Live from West Point: A Paradigm Shift by Joshua Keating

Last month, as I flew across the Eastern seaboard from the warm and crunchy confines of Oberlin to a strange new world of the Student Conference on U.S. Affairs at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the country’s political establishment was undergoing its own radical transition. As I was landing, I saw on the news that Donald Rumsfeld was stepping down as Secretary of Defense. Then the even bigger shock: Senator George Allen, after offending one macaca too many, was conceding to challenger Jim Webb, giving democrats control of the Senate. If ever there was a weekend to reexamine America’s global policy this was it.

With the appointment of Robert Gates to the Secretary of Defense post, James Baker and Henry Kissinger weighing in on the Iraq debacle, and increased calls to negotiate with Iran and Syria, it appears that realism is back in vogue in America’s foreign policy establishment. This was more than reflected in the conference.

SCUSA is an undergraduate foreign policy conference which has been held at West Point for the past 58 years. Hundreds of delegates from American colleges and military academies attend to discuss various aspects of US foreign policy. Oberlin sends one delegate every year thanks to generous funding by the Richard Hallock foundation.

At my table, which discussed US policy toward Russia and Central Asia (no Borat jokes please!) debate was lively and informed on topics ranging from nuclear non-proliferation to oil and gas reserves. But the mood became more despondent and confused when the topic of democracy building came up. One student delegate went so far as to say that democracy wasn’t even something we should be talking about.

The attitude was similar from the keynote speakers who addressed us. One professor said he believed that the Bush administration’s promotion of democracy in the Middle East had created a situation where we had no choice but to negotiate with regimes whose interests and beliefs are diametrically opposed to ours. A former prominent member of Bush’s foreign policy team admitted that since 9/11, America has a huge image problem and we should reorient our policies towards informing the world about all the great things we do rather than trying to impose our values. (I would name names but we were specifically told that the speeches were not for attribution and I never mess with a school were students are required to keep big-ass rifles in their dorm rooms).

Can it really be only 15 years since we were so sure that democracy and capitalism would triumph that some went so far as to proclaim “the end of history?” Ten years since Bill Clinton assured us that “commerce helps make the world safe for democracy?” One year since George W. Bush earned a round of applause from both sides of the aisle for proclaiming that “the advance of freedom will lead to peace,” and “We are witnessing landmark events in the history of liberty. And in the coming years, we will add to that story?”

Has the Bush team’s foreign policy, that deformed bastard child of Ronald Reagan and Leon Trotsky, made us so cynical about America’s role in the world that we’re going to give up on spreading democracy and human rights altogether, close off our borders to immigration and trade and focus solely on security?

The signs from the party now in control of congress are not promising. It was the Democrats, remember, who led the fight against the completely reasonable Dubai ports deal, a move widely viewed as racist and reactionary in the Muslim world. Democratic lawmakers have already signaled opposition to trade deals with Colombia, Peru and Haiti. And despite bipartisan support and favorable public opinion, the new Congress does not seem to have any plans in the works to do anything productive to make America’s immigration process more humane and sensible.

That voters have finally come around and recognized the true folly of Bush’s crusader foreign policy is a positive development. I was happy to see that both civilian and military delegates seemed to agree that military force was generally not the best way to accomplish the ideological objectives of U.S. foreign policy. Talking to our enemies and being humble in our goals would certainly be a welcome change, but I worry that disaffection with Bush’s Wilsonian idealism will lead to Jacksonian isolationism, to borrow Walter Russell Mead’s terms.
With the best of intentions, America’s foreign policy since 9/11 has created far more problems than it has solved. I hope that the new “realist” leadership in Washington, and the future leadership represented by students like those at SCUSA and at Oberlin, will recognize that in order to solve America’s problems, the nation must become more engaged in the world, not less.