Spare a thought for foreign policy issue as you begin to contemplate your vote on the upcoming presidential election.
The last few months have seen a surprising new wave of rage militaire among Americans, as how exactly candidates are going to ‘get at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’ has become a mainstay of debate podium thumping. The legacy of Kosovo has reared it’s ugly head as it seems that once again an air campaign is not sufficient to bring a decisive end to a conflict. Now, two years after the President declared that he wouldn’t “put American boots on the ground,” Obama declared his intentions to deploy a 50 man detachment of U.S. Special Forces personnel to Syria.
Even though this is a token force at best, the action has substantial weight symbolizing the commitment of the U.S. to enter the fight. Not that the fight is understood, even by the people fighting it. The war can be summed up (if such a thing is possible), as a three way struggle between the Syrian government backed by Russia, Syrian opposition groups backed by Turkey, U.S. and other allies, as well as some more unsavory groups and ISIL backed by nobody and at war with everybody.
To make matters even stranger, the U.S. views ISIL as the main adversary, with the government as a secondary concern, which by association places the U.S. in a point of tension with Russia. This perhaps elevates the conflict to the status of a proxy war in this new cold war we seem to be marching into. Perhaps it would be simpler to say that the conflict looks like this and … er leave it at that.
Provided via ThinkProgress
So what does this mean exactly? Well now the president has committed, admittedly minimal numbers of American combat forces, to the war any candidate will have to deal with the fallout from this. War has a way of escalating in a way that nobody foresees, it is, after all, the state of exception were normal rules no longer apply. Now, policy planners have made it clear that it was never the intention of the president to escalate the U.S’s involvement and that the catalyst for this escalation was likely Russia’s entry into the war on the side of the Syrian government and the U.S.’s subsequent need to protect the rest of the moderates in the opposition.
This means that any candidate, no matter their campaign promises or personal stance on war in general, will need to navigate a course for U.S. involvement. Carl von Clausewitz, arguably the greatest military theorist who ever lived, stated that “war was the continuation of policy by other means.”
We should vote for a candidate who has an adept practical knowledge of realist foreign policy and the ability to begin a delicate de-escalation process. We have here a situation, concurrent to the conflict in the Donbass (also of concern), where Great Powers are arguably waging proxy wars. These are notoriously difficult situations to navigate and we need to pick the right person for the job.
So when you’re reading about the issues perhaps closer to your heart, your economics or social issues, spare a thought for foreign policy. You only need to read “The Guns of August,” to know that in Great Power crises, unless clarity of mind and a grasp of the situation are maintained, a single miscalculation can have consequences no one intended or ever wanted.
Jack Davies is a sophomore studying philosophy and the Honors Tutorial College Senator for Student Senate. Do you think foreign policy should be considered when thinking about who you vote for in the election? Email him at jd814213@ohio.edu.
