The United States has a storied history in land wars: it has met success in World Wars One and Two on land in Europe, fought to stalemate against the Chinese in Korea, and was defeated by irregular forces (and domestic unrest) in Vietnam. This history of U.S. involvement in land wars could confuse exactly what kind of power the United States actually is.

Before we get to that, a quick point: There are two kinds of great powers: land powers and sea powers. This is determined by geography more than politics, technology and choice. For instance, with a huge territory that borders multiple states, Russia is a land power because it must upkeep a large army to defend its borders. The United Kingdom, when it was a great power, was a sea power. This is determined by the simple fact that it is surrounded by sea and, because it did not have to fund a standing army, had to invest in a navy for its defense.

Though the United States has a large landmass and borders, it does not have any military power on its borders. Weak border states (thank you Canada and Mexico) allow great powers to focus military funding to other areas. Without threats on its borders, the United States does not need to maintain a standing army to defend the homeland and focuses on power projection through its navy. Hence, the United States has 11 aircraft carriers (the UK and France are the only other countries with real carriers, they are half the size of U.S. carriers and they only have 2 and 1 respectively).

Now, back on topic…carriers are essential to American power projection. As a naval power and with geographic isolation, the aircraft carriers provide platforms for assault on foreign land, disruption of enemy naval operations, and, most importantly, defense of carrier groups and troop transports en route to military engagement.

With the economy going sour and no true naval competitor in the running, politicians may be willing to cut back on military spending and the number of aircraft carriers the navy operates. Defense Secretary Gates “asked whether the United States could afford ‘a Navy that relies on 3- to 6-billion-dollar destroyers, along with 7-billion-dollar submarines and 11-billion-dollar carriers.’”

While the United States may not be actively engaging in military operations against an enemy with its own aircraft carriers, they remain essential tools in American foreign policy. First, they are a demonstration of American power projection: with a global presence that packs a true punch, the aircraft carrier is the face of the United States abroad. Among other reasons, aircraft carriers are also tools for demonstrating US credibility. For example, sailing a carrier down the Taiwan Strait in response to Chinese aggression says “Back off, Beijing.” As a naval power, it would be an utter mistake to cut back on the number American aircraft carriers.

For more see: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6460AN20100507?type=politicsNews

When the going gets tough in international politics, it becomes clear exactly who the great powers are and which relationships are the most important to a country. In the wake of a North Korea human torpedo attack on the South Korean Corvette Cheonan, the South Korean government met with China. That is, China, as in not the United States.

Could you have imagined what kind of fallout, both domestic and internationally, would have occurred if the same thing happened 20 years ago? If, during the Cold War, or even the years after the Cold War, South Korea turned to China and met with the Premier to discuss the state of affairs on the Korean Peninsula? So, what does this mean?

Simply put, we are witnessing the shift of power in East Asia away from the United States and towards China. Each day, as China’s economy grows and, most importantly, it modernizes its military, its influence over the affairs on mainland East Asia grows. It is the great land power of East Asia and all other land powers take their cues from it. When considering its reaction to North Korea, an unpredictable Chinese ally, it must consult China. This is not necessarily a bad thing: as the mainland consolidates under Chinese influence, the flash-points where conflict with China is likely to erupt will slowly evaporate, stabilizing the region and splitting it cleanly across a land and sea boundary. So, let’s get used to the idea of China taking the lead on the land.

See this link for more information: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63T0SH20100430

On March 26, the South Korean corvette, the Cheonan, was sunk. After much speculation, it is now believed that North Korea launched a torpedo at the corvette and sunk it, killing the 46 sailors aboard. The South has not officially blamed the North and the North has denied any involvement. For the official North Korean response click here. Of course, both sides are now trading harsh rhetoric but, as is expected, neither side is taking any real action. (After all, in great power politics, the small powers take sides and follow the leader).

This is not the first time that North Korea has attacked the South since the truce that effectively ended the Korean War and set up the DMZ that divides the country to this day. For a complete list of incursions, assassinations, and assassination attempts click here. With a history of North Korea walking the very fine line between war and peace, and without a firm response from South Korea, it seems as though something is out of place here. If South Korea could definitively prove that North Korea was responsible for the attack, what then? To whom would South Korea turn? Surely, the United States is not interested in a land war in Asia. China is in a tough position, courting both sides, but it too wouldn’t want to see a war on its border or the unification of the Korean Peninsula under the South Korean regime (a U.S. ally). And, if South Korea does not make the North pay for this action, what happens to its credibility? Can it afford to let such an egregious act against its citizens go unpunished?

