*An Optimistic U.S. Foreign Policy *


*By Victor Davis Hanson*

*Published May 23, 2017*

History teaches us that during war and international crises, just when
things were looking most grim, they were oftentimes already getting better.

Consider the dark days of World War II. Seventy-five years ago, 1942
started out as an awful year. The United States and the British were still
reeling from the December 1941 Japanese surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor,
the Philippines, and Malaysia. Singapore would fall in February 1942 in an
ignominious defeat; and the American bastion at Corregidor surrendered in
May.

For the first four months of the war, Japan had run wild. Or as two
Japanese analysts, Masatake Okuymiya and Jiro Horikoshi, put it: "Japan
took more territory over a greater area than any country in history and did
not lose a single ship." By June, the Japanese Empire stretched from the
Aleutian Islands to the Indian Ocean, and from Wake Island to the
Russian-Manchurian border-the most expansive Asian Empire in world history.

Things were no better for the Allies in the European theater. In August
1942, German soldiers climbed Mt. Elbrus, the highest mountain in the
Caucasus, as the German army neared the shores of the Caspian Sea, and one
of the richest oil fields in the world. The vast Third Reich stretched from
the English Channel to the Volga River and from the Arctic Circle southward
to the Sahara by the summer of 1942.

The British base at Tobruk, in Libya, fell on June 20, 1942. Field Marshall
Erwin Rommel gained a wealth of British supplies, crossed the Egyptian
border, and headed eastward to Alexandria and the Suez Canal. German U-boat
commanders called the initial months of 1942 the "Second Happy Time" as
they sank over 600 Allied ships-the first Happy Time
<http://www.worldatwarmagazine.com/waw/happy-times/> occurring in 1940.
Many American freighters were torpedoed just miles off the Atlantic Coast
from Maine to Miami. Allied bombers, especially the Americans, were
increasingly stymied over Germany-and, by late 1942, they were suffering
unsustainable losses without inflicting significant damage on German
industry.

For a brief moment in mid-1942, the Allies seemed likely to lose the war.

And then, abruptly the nightmare vanished.

Enormous industrial and armament production in Britain, the Soviet Union,
and America kicked in and flooded the global fronts with planes, ships,
tanks, and guns. Anglo-American lend-lease help came just in time to a
reeling Soviet Union; everything from fur boots to locomotives were soon in
abundance.

The American Navy fought the Japanese to a standstill at the Battle of
Coral Sea (May 4-8, 1942) and crushed the Japanese carrier fleet a month
later at the Battle of Midway (June 4-7). The huge German Sixth Army by
late 1942 was stalled and then surrounded at Stalingrad. At the second
Battle of El Alamein (October 23-November 11, 1942), British General
Bernard Montgomery stopped the Afrika Korps and forced back Rommel's
tattered forces in what would become one of the largest German retreats in
history.

By late 1942, intercepted German naval codes, improved British sonar, more
Allied convoys, and better air and sea patrols would frustrate the U-boat
effort for good and lead to unsustainable German submarine losses. And at
the end of 1942, there was hope that huge influxes of new model Allied
bombers, new fighter escorts, and improved tactics would revive strategic
bombing over Germany.

In other words, 75 years ago, World War II abruptly changed momentum even
as the Allies had seemed to be fated to lose.

Such abrupt and unanticipated changes are again common in wars-and in the
fates of nations.

A century ago this year, World War I seemed lost for the Allied powers.
After suffering crushing casualties at the Somme and Verdun the prior year,
the British and French armies were about to crumble. In early 1917, America
remained isolationist. By November, the Bolsheviks under Vladimir Lenin
took power in Russia, signed a humiliating armistice with Germany and its
allies, and refocused on the Russian civil war. This, in theory, freed
hundreds of thousands of German soldiers to head to the Western Front to
finish off the battered French and British.

But by the end of the year, everything quite suddenly began to change-just
as it had in 1942 during World War II. In April 1917, the U.S. declared war
on Germany and its allies. By late 1917, over 100,000 U.S. doughboys had
arrived to plug up holes in the reeling French and British line-the
vanguard of some 2 million troops who would cumulatively land in France and
Belgium by November 1918.

Inexplicably, Germany kept a million men in the east to guard its newly won
spoils in a defeated Russia, at the very moment they were most needed on
the Western Front. A new Allied command troika of British General Douglas
Haig, French General Ferdinand Foch, and American General John Pershing
learned from past blunders to forge new effective ground strategies. Vast
allied industrial output of planes, newly invented tanks, and artillery
began to dwarf German production. In short, just when German thought it had
almost won the war in December 1917, events were already in play to ensure
that it would lose it in less than a year.

Such hinges of fate are common. The arrival of General Matthew Ridgway in
December 1950 to Korea saved what was generally acknowledged as a lost
Korean War. David Petraeus's surge of 2007-2008-initially written off as
hopeless or counterproductive-broke the back of al Qaeda in Iraq within
months and led to relative peacefulness, until the abrupt American
withdrawal of 2011. By 1979, an ascendant Soviet Union-invading
Afghanistan, threatening Western Europe, funding uprisings in Central
America-seemed to have the edge in the Cold War. Yet by 1981, Ronald Reagan
was already on his way to ensuring a Soviet implosion.

In sum, nothing is more unpredictable and volatile than war, international
tensions, and foreign affairs. Often perceived wisdom, media consensus, and
punditry are wrong or out of date, and miss ongoing insidious and subtle
undercurrents of change that can abruptly turn the tide of events.

Something like that is now occurring on the world stage. During eight years
of a lead-from-behind recessional, America created a number of dangerous
vacuums that invited in foreign-power adventurism.

The Iran deal of 2015-as we are now learning from the leaked
information-green-lighted the Iranian efforts to obtain not just nuclear
weapons, but also sophisticated ballistic missiles and a veritable hegemony
in the Persian Gulf. The Russia reset empowered Vladimir Putin to absorb
some of Russia's neighbors and to worm its way back into the Middle East.
China was periodically encouraging an unhinged and nuclear North Korea to
terrify its Western rivals, even as it built artificial island bases in the
South China Sea to adjudicate one-quarter of the world's shipping. The
savage war of ISIS against Bashar Assad and his Iranian backers led to
genocide in Syria.

In sum, U.S. defense cuts and a passive foreign policy emboldened American
enemies and disheartened our allies to the point where wars broke out on
several fronts. Yet America's retreat was predicated on choices, not on
fate. Indeed, America is now reasserting its past role as a dominant,
deterring force on the international stage.

In just the last 100 days, the storm clouds have broken a bit. Tough talk
with China on trade abuses may persuade Beijing that it would be wise to
help the U.S. corral North Korea, while America assembles a well-armed
alliance of Japan and South Korea to deter Pyongyang. The bombing of a few
of Syrian President Bashar Assad's air assets, with promises of possibly
more action to come, could deter him from further nerve gas attacks. The
dropping of a huge MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast) bomb on an underground
ISIS lair in Afghanistan has startled U.S. enemies who rely on such
subterranean sanctuaries. To America's enemies, the signal is clear: U.S.
action is not necessarily predictable, measured, or proportionate.

Many of these developments reflect a sharp ideological upheaval in foreign
policy leadership. The prior Obama national security team of Ash Carter,
John Kerry, Susan Rice, and Ben Rhodes has been replaced by General H.R.
McMaster (national security advisor), Rex Tillerton (ex-Exxon CEO and now
Secretary of State), General James Mattis (Secretary of Defense), and
General John Kelly (Homeland Security). None of these men is a professional
diplomat or former politician. Instead, they come to office either from the
military or private enterprise. None is overtly political; all are widely
esteemed for succeeding in cutthroat military and commercial arenas.

The new national security team seems to believe in the value of soft power
as did their predecessors-but with a fundamental difference: they know that
diplomatic, political, and economic strategies are not effective without a
credible threat of resorting to overwhelming military force. In this
regard, Trump is slowly restoring the defense budget that Obama had
slashed, while sounding unpredictable rather than compliant.

Allies and enemies have made the necessary adjustments as the United States
becomes-to paraphrase the dictum of the Roman Republican general Lucius
Cornelius Sulla during the wars of the Republic-no better friend and no
worse enemy. If this new deterrent foreign policy is coupled with changes
in U.S. regulatory and tax policies and expanded energy production-and if
these measures help America achieve a three percent growth rate in annual
GDP-then all sorts of supposedly intractable dilemmas and tensions may find
resolution.

In the past, it was not necessarily in China's perceived interest to help
an economically stagnant, strategically predictable, and politically
diffident United States to deal with North Korea-nor Russia's to help
convince Iran and Syria to follow international norms. But it may now prove
both wise and useful for China and Russia to cooperate-*if* America is
economically robust, appears somewhat dangerous, is unapologetic about its
past and future, and does not loudly lecture its rivals about their
supposed moral failings while losing their respect.

In that case, the storm clouds abroad will clear as abruptly as they have
so often in the past during the world's darkest moments.

Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and military historian, is a senior
fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National
Humanities Medal.


Read more at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0517/hanson052317.php3#jBMu
3T2U2KoWkKVr.99




------------------------------
[image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

<#m_4653374732209888228_m_568581729528021728_m_8824070176741806040_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


__._,_.___
------------------------------
Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]>
------------------------------


Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNTZwMTRpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0OTU1NjA5OTg->

   - New Members
   
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJnYW0wNWhrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxNDk1NTYwOTk4>
   2

[image: Yahoo! Groups]
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaWxxdXNxBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ5NTU2MDk5OA-->
• Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
Unsubscribe <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>

__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to