones. It was slow to resupply munitions. It was slow to agree to give tanks. It refused outright to provide certain equipment, including aircraft, on the grounds that it would take too long to train Ukrainians to use them. This rationale proved a bigger and bigger loser as the war dragged on and it became clear that earlier delivery might have allowed the Ukrainians to drive Russia out faster and saved lives. Biden also made the mistake of broadcasting his desire to do anything to avoid “escalation.” He drew his red line around defending “every inch” of NATO territory, leading Putin to assume that anything up to that line was allowable – potentially even a chemical attack in Ukraine or the use of a strategic nuke.
Years into his administration Biden had produced no strategic vision for dealing with any part of the globe. Across Europe, allies were furious at the Biden administration abandonment of Afghanistan. Numerous NATO allies had also spent blood and treasure on rebuilding that nation. Britain and Germany were particularly irate. Allies most at risk to continued Putin aggression, like Poland, were appalled by his decision to sign off on Nord Stream 2. Eastern European allies remain unhappy over the administration’s efforts to hamstring their economic flexibility with his global minimum tax plans. Biden in September 2021 signed a smart deal to joint-develop submarines with Australia to counter China. But the administration somehow forgot to tell France, which was blindsided by a pact that lost it a big defense contract. The diplomatic fumble smacked of amateur house and produced unnecessary tension with a key ally.
Source: The Biden Malaise by Kimberley Strassel (2023)
UKRAINE CONFLICT – LIBERAL VIEW: To mark his first year in office, Biden wanted to hold a press conference that put to bed all the swirling speculation about his age and diminishing mental powers. He believed that he was capable of a tour de force, where he dazzled with his command of the intricacies of policy. Since Ukraine would be among the primary topics he could flash the world a glimpse of his statesmanship. The primary problem with such appearances, however, wasn’t Biden’s age or acuity. It was his indiscipline and imprecision, traits that stalked the entirety of his career. Asked how he would hold Russia accountable for an invasion, he replied, “It depends on what it does.” He continued, “it’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.” In his mind, he knew exactly what it meant – and it had impeccable logic. But Biden’s phrasing muddled his message. Just as he intended to send Putin an unambiguous message, he added an unnecessary hint of ambiguity.
In the heat of battle, Ukraine couldn’t assess its needs. But it knew that it needed more firepower. Within the Biden administration, there were competing voices, pushing in different directions. The whole episode was a fiasco. Instead of closely consulting with the Poles, the Biden administration seemed to be negotiating with their ally through press releases. And the fiasco didn’t fade. Rather than letting the issue die, the Poles ambushed the White House with an unworkable proposal: Poland would fly 28 planes to Ramstein Air Base in Germany, an American outpost, where Ukrainian pilots would receive them. This meant that no fighter jets would fly directly from Polish soil. It was a stunt – since it shifted the onus back to the U.S. to be the ultimate naysayer.
By the middle of March, it was increasingly clear that the government in Kyiv would survive – and so would the transatlantic alliance supporting it. Biden began working on a speech worthy of the moment. As Biden sat in the Oval Office dictating, Mark Milley watched and egged the president on. “This is your ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall’ speech,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs told him. Speaking at an excited clip he bellowed, “A dictator bent on rebuilding an empire will never erase a people’s love for liberty. Brutality will never grind down their will to be free. Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia – for free people refuse to live in a world of hopelessness and darkness. We will have a different future – a brighter future rooted in democracy and principle, hope and light, of decency and dignity, of freedom and possibilities.” Then, for a final flourish, with the power of the occasion propelling him forward, he deviated from his text. “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
After delivering the speech that might have earned him the credit he deserved and craved, his improvisation became the headline. It sounded as if he were calling for regime change in Russia. It was a potential propaganda coup for the Kremlin, which always tried to portray the United States as an imperialist meddler. Biden left for home, ending his triumphalist tour, feeling sorry for himself. He knew that he had erred, but then resented his aides for creating the impression that they had cleaned up his mess. Rather than owning his failure, he fumed how he was treated like a toddler. It was striking that he took so few morning meetings or presided over so few public events before 10 a.m. His public persona reflected physical decline and time’s dulling of mental faculties that no pill or exercise regimen can resist. In private, he would occasionally admit to friends that he felt tired.
Source: The Last Politician by Franklin Foer (2023).
THE ISRAELI – HUMAN WAR: The murderous attack on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, and the responses to it, have changed everything. It has exposed rampant anti-Semitism around the world – especially among university students – even before Israel responded to the Hamas barbarity. It has changed the relationship between Israel and the United States, especially with regard to American pressure on Israel and the possibility of direct American intervention. It has required Israel to consider its nuclear options with regard to destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program and to deploying its nuclear arsenal as a last resort to assure its survival. It has exposed media biases that have been exacerbated with Israel’s vulnerabilities. It has united most Israelis and Jews around the world as never before, despite the deep divisions among them politically, religiously, and ideologically. It has also united many Arabs and Muslims both in America and throughout the world around the Palestinians cause, despite their deep divisions. It has clouded the future of peace between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors and has diminished the proposals for a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has made predictions about the future of the region nearly impossible, except that increasing instability is inevitable.
