Between Intervention (All-In)
and Isolation (All-Out)
Henry R. Nau
George Washington University
Canon Institute for Global Studies, Tokyo, Japan,
January 22, 2016

America’s Foreign Policy Dilemma• Afghanistan and Iraq War 2001-2009 – “ALLIN” Approach (W. Bush)– Military Intervention– Arms Without Diplomacy– Democracy Promotion• Iran and Syria 2009-2016 – “ALL OUT”
Approach (Obama)– No Boots on the Ground– Diplomacy Without Arms
– Dial Back Democracy

Presidential Candidates on ForeignPolicy
All-Out With an Open Hand (Obama) – Rand Pauland Bernie Sanders
All Out with a Fist – Donald Trump
All Out with a Moral Message – Ted Cruz
All Out with a Pragmatic Message – Chris Christie
Still Mostly Out But Emphasize
Strategy/Leadership – Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, andJohn KasichMore All In But With Diplomacy Not Military –Hillary Clinton
All In Approach – Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina(Lindsey Graham)

STAY THE COURSE: Three Steps• Improve Security Environment ofWorld Not Just Security of Nation• Build up Military to Negotiate andCompromise Toward Freedom
Not Win Militarily• Be Patient and Rely on Economic
Revitalization and GrowthImprove Security Environment Not JustSecurity• World is Better Place in 2016 than 1916
• Culture and Civilization Divide• Democracy Unites – Democratic Peace– Opposing Parties Rotating Peacefully in Power– Military Under Control of Elected Government– Civil Liberties (Individual Rights to Own Property,Assemble, Free Speech, Impartial Courts and Vote)• But Democracy is Difficult– Can’t Promote It Everywhere at Once
– Set Priorities

Setting Priorities• Prioritize freedom on the borders of existing freecountries– Border between free countries and Russia inEurope– Border between free countries and China in Asia• Address threat AND pursue freedom in bordercountries – Ukraine, Turkey, Korean peninsula.
• Address threat BUT get out quickly in remote regions– Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.
• In last decade, United States has done just theopposite – pushed freedom in remote regions at
expense of freedom on borders of freedom

Use Military Force to Negotiate andCompromise Not to Win• Military force and diplomacy go together, noteither/or• Objective is not military victory in conventional
sense but negotiated outcome that weakens
despots and moves needle toward freedom• In priority regions, use military alliances to open
regional societies and markets – US-J-SK alliances
and TPP to Include China; NATO and TTIP toInclude Russia• In remote regions, use military leverage toprovide Off-Ramp – Iran and Syria

Off Ramps In Iran and Syria• Iran: Negotiation not the problem– Expectation that nuclear agreement will contain Iranis problem. Only military strength on ground can dothat.
– Should have maintained sanctions and bargained formore than just postponing nuclear program• Syria– Objective is ISIS not regime change– Arm moderate rebels to balance forces on the ground– Negotiate with but weaken Assad by openness – forexample, UN safe zones and role in ceasefire– Give Egypt and Israel priority for stability in region(Egypt-Israeli peace agreement)– Prioritize Turkey for democracy in region

Patience and Economic Dynamism• Economic Growth Is Bedrock of Democratic
Foreign Policy – No Emphasis by Presidential
Candidates?
• Authoritarian States Can’t Keep Up• Bottom Up Initiatives (TPP and TTIP) atRegional Level• Light Regulation of Trade and Finance atGlobal Level• Possible Only through Structural Reforms atDomestic Level

Summary• Not All in or All Out but STAY THE COURSE!
• Grow US and Global Free Market Economy• Stand for Democracy but with Priorities andPatience• Arm Diplomacy to Bargain Effectively with
Non-Democracies• Compromise When Military Leverage at Peak
• Stop Cycling, Find Middle Ground Between
Isolation and Intervention