The end of the Neocons.
The presidential campaigns of 2008 have, so far, focused foreign policy more on the war with Iraq, than anything else.  What is the overall foreign policy vision of the candidates? 

Thus far, John McCain appears to be a classic neo-conservative, almost defining the term itself.  McCain was in favor of some level of amnesty for illegal immigrants, opposed to drilling for oil in Alaska, and in favor of an active U.S. role in foreign affairs, to say the least.  While not a social liberal, he is certainly more towards the left on more than a few social and economic issues.  His rhetoric on Iraq, the Middle East, and Russia leaves no other conclusion than that the United States must exert her will via the military and power diplomacy as the worlds only super power.

Barack Obama on the other hand, focuses his foreign policy on specific issues.  While at first glance this may appear prudent, the end result is in reality a return to the neocon philosophy.  We've already seen this played out on some level with his comments regarding Pakistan.  When Obama expresses a desire to open the doors of communication with North Korea, Iran and Cuba, he leaves the obvious question unanswered.  What if he doesn't like what he hears?  When Jimmy Carter tried this approach in the 1970's with Iran (abandoning the balance of power) the world was met with the rise of the first Islamic fundamentalist government, and Hezbollah. 

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is also almost entirely focused on the Middle East, and according to her website, she would embrace a non-interference policy relying on the United Nations, and mediation. She suffers the same shortcomings as Obama on this front.  Every politician begins the diplomatic effort with mediation.  But what happens when that doesn't work?

Foreign policy decisions, much like economic policy, must stem from an overall vision.  Until Obama and Clinton articulate that vision, we are just left to wonder.

One thing is certain, the way of the Neocon is over.

The cold hard fact is that any comprehensive foreign policy is subject to the times and conditions of the nation.  The sentiment has often been expressed that intervention in the opening phases of World War II would have stopped the war.  But this is just a guess.  Hitler may have just accelerated his killing of Jews, and bypassed his invasion of The Soviet Union.  Stalin by all indications would have been happy to sit this one out, and watch the Western Powers destroy themselves, and so World War II would have been perhaps even worse.

Another cold hard fact is that the United States is going to enter a long period of contraction in government spending.  Despite the wishes of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, the aging dynamic of the baby boomer generation render new government spending programs as simply a fantasy.   The cost of retirement benefits for this group is already estimated at upwards of 40 trillion dollars.  Factor in the changes in spending habits and it's clear that government spending at all levels is going to be greatly restrained.  For more on this you can read my article "The Pillars of the economy are crumbling".

This lack of funding for  "discretionary spending"  will first spill over in to military spending.  And without the money, the Neocon philosophy is simply not sustainable.   While many on the left will cheer at the news, the alternative is probably even less to their liking.  The neoconservative philosophy was never one of world domination.  The actual diplomatic approach was quite sound in its logic. The use of power diplomacy, and then the military not just to impose our will, but to foster democracy and free market economies in troublesome nations, thus keeping the peace for a much longer period of time. 

To fill the foreign policy void the best option is a return to balance of power diplomacy.

The end result of this is that we as a nation will be forced to support less than desirable leaders in order to maintain the peace in specific regions,and around the world.  The balance of power approach doesn't work without its ugly step-sister, dollar diplomacy. 

So how do I reconcile cutting military spending and increasing foreign aid?
The same way you reconcile eating at home, when you'd rather spend the night at a five star restaurant.  You need food, so you'll incur some expense, but you really can't afford to eat at the best restaurants every night.
We need an active foreign policy, but we can't afford to spend more than half a trillion dollars every year supporting the policy.  If we are to cut military spending by twenty percent, we save one hundred billion dollars every year.  As much as thirty billion may need to be sprinkled around the globe to maintain the balance of power.

But there is more to it.
Just about every foreign policy, short of isolationism, runs the risk of devolving into a chase for dragons to slay. This is one of those oddities of the modern politician and is nothing more than a result of narrow focused thinking.  When we wish to engender a balance of power, or impose our will on a region of the world, we first need to answer the question, "Why?".

The answer in the Middle East is obvious. Our economy is dependent on cheap oil.  Most of our oil comes from the Middle East, and we can't afford to have the entire region erupting in to war every five or ten years.  So is the only answer to spend billions every year to maintain a military presence?  Of course not.  Now the retort often heard from the left is we need to invest in alternative fuels.  Well, that sounds great, but investing doesn't always equal production, and it never immediately translates in to production.  So we need to have an interim plan.   Oil and nuclear power are the only fuels available to meet our energy demands at this time. But as a nation, we are reluctant to increase our drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.  We have also regulated nuclear power to the point that its cost far outweighs the benefit.  In short, something has got to give. We are going to have to make a decision to either drill for oil in Anwar and the Gulf of Mexico, or we are going to have to streamline the process for building nuclear power plants.  If we don't take one of these approaches, we need to send more American soldiers to the Middle East, until we can stabilize the region and return to a balance of power.

What of Africa?
During the cold war The United States and The Soviet Union poured money in to emerging nations to keep a balance of power, that benefited each countries sphere of influence.  When the cold war ended, both nations were content to let the African continent devolve in to genocide and despotic rule.  While our economic interests may be small in the area, we are still Americans, and we generally like to do the right thing. Stabilization is preferable to genocide, so we'll be forced to prop up regimes we may not completely agree with. 


We as Americans are an optimistic people.  That is of course one of our great strengths.  But it can also be our biggest weakness.  Our nation is going to change dramatically over the next thirty to forty years, and that change began in 2008.  The dynamic of the baby boomer generation is like nothing we've ever seen. The largest and most productive segment of our country is rapidly going to become the most dependent on government services.  This sea change affects every aspect of government and we must meet the challenge with honesty, and intelligent policy.

If we further entangle ourselves in issues involving other nations, we will quickly bankrupt the nation. This is a unique time in the history of The United States when our options and resources are limited.  It will not last forever, but it is here for the next twenty to thirty years.  The Neocons helped to end the cold war and free millions of people from the bondage of totalitarian regimes.  They expelled Sadaam Hussein from Kuwait, and ultimately removed the brutal dictator from Iraq.  In a nation flush with cash, they were probably right, and at least a logical alternative.  That time has passed.