Light where we can, heavy when we must

Today’s New York Times declares victory for those in the Obama Administration who favor a light footprint abroad.  The members of the new national security team–Hagel, Kerry and Brennan–each leans in that direction.  Though Hagel voted as a senator for the Iraq war, he later became a doubter.  His Vietnam experience and Kerry’s make both new cabinet members hesitant about the use of American military force abroad.  Brennan, while always talking a good line in favor of a more comprehensive approach to counter-terrorism in Yemen, is the brains behind the canonical light footprint drone war there against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

The light footprint approach is also getting a boost in Afghanistan, where the White House is leaning towards leaving fewer troops after 2014 than some would like.  Zero is even a possibility.  The leaks to this effect are all too clearly intended to get President Karzai, who is visiting Washington this week, to stop his mouthing off against the American presence and to convince the Taliban that they can get half a loaf if they come to the negotiating table.  But feints in diplomacy have a way of becoming reality.  America’s parlous fiscal situation will make many members of Congress look benignly on cutting back the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

I need hardly mention that the Administration has already taken a light footprint approach to Syria–maybe more like a no footprint approach.  It provides humanitarian assistance through nongovernmental organizations and as well as political support to the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, now recognized as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and other Syrian opposition organizations.  It is also setting up Patriot batteries in Turkey and turning a blind eye to arms flowing from Qatar and Saudi Arabia.  The results so far have fallen well short of the goal of ending the Asad regime and risk letting Syria fall into the hands of Sunni extremists.  But the burden on the United States is mainly diplomacy and foreign assistance, not the far more expensive military.

I find it hard to fault the Administration for trying to limit commitments and save money at a time of serious fiscal strain.  But it is a mistake to think we will always want to avoid the heavier footprint:  troops and civilians on the ground to establish a safe and secure environment and plant the seeds for governance in states that may fail in ways that endanger vital American interests.  The problem I see so far is not so much the President’s preference for the light footprint, but rather the assumption that it will ever be thus.  Each and every president since the end of the Cold War has tried to avoid state-building efforts abroad.  Each and every one has concluded that they were needed in one place or the other.  This includes President Obama, who has quietly and correctly (if not alway successfully) indulged in civilian statebuilding to prevent violence in South Sudan since independence (the troops are cheap since they come from the UN).  Obama also tried statebuilding in Afghanistan, where it was not a brilliant success.

We need to maintain the capacity to do heavier footprints, civilian as well as military, even as we try to avoid situations in which they are likely to be needed.  This is the equivalent of asking the U.S. government to walk and chew gum at the same time.  It has a hard time doing that.  It is much more inclined to dismantle the extensive apparatus and experience built up during more than 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan than to husband and sustain it.  The Civilian Response Corps President George W. Bush established, after declaring as a candidate his disdain for “a nation-building corps,” is already gutted.  We’ll be reinventing that wheel if ever there is intervention in Syria, Mali, Iran or half a dozen other places where it might be needed in the next decade.  This is not wise or economical.

Our mantra should be:  light where we can, heavy where we must.

PS:  David Rothkopf hopes what he calls the “disengagers” will redouble diplomatic efforts.  Would that it be so.