America’s Containment Foreign Policy No Longer Works – OpEd

By

Forget the ‘Grand Schemes,’ he said, the world was now too complex. Try, instead, he suggested, “for a thoughtful paragraph or two.”George F. Kennan (1994)

Why is it that American foreign policy experts continue to reiterate (perhaps regurgitate would be more apt) a seemingly inherited trait that has lost its relevance? Moreover, this trait perpetuates a widespread belief that protecting vital U.S. interests abroad depends on the perception that America is willing to intervene irrespective of the magnitude of the interests, the power of the perceived adversary, or on whose territory the engagement might occur.

This mantra of the foreign policy elite sounds suspiciously like something George F. Kennan might have uttered back when I was old enough to fight in Vietnam – but too consumed with Cold War propaganda to know better (and this continues today with many young Americans). Ed Hermann and Noam Chomsky would later call this propaganda effect ‘manufactured consent’ in their 1988 seminal text, Manufacturing Consent.

Containment 

The narrative and its attendant propaganda have their genesis in a Cold War era initiative called ‘Containment.’ The latter was a geopolitical strategic foreign policy pursued by the United States during the post-World War II era – ostensibly to prevent the spread of communism.

The theory asserted that if any country in a region fell to communism, other and potentially more strategically significant states would soon follow. The experience of the Vietnam War and its aftermath should have dissuaded American policymakers today from accepting this principle. The latter, after years of ineffectiveness (and afraid politically to lose face by admitting victory was impossible) pointlessly wreaked destruction on Southeast Asian countries including Cambodia and Laos

Vietnam ultimately fell to communist Hanoi in 1975 after a 10-year US military campaign fought mostly from the Pentagon with 50,000+ American soldiers dead and millions of Vietnamese. The overarching result was a somewhat humbled US and a foreign policy based on “containment” that would eventually reveal its ‘non universal applicability.’ 

Unfortunately, this predisposition towards the “containment theory” remains deeply entrenched amongst the “deep state,” foreign policy elite and op-ed sections of conservative magazines and newspapers that (by now) should know better. No real effort is needed to illustrate its persistence.

Take for instance the Afghanistan war and its withdrawal debacle. Many, including former president Trump, have called it “the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country,” and claimed the withdrawal was “why Russia attacked Ukraine.”

A further example comes from another “authority,” Vice President Harris. She recently claimed that “Putin’s agenda is not just about Ukraine,” and that if it had not been for the Biden administration, “Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe…starting with Poland.”

Today, there is little appreciation for foreign policy more sophisticated than aphorisms scribbled on a “sticky note,” like “peace through strength.” Yet, these often get more of a hearing than merits the energy to utter them.

The other half of the story is that media personalities and those that grace op-ed pages take literary license with these “sticky-note aphorisms” repeating them incessantly until they become accepted as “conventional wisdom.” The effect is to promote American foreign policy based solely on economic, political and military hegemony (sanctions, etc.) – not strategic leadership.

Dissenting views are increasingly either crowded out, ridiculed as uninformed or simply canceled by providing no avenue for their public dissemination.

The most developed post-Cold War strategy for continuing the idea of containment was articulated by Dick Cheney’s Pentagon in the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, which was leaked to the New York Times. “Our first objective,” an early draft read, “is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.”

The White House disavowed the Cheney document, and George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, later described the Pentagon’s approach at the time as just plain “nutty.”

What continues to get the US into geopolitical difficulty is that flawed assumptions (for various reasons) about three countries in particular (China, Russia and India) are taken for granted, and foreign policy initiatives are pursued simultaneously with often shortsighted partisan political agendas without placing limits on what constitutes too high a price if failure occurs. And since Vietnam, the latter has occurred all too frequently

In short, US foreign policy is in need of greater correlation between level headed ambition (what we want or should want) and ability (what we actually can do without overreaching and overstaying our “welcome”).

US Foreign Policy Today

US foreign policy today – briefly stated – is focused on three countries: China and Russia as adversaries and India as a “potential partner.” This foreign policy remains essentially an extension of the Cold War “containment” mentality. 

