Choosing the right foreign policy is crucial to our future.

 The next president’s foreign policy probably will decide if the United States’ survives as a believable force in international affairs. Therefore, Americans must choose their next president carefully. The long 2008 presidential campaign gives voters the opportunity to examine candidates’ credentials.

Presidential candidates Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney presented their respective foreign policy strategies in Foreign Affairs articles. Both candidates see the need for America to restore its damaged image and role in international affairs. They have similar ideas about what must be done but different ways of achieving it.

 Obama leans more toward consensus and multilateral relationships.  “Needed reform of these alliances and institutions will not come by bullying other countries to ratify changes we hatch in isolation,” Obama said. “It will come when we convince other governments and peoples that they, too, have a stake in effective partnerships.” 

Romney seems committed to using American military might and economic power as the way to bolster United States’ leadership role in international relationships. He believes that having international partnerships amplify United States’ power. Nevertheless, he concludes the United States should act as the primary and lead nation in those international partnerships, because it is the world’s superpower.  Romney wrote, “We are a unique nation, and there is no substitute for our leadership.”  About the Middle East he said, “In no area is our leadership more important and more urgently than the Islamic world.”  

Romney’s foreign policy model suffers from a prevalent misconception shared by many Americans. They believe the world waits with bated breath for the wisdom of American leadership. This misconception convinces them the United States should join international team efforts, but always as quarterback or leader.

For a longtime American foreign policy operated on the principle that wealth equals wisdom.  American political leaders presumed the President of the United States’ should set policy for all allied groups since he is the leaders of the richest nation that supplies the war toys to partnership members.  This attitude creates international resentments. Even people in dire need of American humanitarian relief demand respect and a say in deciding the best solution for their problems.  

The Iraq War repeats for Americans and their leaders the lesson they should have learned forty years ago from the Vietnam War. America cannot buy allies or treat people like children and expect their enthusiastic support.  The United States does not get well motivated allies when it treats people with paternalistic disdain and as pawns in United States’ grand plan. This point was proved by the spectacle of the United States and its allies defeated or stalemated by a smaller poorly equipped, but better motivated Vietnamese and Iraq insurgents.  

Nobody mentions it, but terrorist tactics are a response to superpowers projecting their military and economic powers around the world during the cold war. Terror tactics, the wanton killing of civilians, are brutal and unacceptable, but proved an effective tactic for small groups.

It is a shame that government and the news media mislead the public by reporting terror tactics as worldwide terrorism.  They imply that defeating al-Qaeda will end the use of terror tactics. Instead, they should make clear that groups besides al-Qaeda use terror tactics to advance various causes. When people understand this reality they understand that forming cooperative international partnerships, not fielding huge armies, is the best way to neutralize the effectiveness of terror tactics. 

Exposure, removing their cover, is the only way to attack extremist groups that rely on terror tactics to win. The United States and other nations remove this cover by entering cooperative partnerships with the people those militant groups hid among. However, cooperative partnerships are those with mutual respect and with common goals that benefit all partners. Each partner must have a national stake in the effort to stop terrorist tactics that is more than protecting American interests or receiving American money.  Therefore, the next United States president must be willing to enter partnerships as a member and not unilaterally as leader or quarterback.

In contrast, a United States’ power projection foreign policy model requires the constant application of force to keep people in line. No, nation has the military or economic resources to do this indefinitely.  In addition, U.S. forces cannot exert military power unless it identifies y the enemy. They will need help from the local population to do this. However, they will not receive it having rejected them as equal cooperating international partners.  

Kenneth Brooks is a freelance writer and speaker. Contact him at P.O. Box 882, Vallejo, CA 94590. E-mail to: opinion@ethicalego.com.