As a small power, South Korea does not have a military option, or any real option altogether, other than to follow the United States’ lead on this one. At least behind the scenes, the United States will work to ensure that no conflict will break out over this incident. But China must take the lead in this matter: As the only land power in East Asia, its word is most important when it comes to the state of affairs on its borders. China is becoming very cautious about the erratic regime in the North, as its relationship with that government (coupled with its behavior) could strain its relationship with the U.S. (its most important relationship for the foreseeable future) and possibly lead serious deterioration and/or conflict. Hopefully it is able to rein in Kim Jong Il (if that is even possible) before things really heat up.

The New York Time yesterday unveiled a new super-weapon, called Prompt Global Strike, in development by the United States military. Though not currently operational this new weapon will surely redefine American military strategy for many years to come. A multi-stage launch process would allow for the launch of a missile, the deployment of a ‘glider’ that could maneuver with pinpoint accuracy, and the final deployment of a very large conventional warhead. This allows for the deployment of munitions to any point on the globe with in an hour, theoretically. Seeing as Obama has taken the United States a few steps away from the nuclear option, this new technology could prove extremely useful for both war time military action as well as the targeting of terrorist networks.

Such a weapon is always a double-edged sword. The ability of any great power to accurately target and deliver massive conventional power within an hour is a development that will surely strike suspicion and fear into the hearts of our competitors (most notably Russia and China). That much is to be expected (imagine how we would feel if Russia developed something like this…). Due to the powerful nature of this weapon, it is proposed that Russia will be allowed to inspect our active sites to be sure that nuclear warheads are not attached to these tricky weapons systems. It is worth noting that the Bush administration chose to push off dealing with this issue to the Obama administration: clearly, fighting two unpopular wars demanded too much of their time to develop theory and procedure for this new weapon. However, it also highlights just how much work needs to go into handling this development: it has the ability to upset the international relations considerably. This clearly shouldn’t limit our ambitions, but the United States must carefully approach rolling out this new technology.

Information about this weapon system was found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/world/europe/23strike.html?scp=5&sq=us%20military%20nukes%20russia&st=cse

The image of the Republican party before the 2008 was crippled by “Bush’s Wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, by the time McCain and Obama were squaring off for the Presidency, Iraq had lost its preeminence in the debates as focus shifted to the ailing American economy. This shift was also encouraged when Bush finally succumbed to the advice of his generals and approved General Patraeus’ troop “surge,” which brought order to Iraq and set the country back on track (at least for now). Afghanistan remained an important part of the Presidential debate as well though, unlike Iraq, it is widely regarded as a “just” war. Here too McCain and Obama knocked heads: McCain emphasized Obama’s misreading of the Iraq troop surge and Obama focused on finishing the mismanaged war and bringing American soldiers back home.

With a year of Obama’s foreign policy it is quite clear that in these two theaters Obama is quite in line with his predecessor’s strategy (at least the one that was adopted on the eve of Obama’s election). Obama has allowed the troop surge to continue in Iraq and America has met success in this endeavor. Though Obama shouldn’t be commended for staying a course that was already widely regarded as a successful one, at least he didn’t pull out of Iraq completely, as many of his supporters advocated.

What’s more, and truly shocking considering his campaign rhetoric, Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan. His new surge (which coincided with his Nobel Peace Prize) called for an additional 30,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan to rein in the Taliban and warlord elements in the country and establish some semblance of order. Furthermore, Afghanistan’s neighbor, Pakistan, has also been working closely with Obama (who made good on his promise to bomb terrorists operating in Pakistan) to root out the irregular forces operating at the border. In this escalation in Afghanistan, should Obama be commended?

Former President Bush should, first of all, never have diverted our forces away from the efforts in Afghanistan. The fact that we still have not caught Osama Bin Laden is a true embarrassment, though it doesn’t seem as though he has any real power any more. However, even after having made that mistake, he should have escalated Afghanistan in much the same way that he escalated Iraq. The question is, was it too late? Apparently, Obama believes that we still have time to fix the situation (though, it is interesting to debate whether Obama would have done this on his own or if McChrystal’s unorthodox requests through news media channels got the job done).

The latest development in Afghanistan is, of course, President Karzai’s courting of Iranian friendship and the string of insults leveled against the USA. Thomas Friedman, in a NY Times Op-Ed piece, said it best: “Never want it more than they do.” If the Afghan people (or at least the leadership) won’t support American efforts in the country then, no matter how hard we try to build a viable nation there, we will fail. Obama has demonstrated he is no pushover in Afghanistan, but he must remain vigilant, especially with Afghan politics.

Now that we have escalated the war in Afghanistan only to find that our “ally” doesn’t want us there, what do we do? Time will tell whether or not our troop escalation in Afghanistan was a wise tactic or not. Tragically, American lives are at stake.

President Obama began his tenure as President of the United States with a tour around the world. One of the places where he made a considerable political statement was in the Middle East. During the election, Obama declared that he would take a more pragmatic approach to the region and “talk with our enemies,” an apparently stark contrast to the Bush Administration’s cutting of communication with Iran.

What is now called Obama’s Cairo Speech, President Obama offered rapprochement between the Western and Islamic world. This serves as a good basis of analyzing exactly what Obama proposed to accomplish and what has happened in his first year in office.

In the second point of his speech, Obama addresses the elephant in the room: the Israeli-Palestinean conflict. Here, Obama focuses on the persecution of both parties throughout history and calls on each to renounce violence and work together to achieve peace and security for all. Both parties must recognize the other’s right to exist and address work together to achieve them. This was heralded as a good change in rhetoric that committed the United States to building peace in the region.

Since that time, international news has focused on Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine as a true measurement of the progress made towards peace. Recently, while Vice President Biden was in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu gave the green light to constructing Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. Secretary of State Clinton ha since said that this was “insulting” yet it is apparent that something has failed. Ultimately, the United States and Israel will continue to differ on this matter because while Israel sees its neighbors as existential threats, the United States is not threatened in the same way by these countries: while Israel sees standing armies and a Syrian attempt to get a nuclear weapon, we see small terrorist havens. Clearly, these threats are different in size and importance (especially when the United States is bogged down in two other ground wars) and it leads to two opposing perspectives: Israel sees this as a security issue while the United States sees it as a diplomatic issue. While the United States may be the only game in town, is it truly suited to lead a peace initiative in the region, or, must it come from and be led by Israel?

Iran was also addressed in the Cairo speech, in a much shorter section about nuclear weapons. Obama addressed international concerns about what is perceived as an Iranian attempt to join the nuclear club. While Iran denies this, few in the international community truly believe they have peaceful ambitions. Since this speech, the most important development in the US-Iranian relationship was the discovery of a secret Iranian nuclear facility that had been hidden from the international community and its nuclear watchdog, the IEAE. It is nearly impossible to read intentions in international politics. The student of international politics will instead use capabilities as the measurement of a threat. However, if a country that is suspected of conducting a nuclear weapon research program is hiding a nuclear facility, it is quite clear what that country’s intentions truly are.

Obama ran on a platform of speaking to your enemies. Communication is always important, but that is where this experiment stops. Many will say that if you treat a country like an enemy, you will make an enemy out of it. And this is where Obama was truly coming from: we should stop antagonizing Iran so we don’t make the situation in the Middle East any worse. The only problem is this: what if the country you are treating like a friend is going to be an enemy no matter what? Then what do you do?

Philosoguy.com reported recently about American arms sales to Taiwan, citing their importance in the demonstration of America’s commitment to its regional allies and the position of American power in East Asia. To sacrifice these two advantages in the name of appeasing China would have been a serious mistake. Since that time President Obama stood his ground and proceeded with the arms sales despite Chinese objections and the threat of a ‘cooling’ of U.S.-China relations.

Yesterday, while perusing the usual websites, I came across the following article on Reuters.com in which the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao proposed a broad economic agreement and the strengthening of cross-strait relations. Keep in mind that a mere few weeks ago the language coming out of Beijing was extremely hostile to the United States and Taiwan. Now, as reported by the article, the Premier is talking about “peaceful reunification” and a “win-win situation” in the cross-strait relationship.

It would appear that two things have occurred: the first is that the United States has credibly demonstrated its commitment to its regional allies by weathering China’s reaction to the arms deal. Taiwan, even with F-16′s, does not have the ability to stop a Chinese invasion…but that is not the point: America has signaled that it will only allow a peaceful reunification of China and Taiwan. Continued American arms deals with Taiwan are the island’s only bargaining chip to ensure this. China tested the mettle of the Obama administration and the President should be commended for his actions.

Second, the use of arms deals as a bargaining chip can be directly linked to a more positive turn in the U.S.-China-Taiwan triangle. China’s adoption of friendly rhetoric and actions (tourism, trade, and economic deals) are shaped by American involvement in the region. Our continued security presence ensures Taiwan’s security. Furthermore, clear messages and signals, like arms deals, allows for healthy communication between Asia’s two great powers. Dialogue will continue to be important, though we should not limit it strictly to speeches. As Obama has demonstrated, arms sales and alliances speak louder than words.

This marks the first of a series of articles analyzing President Obama’s foreign policy initiatives since the beginning of his administration. President Obama finds himself at a pivotal time in American history: The U.S. is embattled in a global “War on Terror,” which includes two very important ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Overall relations between the Western and Islamic worlds are bad as the American military presence in Muslim countries continues to be viewed as invasion and occupation.

