When the late Russell Wiggins was editor of the Washington Post in the 1960s, he liked to say that in US foreign and security policy, “the stockade comes first.”
He referred to the Old West when the cavalry rode out from the stockade, or fort, to protect settlers from marauding outlaws or Indians on the warpath. However, if the mounted soldiers were forced to choose between defending the far-flung settlers or their home base, the stockade came first. Otherwise, the cavalry would be unable to defend anyone.
Today, Americans see their armed forces and diplomats stretched thin, their politicians bitterly divided, the economy limping and allies willing to stand by while the US polices the globe. Maybe it is time for the US to tell the world that if it is forced to choose, the stockade will come first.
That may have been the intent, even if inadvertent, of US President Barack Obama last week when he canceled a trip to Indonesia and Australia for the second time so that he could attend to the vast oil spill along the Gulf Coast.
June 6 marks the anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy in 1944, not only the largest and most dangerous cross-water invasion in history, but also the emblem of US power projection that now extends further than that of the Roman or Mongol empires. US forces fighting in Afghanistan are direct descendants of those who fought in Normandy 66 years ago.
Given that stretch, the US should consider retrenching, pulling back from some foreign engagements, but not retreating into a “Fortress America.” The posture of the US should be somewhere between walking the streets as the policeman of the world and being a watchman on the ramparts of an isolationist citadel.
Obama started down this path in the National Security Strategy he issued last month — but made only the first moves.
“Our strategy starts by recognizing that our strength and influence abroad begins with the steps we take at home,” the president wrote.
He said the US should expand its economy, reduce the federal deficit, better educate the nation’s children, develop clean energy and cut dependence on foreign oil.
The president asserted: “We must see innovation as a foundation of American power.”
Addressing other nations, he cautioned: “The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone — indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.”
He vowed the US would not go it alone, but then said little about getting others to pick up a share of the military, diplomatic and economic burden.
Japan, South Korea and other allies and friends in Asia need to assume some of the load now carried by the US for the common defense. In a key measure, defense spending, only tiny Singapore bears a burden equal in proportion to that of the US.
In the most recent year examined, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found the US spent 4 percent of its wealth on defense; Singapore spent 4.1 percent. The rest trailed far behind, ranging from 0.9 percent in Japan to between 1 percent and 2 percent in Indonesia, Thailand and Australia and from 2 percent to 2.6 percent in Taiwan, India and South Korea.
Asians often complain about the overwhelming presence of US forces, which US taxpayers pay for. Those Americans would surely be glad if Asian taxpayers picked up some of that burden.
Richard Halloran is a freelance writer in Hawaii.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS