A Subtle Shift in Foreign Policy?

It is fair to state that the diminished influence of Neoconservatives on U.S. foreign policy has indeed occurred after reading the U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' comments this past week to the British strategic studies group, Oxford Analytica.

Gates has already shown an aversion to the Cheny/Wolfowitz form of foreign policy. Almost immediately after taking the reins at the Pentagon, Gates influenced the decision for the Iraq troop surge, a not-so-subtle indictment of the established paradigm. Instead of ignoring the importance of NATO and the UN for nation building, Gates has shown a pragmatic stance towards embracing these organizations. He remains open to new lines of thinking regarding Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

It is not the SecDef's job to craft foreign policy. However, it appears that the Bush Administration is in more and more of a lame-duck mode leaving more responsibilities to others. This is partly evidenced by the starring role, and near-complete control, that has been given to Treasury Secretary Paulson throughout the September financial crisis. A less-noticeable hand-off has happened for a longer duration at the Pentagon where Gates is taking less daily directive from the White House. This influence at the agency level is significant because as Inauguration Day approaches, the subtle effects of these policy shifts will have lasting effects well beyond January.

Make no mistake, Gates remains an appointee of the President. As such, he does not make remarks that conflict with certain politically-sensitive subject matters. However, Gates is putting his stamp on the direction of U.S. military involvement globally; and it appears that his stamp is from a softer ideological ink pad. A well-articulated foreign policy must embrace the nuances of geopolitics with a big, Teddy Roosevelt stick. In other words, just as Chamberlain-level appeasement should not be considered an adequate Foreign Policy, neither should an Irving Kristol-level of preemptive use of force. Gates clearly understands this. At the Oxford Analytica event Mr. Gates articulated that the U.S. foreign policy goal should be, “to balance restraint in international affairs with the resolve and will to back up our commitments and defend our interests when called upon.” Geopolitical Thoughts hopes that the next administration embraces this balanced, gradated approach to international affairs.

Clowns to the Left of me, Jokers to the Right...

...and with apologies to Stealers Wheel... here we are, stuck in the middle. There have been some startling events this past summer that continue to point towards a rapidly-developing second Cold War.

We have all watched Hugo Chavez these past few years with a mixture of confusion and amusement. (Anyone who's attended the annual Offshore Technology Conference to see PDVSA's booth can agree with the latter.) But if history has taught us anything, one of the emotions we shouldn't ignore is concern. In late August, Iran and Venezuela formed a formal partnership. This is much more than just two of the world's wackiest leaders sharing tea. There are the obvious implications to the world energy complex. There are the more subtle possibilities should Russia, Iran, and Venezuela continue to make overt displays of power together. And then there is the downright scary implications of terrorism increasing in the U.S.'s backyard.

The LA Times confirmed that American officials believe Hezbollah is already making preparations to establish operations in Venezuela. As William Falk points out, "The group intends to create a special terrorist cell to kidnap Jewish businessmen in Latin America and take them back to Lebanon, the intelligence officials said. Another danger, they say, is that Hezbollah could use Venezuela as a base from which to insert terrorists into the United States." This news should have been more widely reported, but it happened during a time span dominated by news of the DNC, hurricane evacuations, and the RNC.

Venezuela's actions won't be ignored by DOD, the NSA, or the CIA. However, there are only so many things the U.S. can do unilaterally. The current U.S. foreign policy, in part, has been held together by the U.S.'s ability to have troops in direct contact with Al-Sadr-led Hezbollah efforts in Iraq. What happens to the foundation of this policy if Hezbollah successfully transfers their operations to a nation the U.S. has absolutely no ability to influence through military threat?

Georgia in a vacuum

The U.S. media has been giving adequate attention to the increasing U.S. response to Russia's actions in Georgia. However, there has been a surprising amount of events that have received little mainstream media attention stateside. In fact, aside from an occasional blurb, a major point that is being overlooked is the support Russia is getting for its actions in Georgia. This is not to say that Russia's support is from the likes of the U.K. or Japan, but it is to say that Russia is doing spin-control of its own to help legitimize their actions. The more Russia can create an appearance of legitimization on the international stage, the easier it will be for Russia to complicate any efforts the U.S. may try to employ in diplomatic circles such as enlarging NATO. This may seem like a feeble maneuver, yet it is another step in Russia's strategy for regional superiority and influence. Worse, this is another step in the burgeoning Second Cold War (more on that later). The Georgia actions are not in a vacuum. The Bush Administration may know this, but the U.S. media isn't giving this aspect of the situation enough attention by exploring the bigger implications.