Robert E Kelly

Political Science, International Relations, East Asia, US Politics…and, yes, the BBC Dad

Robert E Kelly

Category Archives: Restraint

Iran War: Sometimes It is Just Cheaper to Lose and Get Out

Posted on by

We lost in Iran. No, we weren’t militarily defeated, but we did lost the larger political contest the fighting reflected. This post re-ups an essay I wrote to that effect at the National Security Journal.

Iran has left the contest stronger than it entered, mostly notably in taking positive control of the Strait of Hormuz. This threat was always lurking in the background of the US-Iran stand-off, but Iran has actually done it in this conflict – learned how to do it, how its neighbors will respond, how faraway oil importers will respond, and so on. The war is ‘proof of concept’ that Iran can control, in fact, control the strait without excessive punishment.

As I have argued for awhile, Trump’s only option to really win – to compel Iran to capitulate and accept harsh American terms – is a ground invasion to remove the clerical regime in Tehran. I do believe the US could do this, and there is an internal resistance which might help us and take-over after a US victory.

But it’s also probable that the war takes months, if not a year, with large casualties. It could also easily turn into a quagmire like Afghanistan and Iraq did.

Which brings us back to my post’s title – sometime it is just cheaper to lose and go home. I think that is the case here. Trump wanted a major victory from a limited war, did not get it, and now does not know what to do. He will try blockading the strait for awhile, but Iran has proven it can wait out the US and absorb its punishment. Trump, meanwhile, faces high gas prices, a low approval rating, and an election in the fall. Trump can’t wait; Iran can

The best option now is to just take the loss and negotiate some kind of embarrassing peace which puts some restraints on Iran’s nuclear program and keeps the tolls reasonably low. That is probably the best the US can get at this point.

Most importantly, is the larger strategic lesson of yet ANOTHER failed US war in the Middle East is that we should – FINALLY – leave the region. We’re overstretched there. China is far more important. Israeli security can be still be vouchsafed with a smaller US commitment. After 35 years trying to police the Middle East’s political and theological divides, it is time to admit that we cannot do that and get out. That is what I argue in the NSJ piece too.

No, Donald Trump is Not a Realist or China Hawk; He’s Too Ill-Disciplined for That: The Full Version of My Trump Essay for Foreign Policy

Posted on by

AP-putin-trump-handshake-g20-jef-170710_16x9_1600Trump is too lazy, ill-disciplined, and venal to be the ‘thinker’ or strategist realist and China-first hawks keep trying to make him out to be. This post is the longer and pre-edited version of an essay I just wrote for Foreign Policy magazine.

In fact, I am amazed anyone thinks Trump has the discipline to do this. Are you not watching the same Trump – erratic, confused, chaotic – the rest of us are? Trump is far more likely to simply sell US foreign policy to the highest bidder if he becomes president. He loves money and adulation. The Chinese and the Russians are more than happy to throw that at him to get him to bend on their interests.

We keep hearing that Trump will prioritize China and Taiwan over Europe and Ukraine, but listen to what he says about Taiwan and China. He doesn’t sound a realist at all. He dislikes Taiwan for protectionist and free-riding reasons, and he clearly admires Xi Jinping’s autocracy.

The best predictor for Trump’s second term is what he did in the first term, and that was a confused mess. He dislikes Ukraine – and will surrender it to Russia – because Zelenskyy wouldn’t help him cheat in the 2020, not because of a strategic re-prioritization toward Asia.

Maybe realists will get their wished-for realignment or re-prioritization out of Trump’s staff. Perhaps Elbridge Colby will push that through. But it’s hard to imagine a major foreign policy realignment without POTUS’ consent, if not participation. And Trump just isn’t focused enough. Worse, Trump has a tendency to staff himself with clowns. Your more likely to get incompetence out of a Trump second term than anything.

The full, unedited FP essay is below the jump. Continue reading →

Does Trump Want to Withdraw from South Korea if He’s Re-Elected?

Posted on by
2

download

This is a local re-post of an essay I wrote this month for The National Interest.

I keep hearing this idea on the lecture and conference circuit in East Asia – that Trump wants to withdraw from South Korea and a second term would open that possibility.

The big problems for Trump, if he really wants to do this, are 1) US bureaucratic resistance, and 2) his own laziness and incompetence. That is, much of official Washington would oppose a SK retrenchment. Just as it did Jimmy Carter’s late 1970s effort to withdraw from South Korea.

But Trump is POTUS in a highly presidentialized system. He might be able to win the battle Carter lost, but Trump would have to really work at it – get on the phone, have face-to-face confrontations with the military, use the bully pulpit against the pundit network who would oppose this. But Trump is so lazy, and so uncomfortable with personal confrontation – this is why he fires people over Twitter – that I doubt he has the focus to push this.

Curiously though, Trump might find a sort-of ally in SK President Moon Jae-In. The SK left has long had an ambiguous relationship with USFK as ‘neo-imperialists’ bullying the ROKG. I doubt Moon’s leftist coalition would push back much if Trump tried to do this.

The full essay is after the jump:

Cancelling TPP, Protectionism Not Necessary for a Restrained Foreign Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Image result for tpp

This is a local re-post of an essay I wrote for The National Interest a few weeks ago. Basically I argue that a restrained political and military foreign policy does not imply an isolationist or protectionist economic foreign policy.

This strikes me as an important distinction. There is a lot talk that Trump’s election implies a less interventionist foreign policy, that the white working class doesn’t want to fight neocon wars anymore. I am sympathetic to that. But a greater caution in military choices does not have an economic correlate of withdrawing from free trade, or picking foolish fights with allies. Restraint is neither economic protectionism, nor bashing allies Trump-style. Those tow together are more like isolationism.

As I say on this site regularly, the concern of foreign policy ‘restrainers’ is not to abandon American allies, but to get them to take their own defense more seriously. But I see no reason to extend that to trade. Greater protectionism will simply drive up prices for the white working class at Walmart, while re-shoring a few jobs at most. Recall that it is technology that wiped out smokestack jobs in the Midwest, not China. Worse, protectionism has a powerful long-term negative impact on security. States which seal themselves off start to fall behind technologically. That impacts military tech too, as one can see in the communist states during the Cold War. It is critical for American military pre-eminence that it remain a free-trade economy that regularly absorbs the most recent technologies, no matter how much dislocation they bring, no matter where they come from.

The full essay follows the jump:

Continue reading →