Our Country Needs a New Foreign Policy

by John F. Kimberling, Author of “What This Country Needs: A New Political Party”

Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech on Monday was somewhat vague, general and lacking in specifics, but it showed us once again that there is really very little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties and their policies. This is particularly true in foreign affairs. It is difficult to see where Governor Romney’s ideas are very different from President Obama’s policies. Both would give support to people struggling for freedom in emerging countries. Mr. Romney seems more willing—even eager—to go to war in Iran and Syria. However, there really is no great degree of difference between the two parties in foreign policy.

There may be gridlock in Washington today on economic and domestic matters because of partisan, political and ideological battles between the two parties. They disagree and fight over tax rates, environmental policies, business regulation, abortion, gay marriage and other social issues. However, they think alike on foreign policy and both of the parties they belong to must share the blame for our failed foreign policies of the past.

After World War II we increased our military forces to the point where we dominated the world militarily. We have been spending under both Republicans and Democrats about half of all the money spent in the world on military forces. We spend more than the next twenty five or so countries in the world combined. There is no nation today which can match us in military strength.

Over the years both Democratic and Republican administrations attempted to extend our influence and power around the world with the threat of that military force. We have tried to dominate the world and to be its policeman. We actually used that great military power on several occasions with less than success. The Korean War resulted in a stalemate. We suffered tremendous losses in the Vietnam conflict. When we overthrew Saddam Hussein in Iraq by invading that country, we became embroiled in a quagmire from which we only recently extracted ourselves. The war in Afghanistan continues with less than obvious success. The results of these military endeavors have not been beneficial to our interests. We have sided with dictators who are hated in their countries, and we have made millions of enemies around the world. The presence of our military forces in Saudi Arabia near the Muslim holy cities is one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden of Al Qaeda for the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

The record shows that the application of military force did not often solve underlying problems. It is not even clear that we identified accurately the problems. In any event, war was not the solution.

A source of continuing discord in the Middle East is the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. We probably are the only nation capable of acting as a mediator in forcing both sides to make the necessary concessions for peace. Our weakness here was obvious when President Obama asked Israel to freeze the construction of new settlements in the West Bank to begin peace discussions, and Israel refused. The Palestinians will not listen to us because they regard us as an ally and supporter of Israel, not an impartial arbiter.

There is one difference in the two parties’ current approach to foreign affairs. Governor Romney on Monday called for increasing military expenditures. He has asked for an increase in the number of our troops and for the construction of additional ships and nuclear submarines. Apparently this is for the purpose of flaunting our strength and frightening our enemies. This does not address what is our biggest problem-terrorism. It is difficult to see how an aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine can identify and apprehend a terrorist attempting to explode a suitcase bomb in Times Square.

It should be obvious to all that the application of military force in the past has not achieved our foreign policy goals. It has not brought peace to the world, and it has resulted in the recruitment by terrorist organizations of militants who hate us and regard us as an implacable enemy. It alone cannot rid us of terrorists.

Surely we are not going to go to war against China or Russia. We may not like their trade policies, but they pose no existential threat to us.

We need new thinking in this area of foreign policy. We need new thinking on how to engage the moderate elements in the uprisings of the Arab Spring. We need to apply new ideas to the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Save for the notable exceptions such as the departing congressmen Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, we do not see any creative or imaginative new ideas coming from either the Republicans or the Democrats. We need a new political party with new ideas.

The vice presidential debates last week did not enlighten us, and the debate this week and the foreign policy-focused one on Oct. 22 probably will not.

About the Author

John F. Kimberling is the author of What This Country Needs: A New Political Party (Revised Edition Election 2012, www.whatthiscountryneeds.net). Kimberling is widely known as a leading U.S. litigation specialist, a charter member of the ABA section on litigation, a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, a veteran of two wars, and at various times served in leadership positions in both the Democratic and Republican parties. He was once hailed by The American Lawyer as the “one of the top trial lawyers in the country” and led a panel as moderator on a C-SPAN discussion titled “Is It Time for a New Political Party?”

This article first appeared on The Huffington Post.

N. Y. Times article of Sept 24 “America’s Inevitable Retreat From the Middle East”

Author Pankaj Mishra points out recent upheavals in the Middle East and Asia against the United States are actually more than just that. They are a flair up of resentment by people long under the thumbs of dictators and repressive regimes who now want equality and dignity.

Their attacks on American embassies is the product of out foreign policies for many years in the past.

I point out in my new book “What This Country Needs” that our support for and alignment with dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak alienated large segments of he Muslim and Arab world. Our unsuccessful and futile wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated to the world—if not yet to us here in this country—the limits of our military and diplomatic power today.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seems almost eager to follow the lead of our ally Israel’s prime minister and start another war by attacking Iran. This can easily put us in the middle of another costly disaster in the Middle East. There will be unrest and turmoil for years in the Middle East as various moderate and radical factions struggle for control of those developing countries. We must tread carefully.

If we read the writings of the late Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, he said the the primary dispute with the United States ( and the reason for the 9/11 terrorist attack ) was our military presence in the home of the Muslim holy lands and our interference in Middle East affairs because of our need and desire to control its oil.

In my new book “What This Country Needs” I suggest a new detailed foreign policy that will avoid the pitfalls of the past and enable us to live peacefully in the emerging new world.

The Third-Party Dilemma

Progressive magazine’s September issue features the article “The Third-Party Dilemma” by Matthew Rothschild. He discusses the presidential candidacy of Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party, one of this country’s third parties.

He points out the extreme improbability of Dr. Stein capturing the electoral votes of even one state. He quotes Kathy Pollitt, a columnist for The Nation, as pointing out that the only possible consequence of the Green party’s efforts could be as a “spoiler”. If the party wins enough Democratic votes in critical states, it could throw a close election to Romney.

After quoting others, he’s critical of both Obama and Romney and poses the question of whether you should vote for the lesser of two evils—there always is one ! Or, do you vote your conscience and cast a vote to try to show impetus for a change in our political landscape?

In my book, (the Revised 2012 Edition of “What This Country Needs” is just out in e-book form) I point out that it is possible to organize an effective third party that could make a difference in our country.

I point out in the book that the beginning might be to organize a convention of all existing third parties, who share many values and viewpoints in common. If a prominent American with name recognition could be found to head the new party, it could succeed in electing officials. It must have a platform of sensible, pragmatic solutions to our country’s problems. My book discusses and proposes specific, concrete ideas or a new foreign policy, campaign finance and election reform, tax reform, criminal justice reform, education and how to preserve our freedoms and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.