The Hamas massacres were not designed to bring about a two-state solution, to end the occupation of the West Bank, or to achieve peace. Indeed, part of the motivation was to prevent any resolution of the conflict that left Israel standing. The goal was similar to the Nazi goal in the late 1930 and early 1940 – judenrein – free of Jews. According to Hamas, the ancient land of Israel has to be ethnically cleansed of all Jews, either by murdering them or chasing them out. Now, American anti-Semites on university campuses are echoing the Nazi mantra of “cleansing” the world of Jews. The last thing Hamas wants is a two-state solution—or any solution that leaves Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, regardless of how small it might be. They want a “final solution” akin to the deadly one sought by the Nazis.
The Hamas Massacre of October 7, and the international reaction to Israel’s military response to it – have been game changers. It strengthens Israel’s relationship with both the Democratic and Republican parties, while at the same time weakening its relationship with progressive and woke Democrats, especially among the young. The events of October 7 and the reactions to it, have forever fractured any alliance between liberal Jews and woke progressives. Following the events of October 7, the vast majority of young woke progressives have turned stridently against Israel. Hard-left Democratic members of Congress voted no or present for a resolution in support of Israel that was overwhelmingly passed. Never again will Jews who support Israel be willing or able to work together with woke progressives who oppose its very existence. The Democratic Party will have to make a difficult choice. It’s either them or us. My predictions for the Democratic Party – a party I have supported since I first voted for John F. Kennedy in 1960 – are dire.
The lesson for Israel is clear: the nation-state of the Jewish people must not accept the demands of the international community. It cannot ignore the demands of the United States, but it must remind our leaders and people that Israel has killed far fewer civilians in its effort to destroy Hamas than the American and British did in their combined efforts to destroy ISIS and Al Qaeda – threats that were thousands of miles away from their borders, as contrasted to the immediate and proximate threats from Hamas and Hezbollah. In the end, if Israel is allowed to destroy Hamas without outside pressure the result will be fewer civilian deaths over time and greater likelihood of peace in the region. Strength begets peace. Weakness begets war. To paraphrase what an Israeli leader said many years ago, if Hamas were to lay down its arms and end its terrorism, there would be peace. If Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be genocide. Take your pick. I know what Israel should do.
Source: War Against the Jews by Alan Dershowitz (2023).
THE MIDDLE EAST: Biden frustrated Middle East allies by resurrecting the Obama playbook and restarting negotiation with Iran for a nuclear deal. The smarter approach would have been to build on the Abraham Accords, cementing the relationship and using a more united region to put maximum pressure on Tehran. Especially because most everyone on the planet other than Team Biden seems to understand that Iran isn’t going to stop seeking a bomb even if it does do a deal.
THE REST OF THE WORLD: In Latin America, Biden’s domestic politics have eroded ties. The president’s reactionary stance to Trump’s presidency led him to immediately reverse a number of border policies, exacerbating a migratory and humanitarian crisis. The president snubbed two key allies in the region – Brazil and Guatemala – mostly because of their center-right political leaders. And he’s been unwilling to take a strong stance against left-leaning strongmen, for fear of upsetting America’s left-leaning progressive base. China has significantly increased its own trade and diplomatic presence in the region in recent years.
Africa? The Biden administration seems to have no policy whatsoever.
Most perplexing is Biden’s inaction on China and the growing threat in the Asia-Pacific sphere. Biden claimed this would be his top priority, and when in July 2021 he gave an update on the withdrawal from Afghanistan he justified it in part on the grounds that America needed to “focus on shoring up America’s core strengths to meet the strategic competition with China.” The U.S. has failed to press China for more answers about its role in the origins of Covid-19. The Biden State Department also sat back and allowed China to treat American diplomats with impunity as part of its “zero Covid” strategy. Whistleblowers reported to Congress that dozens of American diplomats had been confined for weeks or even months at a time in China’s “fever” facilities – locked in barred rooms where they were given little food or water and subjected to intrusive Chinese testing.
The Biden administration has showed little interest in challenging China’s growing military dominance in the Pacific. The administration hasn’t even attempted to gin up new economic or tech initiatives with Europe to compete with Chinese. Critics worry the administration is almost obsessively focused on coaxing the Asian Giant into agreeing to carbon emissions reductions. At the same time, Biden’s diplomatic gaffes have exacerbated tensions – especially with his random comments about Taiwan.
But, overall, the president seems unwilling to acknowledge the U.S. is facing a new global disorder, one in which illiberalism is spreading, and old nemeses – Russia, Iran, and China – are seeking to reestablish dominance. Putin doesn’t just want Ukraine; he wants to reassemble the former Soviet Union and he wants NATO out of Central and Eastern Europe. China doesn’t want to just dominate the Asia Pacific region; it wants to be the global superpower. Iran wants a bomb, which would give it frightening new power to dictate the contours of the Middle East. Growing cyberthreats, proliferation, and regional bad actors are not just distant problems. They are a threat to American freedom and prosperity.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was Biden’s opportunity to acknowledge this changing environment and to shift his presidency. The American public was shocked by Putin’s aggression and would have backed a new Biden agenda that turned rebuilding the military, to empowering the American energy sector, and to working with national security Republicans. Biden did none of that. Biden didn’t even warn off Putin from launching missiles into civilian neighborhoods or from starving cities. He instead signaled to Putin that he could take any action in Ukraine, no matter how atrocious.
The president has one thing right: He describes today’s world as a fight between autocracy and democracy. That’s all fine and good, but America needs a president willing to make sure the right side wins.
Source: The Biden Malaise by Kimberley Strassel (2023).
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
| country_7l_foreign_policy_--_segment_7.pdf |