Panelists suggest plan of action for next president

An Americans for Informed Democracy-sponsored discussion yesterday probed the question of how the next president will address the current economic and political problems the country faces, with five different perspectives.

The talk was titled, "The New American Grand Strategy," and featured professors Seth Jacobs of the history department, Nasser Behnegar of the political science department, Mark Sheetz of the political science department, Robert Ross of the political science department, and Charles Derber of the sociology department.

Jacobs began by citing the strategy used by Caspar Weinberger, the secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan. His idea, now called the Weinberger Doctrine, has six points.

First, the United States should not commit troops unless a nation vital to the United States is at stake; second, troops should only be committed with the intent of winning the conflict; third, troops should only be committed with clearly defined objectives for success; fourth, there should be continual assessment and adjustment of the strategy if necessary; fifth, troops should not be committed without reasonable assurance of congressional and general support; and sixth, troop commitment should only be considered as a last resort.

Although Jacobs assessed the Reagan administration with great skepticism, he said he feels as though the next president must return to this style of foreign policy to "put parameters on U.S. military operations." Even then, he said, there is great strain put on the soldiers and generals.

"The military cannot build a state in an alien culture," Jacobs said.

Behnegar then addressed the crowd of students by comparing the job of the future president to the job of a chef preparing many dishes. In the future, it will be imperative to "pay attention to our instincts, but not trust them," he said.

In the process of fighting wars in the Middle East, we have only strengthened Iran, our greatest adversary in the region, he said. Despite this unintended side effect, Behnegar does not have a grand solution for the United States.

"Our national interests cannot be separated from our moral interests," he said. Only by fashioning a policy that complies with this sentiment can the United States "leave Iraq with a clear conscience."

Sheetz used a term that would become the focus for the rest of the evening: hegemony.

Sheetz said he believes that this notion, the fact that "we are No. 1," has been agreed upon by both Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, Americans will see no dramatic change in the foreign policy of the future.

"What stands between order and chaos is American leadership," he said.

In fact, both parties are committed to maintaining troop levels in Asia and Europe, strengthening NATO, and rebuilding the U.S. military, all in light of the fact that the budget for the American military exceeds that of all the other nations combined.

Sheetz said what was most distressing, though, is that all candidates appear committed to continuing the war in Afghanistan, something he has labeled a "fool's errand."

"Terrorism seems to be the focus of 21st century foreign policy," Sheetz said. This is why he said he believes that the next president will probably take a conventional line by focusing on the United States as a "global sheriff" looking for its "foreign deputies."

The theme of hegemony continued with Ross, who said that America's future in this world has been seriously compromised because of monetary, spiritual, and defensive bankruptcy.

If the next president continues at the same pace of the current administration, he said, we will be forced to change because of literal bankruptcy.

"You can't do it all," he said, America cannot have troops stationed all across the world. Ross said that America must abandon all military posts in countries not vital to U.S. interests.

"I'm in the cut-and-run school," he said. Then, the United States must reevaluate its true interest - keeping a balance of power, the same thing America has tried to preserve since its inception. To accomplish this, Ross said we must maintain a divided Europe through military presence and a divided Asia through our naval strength.

Derber addressed the audience from a slightly different perspective.

"The issues we are talking about here really matter," he said.

All of these concerns, he said, can be linked to an expansionist impulse that has been present in the American conscience since the ideas of "city upon a hill" or manifest destiny.

The desire to expand has been a consistent force in U.S. history, and it is not surprising that current leaders have linked this hegemony to a moral argument.

"Empires always have a moral narrative," Derber said.

Derber agreed with Sheetz that there will be no fundamental change with the next administration, primarily because the desire to rule is so deeply ingrained in American culture. Change, therefore, is up to the politically active of this country, especially university students.

"We exist in a bubble," Derber said. "It is our obligation to recognize the daunting challenge of changing the political conversation in the U.S."