These wars come at a time when significant shifts are taking place in global security politics. China is rising at an impressive rate and will soon stand as the second largest economy in the world. India, Brazil and Russia are all rising in their own ways. Of these, Russia is presenting the most significant challenges to the United States, including its small war in Georgia and its growing influence in Eastern Europe. Rumors have it that Iran is developing its own nuclear arsenal and Israel vows to never let this existential threat arise. As if the rise of its competitors doesn’t present enough challenges the United States must also manage its long-standing relationships with its allies and friends, most significantly in Europe (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and East Europe) as well as in Asia (Japan and Taiwan).

Philosoguy.com will be publishing a series of foreign policy reviews concerning these important foreign policy issues. The main talking points and the order in which they will be discussed are:

I. The Middle East: Israel and Iran
II. America’s Ground Wars: Iraq and Afghanistan
III. The Western Hemisphere
IV. Europe: The West and Russia
V. Rising China

Much is being made of Europe in foreign policy circle these days. For one, the European Union’s economy is now larger than the United States’ economy. Its collective population is also larger than that of the United States. While these are important facts, the assumption that these numbers are indicators of European ascendency is naive.

First and foremost, don’t let these population and economic numbers fool you. Europe’s population is on the decline all across the board and that won’t be changing anytime soon. It’s hard to imagine Europe as a great power without any Europeans. And its economy…that’s a whole other story. Its steady pace of 1-2% growth is abysmal. In another 25 to 30 years, when China’s GDP surpasses the U.S., Europhiles should shudder to think about the depths to which the European economy will have sunk.

Perhaps the most important reason for Europe’s global insignificance is that for all its economic and population grandeur it is still a fractious and divided continent. While we may laugh at the French and Italian governments for arguing about their own wines and cheeses, this comical side show is a symptom of the true ‘disease’ that will continue to relegate Europe to a bystander position in international politics. Simply put, Europe is not a nation, no matter how much the Europhiles wish it is. Each country in Europe has its own independent entity, with its own goals, values, and, of course, its own military (the true kicker). How can Europe expect to take a proper military stand when each country must defend its own borders? Europe cannot agree on a common foreign policy (except in efforts useless to international security politics, like climate change). As long as Europe continues to be this divided in security issues it will remain in the shadows of America and China.

Finally, no one should ever expect Europe to be a global leader as long as each important country in Europe looks to the United States for leadership. By these important countries I mean Great Britain, France, Germany (and maybe Italy). Because Europe truly is not its own entity but merely an apparatus of economic policies its units will behave in the same way non-great power states do: they fall into line. Seeing as, for the moment, the United States is the only game in town, we can expect American leadership in the European continent for many years to come.

Many have rightly heralded the rise of Ma Ying-jeou in Taiwan as the beginning of a new era in cross-strait relations. Taiwan is slowly moving towards the Chinese sphere of influence as China continues to grow and become a more powerful influencer to Taiwanese policy than American security commitments. Some might ask why, if this is the case, the United States continues its arms sales to Taiwan. The island itself could not fend off a Chinese invasion and it is possible that China could invade and completely occupy the island before the United States could mount a counter attack.

The reason why these arms sales are so important to the United States and Taiwan is that they are the last bargaining chip the U.S. has to pressure and shape Chinese policy in relation to Taiwan. Clearly, as the Chinese air force grows and its surface to air missiles become more advanced, Taiwan’s military will eventually be outmatched. However, it is still a thorn in China’s side to see American-made military equipment on the island. First, American military technology is still much more advanced than China’s, which would cause serious problems for a Chinese invasion. Second, and most importantly, it is a tangible demonstration of America’s commitment to its allies and a prime indicator of American credibility in East Asia and the Pacific. As long as America agrees to thumb its nose at China and sell weapons to Taiwan, the U.S. demonstrates its commitment to Taiwan and its alliances, firmly attributing them paramount significance, especially with regard to Sino-American relations.

To cancel or revoke arms sales to Taiwan would be bad on two levels: the first is that it would signal to China and our allies in the Pacific that our resolve in Asia is diminishing. This would be perceived by allies in the region as a serious threat to security and would cause either a serious shockwave in our regional alliances or, at worst, a shift of some of our allies to the Chinese sphere of influence. Secondly, it would be pointless. The United States is still much more powerful than China, though China continues to grow at impressive rates. To give into a weaker power simply to avoid diplomatic headaches would be a huge mistake. China, for all the hot air it is blowing, will not go to war over arms sales to Taiwan. To perceive Chinese protests over these arms sales as a serious indicator of changing trends in the security arrangement in East Asia is a serious misperception.

As the final bargaining chip that Taiwan has in its relations with China, arms sales must continue until Taiwan itself decides that it no longer wants them. This is the only way to ensure fair treatment and a peaceful resolution to the decades-old dispute in the strait.