The three countries at the summit of America’s foreign policy agenda have several things in common which the US must understand and consider in developing its geopolitical response to them: history, trust and coercion

Each country has an unfavorable history with the West. China experienced its “century of humiliation” for over a hundred years at the hands of the West. Russia was lied to about any further encroachment by NATO at its most vulnerable time after the fall of the wall in ‘89. India was colonized and, therefore, coerced into political and economic acquiescence dating back over 100 years to the era of the British East India Company.

China. Today, US foreign policy designed to contain China is implemented economically via sanctions, restricting access to critical resources to prevent technological innovation and aligning with Southeast Asian countries (in South China Sea disputes) to impede China’s open seas access. The US assumptions taken for granted about China are flawed. It does not seem to understand China from a historical perspective — which is imperative to understanding it at all. Beijing operates from a historical mindset such that actions by the West are perceived to be designed to take away more of China’s sovereign territory (e.g. Taiwan, South China Sea etc.). The US needs to learn China does not want war; rather, it wants and needs prosperity to build an economy to foster a military to protect its sovereignty – just like the US. China wants and needs the existing Western institutional infrastructure to remain intact to profit from it. 

Russia. US foreign policy of containment directed against Russia recently took on the characteristics of a US-led proxy war with Ukraine as the vehicle to achieve its aim of destroying the Russian economy and preventing the rise of the BRICS+ as a potential threat and competitor to Western economic and political hegemony. Massive deaths from substantial military aid and sanctions by the US and its allies for over two years have failed to produce the desired results. The BBC reported in April of this year, “Russia to grow faster than all advanced economies, says IMF.” 

The Ukraine conversely is already economically and militarily totally dependent on its Western backers to sustain itself as a nation-state.

The US operates from outdated Cold War logic about Moscow. Russia is on record via Vladimir Putin that the Russian military is no match for NATO. That is why one hears so much saber-rattling about the “nuclear card,” which Putin has also said is an insane idea and would only be employed against an existential threat to Russia.

India. The US has failed in its attempts to draw New Delhi away from Moscow. India refuses to yield to US pressure regarding Western sanctions against Russia. Moreover, a recent Modi-Putin Summit clearly reiterated the strong seemingly unbreakable trust between these two leaders and their countries. The US recently threatened India with sanctions for the Chabahar port deal with Iran. 

US assumptions about New Delhi are questionable at best. It still does not seem to understand or believe India’s position relative to the West: India is non-Western but not anti-Western – she is non-aligned. And although New Delhi may be a potential partner with the US – to be a countervailing influence to help “contain” China — it is unlikely to be that vis-a-vis Russia.

Given the extent of America’s present foreign military engagements, it appears that containment remains the foreign policy of choice. Any issues the ‘war hawks’ may have about an ‘America First’ foreign policy or the fear of “isolationism” – apparently such concerns are patently unwarranted.

The US and its NATO allies continue their attempt to contain Russia by isolating it and encroaching upon its borders. Since such behavior risks a potential direct conflict with Moscow over Ukraine, isn’t it time to jettison our 60-year national preoccupation with “containment” of our perceived adversaries. 

US foreign policy must cohere with what is in America’s best interest rather than partisan political agendas so characteristic of each new administration inside the Beltway – adventures that put us all in jeopardy – but so far, looks like it’s still…just plain “nutty.”

F. Andrew Wolf, Jr.

F. Andrew Wolf, Jr. is a retired USAF Lt. Col. and retired university professor of the Humanities, Philosophy of Religion and Philosophy. His education includes a PhD in philosophy from Univ. of Wales, two masters degrees (MTh-Texas Christian Univ.), (MA-Univ. South Africa) and an abiding passion for what is in America's best interest.

One thought on “America’s Containment Foreign Policy No Longer Works – OpEd

  • November 1, 2024 at 2:11 am
    Permalink

    A very balanced truthful article laying out the ground realities. Days of the American foreign policy of “Containment” are over to prevent the so called the “Spread of Communism”. Ukraine War occurred not due to the spread of communism but US-NATO moving its boundaries Eastwards towards Russia and Putin trying to put a stop there.
    Now the US is scared of the BRICS+ potential threat to the US led Western economic and political hegemony especially China and Russia and India as a “potential partner” challenging the US hegemony in all respects. India still remaining non-aligned and wonder if the US like Pakistan will be unhappy with India and China having agreed to reduce border tensions.
    The US Biden administration is failing to draw a line till when they are welcomed in this new growing multipolar confused world in getting involved.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *