Category: US News

In 2012, Dr. Lamont Colucci was approached by U.S. News and World Report to write a weekly column on foreign policy and national security. This is under the aegis of World Report – Insights, perspectives, and commentary on foreign affairs. View the article on USNews.com

---

Another attack in London; Europe descends into continuous chaos caused by Islamic terrorism. The media wrings their hands with declarations of deplorability, as the mayor of London assures his citizens that London is “one of the safest global cities in the world.” Counterterrorism experts obsess over whether the terrorists were “lone wolves” or “known wolves,” part of a cell, part of a terror franchise, had links to this or that website, traveled to (fill-in-the-blank country in the Middle East or South Asia) and whether they were “homegrown” or imported.

One would think that after 45 years (assuming we use the Black September attack in Munich as a beginning point), that the West would, unlike the mayor of London, take terrorism seriously. This seriousness has nothing to do with what the counterterrorism experts obsess over. They are too invested in the building that is on fire now and not about the entire city structure, let alone the strategic, historic or future implications.

This is no condemnation of their efforts; it is merely an understanding that our preoccupation with counterterror tactics, legal interrogation frameworks, radicalization monitoring and even grief counseling do not address the fundamental problem. Like so much that has been missing in western and American foreign policy, it is an underlying lack of understanding of geopolitics and grand strategy.

Terrorism, like any movement, requires oxygen: ammunition, training, inspiration, technique and experience. Where does terrorism get this from? There are two answers, and these two answers have been the same since that Munich attack: rogue states and failed states. From the late 1970s, the list has been semi-permanent: Iran, Syria, Libya (from rogue to failed state) are the old guard. The withered members were the North Koreans (down to attacking its own), Iraq (regime changed by the U.S.) and the Soviets. The newest additions are primarily failed or failing states: Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan and Nigeria. According to the Global Terrorism Index, four terrorist groups were responsible for 74 percent of all deaths in 2015: the Islamic State group, al-Qaida, Boko Haram and the Taliban. All of these are proponents of an extremist Sunni ideology and emanate out of failed or failing states. Further, terrorist groups receive haven, logistics, training and supplies from rogue states. South Asia, Africa and the Middle East account for 84 percent of terrorist attacks and 95 percent of terrorism deaths.

Where has counterterrorism gone wrong? It has failed to see terrorism in the light of state actors and geopolitics. It neglects the key aspect of international relations: The world is governed by national entities that control the real levers of power or whose absence creates an artificial vacuum. Hezbollah would be of little concern without Iranian support, and the Islamic State group could not have gained power without the twin failing states of Iraq and Syria. None of these cases would have risen without the absence of western, especially American, primacy. The hard truth also creates clarity: Address the nation-state problem, and you deal an existential blow to the majority of terrorist movements.

A beginning blueprint would address six nations.

First, the Pakistani government has relied too long on American desperation. The Pakistanis believe we have nowhere to go, so they play the long game: Give the Americans enough not to get them angry, mollify the Islamic extremists and prepare for war with India. Estimates of the number of terrorist training camps vary, and often media reports argue that these are primarily focused on Kashmir. This is exactly the kind of ignorant admonishment from those who are laser-focused on tactics instead of strategy. There is a terror network that has existed for decades – it is not run by a single group and does not have a single purpose. It provides a tangled web of training locations, logistics support, safe havens, false documents, arms and intelligence. An Islamic Kashmiri terrorist can be found on a battlefield in Afghanistan one day and Syria the next. The West must issue ultimatums to Pakistan or take action to remove these threats. Pakistan is a failing state who has used the possibility of its own failure as a club against successive American presidents to avoid “too much” American pressure.

Second is Iran. Iran is in a state of war with the United States and is the number-one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. The delinking of terrorism and the murder of American servicemen with Iranian support from the failed Iran deal was exactly the kind of irrational thinking that produces a continuous cycle of American failure. Iran should start losing assets it holds dear until they dry up their support for terror groups. Deal with Iran the nation, and you will see the greatest change in international terrorism and the civil war in Syria.

Two failed states cry out for American leadership. The chaos and misery in Syria and Libya, created by the vacuum of Obama-era policies, have allowed the Islamic State group and other groups to blossom. Just as the issue with Iran is one of forcing the actions of a strong state to change course, Syria and Libya are examples of the opposite: Until a strong state is reasserted, one that is not based on tyranny and corruption, terror groups will utilize it for their ends.

Next is Afghanistan. The debate raging in the American media is whether to surge an additional 5,000 American troops, and there is a discussion of a fight between the political and military side of the equation. If Afghanistan’s stability is the only way to remove the Taliban as an effective force and prevent the rise of groups like the Islamic State group, then the surge should be whatever troop level will lock the situation down. Perhaps this troop level is the original request made by General McChrystal, which some suggest was as high as 80,000. If that is the working number, then both NATO and the United States should be willing to commit that amount, or we should accept the outcome and not risk an additional soldier. Any other decision is a D.C. parlor game designed to buy time and provide political cover.

Finally, one would hope that after having to restore order to Iraq that there is the understanding that unless that order is maintained with a clear and robust American presence, it will all have been for nothing. The arguments about getting into Iraq are finished; the task at hand is to prevent the ascendancy of Iran geopolitically and Islamic extremism internally.

Five thousand years of international relations can’t be wished away. The world is governed by benevolent and malevolent forces represented by nations, or it is ungoverned, allowing an anarchic evil to take hold. This is the fuel of terrorism whose symptoms are seen in London, Paris, Baghdad and Orlando. One can focus on combating the symptoms or attacking the real problem. In the end, if you seriously want to deal with terrorism, you deal with those factors that allow them to operate.

In 2012, Dr. Lamont Colucci was approached by U.S. News and World Report to write a weekly column on foreign policy and national security. This is under the aegis of World Report – Insights, perspectives, and commentary on foreign affairs. View the article on USNews.com

---

From 1945 to 1991, the United States invested countless treasure and lives to fight the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

The battle was fought facing two imperatives while Americans often ignored one to justify inaction of the other. First, there were the ideological motivations whereby the Soviet Union was trying to expand its influence through communist revolutionary activity by siding with communist rebels (as in El Salvador) or helping to install communist governments (as in Afghanistan). The second motivation was often hand in glove with the first. These were Russian geopolitical imperatives, many of which stretched back centuries. The classic example of this, having nothing to do with communism, was Russia’s age-old quest for warm water ports.

The United States was continuously engaged in fighting international communism and attempting to thwart Soviet influence, but it sometimes failed to recognize Russian realism, which was often equally disturbing. It was the Reagan administration that made the clear determination that not only did you need to stop Soviet communism and Russian expansion, but you also had to create a path to victory. The Reagan administration was victorious, making the current inaction and acquiescence to Russian imperialism so disquieting.

Two recent events illustrate this disturbing trend. The first is Russia’s decision to deploy Iskander missiles to the Kaliningrad (Konigsberg) region. The missiles have a range of 440 miles, are nuclear capable, mobile and travel at hypersonic speed. The new deployment creates added danger to the Baltics, Poland and Germany, including the capital city of Berlin. The deployment bolsters not only the raw Russian military presence there, but could affect NATO planning to come to the aid of the Baltic during a conflict as this Russian military region could dominate the Suwalki gap. European national security experts see this clearly as an attempt to bolster Russian power through intimidation. The Lithuanian foreign minister is quoted as saying that the move was designed to “seek concessions from the West.”

Second is the telegraphed renewed interest in overseas basing by the Russians. They have made it known that they wish to restore their bases in Vietnam and Cuba. The Lourdes base in Cuba was primarily used by Russian intelligence against the United States. It was the largest base of its kind outside of Russia and is only about 90 miles from Florida and was closed in 2001. The Cam Rahn base in Vietnam served the interests of their navy in the Pacific which the Russians left in 2002. Deputy Defense Minister Nikolai Pankov stated that Russia was “rethinking” the past decisions to close these bases. There is further talk of Egypt and Russia negotiating the Russian return to its military facilities in Sidi Barrani. Finally, there is also chatter about a Russian re-entry into Nicaragua. This in the context of their increasing presence in Syria and their attempt at basing in Iran illustrates a clear trajectory for the Russian bear.

Reassertion of Russian power is in line with the new Putin Doctrine, which has evolved since 2008, whose aims are to reassert Russian regional hegemony while combining 19th-century Tsarist policies to justify a return to an imperial path. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a conference call with reporters that “it’s quite natural that all countries assess these changes in line with their national interests and take certain steps in the way they consider appropriate.”

Russia is doing nothing more than furthering her geostrategic interests. They are openly telegraphing their intentions with doctrines, statements and state-controlled propaganda. These interests are also designed to intimidate American allies and push back against American primacy, and thus global stability. American inaction will fuel this until the fire will be out of control. Thus, while the American media is focused on the personal attacks, the Russians exploit a window of opportunity.

In 2012, Dr. Lamont Colucci was approached by U.S. News and World Report to write a weekly column on foreign policy and national security. This is under the aegis of World Report – Insights, perspectives, and commentary on foreign affairs. View the article on USNews.com

---

Halloween is on the horizon, and the ghost of nuclear weapons rises from the autumn earth to bedevil the American election.

It is disturbing to witness that there is competition for the attention of the American voter between issues related to nuclear weapons and issues of personality. The United States has lived with the specter of nuclear weapons since 1945 and was the only power to use them in human history. The limited amount of time spent on nuclear weapons this election has focused on whether or not the United States should follow what the Obama administration is considering: a no-first-use policy, a pledge that the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons unless it is first attacked with them.

This destabilizing policy, even if limited to this administration’s penchant for truth-challenged rhetoric, would be a disastrous strategic error with no positive outcome. First, it would destroy U.S. deterrence, especially in non-nuclear areas. There are a multitude of spheres where this may encourage a non-nuclear attack on us or our allies. Although American conventional arms enjoy clear primacy, they also cannot be everywhere at all times and in all places. This strain worsens if we are engaged in a large-scale conflict while another enemy attacks American interests. Further, this policy may degrade nuclear deterrence, as a no-first-use policy indicates hesitancy in an area of national security where ambiguity is catastrophic.

It is insightful to look back at Cold War history to understand the complexity and importance of this issue. A recently published book, “The American Bomb in Britain” by Ken Young, outlines the complex decisions and relationship between nuclear weapons and America’s most important ally. It combines two areas that the media have failed to focus on: strategic alliances and nuclear weapons. It excellently illustrates many of the same foreign policy problems of today. While the United States was forced by geostrategic imperatives to look at the grand scale of world politics and national security threats, Britain, reeling from World War II, was hesitant and often unwilling to pay the financial and political cost for both the alliance and its own survival.

Young sums this up: “While it would be a travesty to present this as a story of dominance and submission, it becomes clear that at every stage the initiative lay with the U.S., simply because Americans had the clear and unambiguous understanding of their national security interests that the British lacked. The British – ambivalent and equivocal – simply respond to American overtures, sometimes eagerly, sometimes reluctantly, sometimes in apparent absence of mind.” One of the most marked chapters – “Strike hard, strike sure… and strike together?” – paints a picture of sporadic chaos at the top, corrected by clear cooperation and relationship building among the national security professionals.

It becomes clear throughout the book that this story’s relevance is beyond its own historical purview. It goes to the heart of our debates and discussions today that surround our friendships and our nuclear ghosts: The United States, even when dealing with this unique, important and critical special relationship has had to deal with the problem of freeriding, the domestic politics of a foreign nation, the budget priorities of that foreign country and the perceived and real inequality of the relationship. It points to the crucial nature of personal relations between allies, as illustrated by the bond discussed in Young’s book between air force chiefs Carl A. Spaatz and Sir Arthur Tedder.

This is all dwarfed by the existential question of nuclear threat posed by those that wish harm to the Anglo-American world and the geostrategic needs that should dictate decisions made by those in Washington and in the capitals of our allies. Today, the situation is made exponentially worse by the threat that at some point, a toxic triangle of rogue states, transnational terror groups and weapons of mass destruction will come together to threaten Western civilization, and once again, it will take the same hard work that is demonstrated by the Cold War professionals to weather the storm.

This makes the current crisis ever more salient: The strategic ambiguity created by the Obama years has diminished deterrence and therefore international peace. The American strategic doctrine of deter, assure, dissuade, defeat is the only rational and moral policy that not only benefits the United States, but many of our beleaguered allies as well.

In 2012, Dr. Lamont Colucci was approached by U.S. News and World Report to write a weekly column on foreign policy and national security. This is under the aegis of World Report – Insights, perspectives, and commentary on foreign affairs. View the article on USNews.com

---

Those of us involved with foreign policy, national security and international relations tend to focus most of our attention on the immediate threat or short-term trend. Some of us involved more on the military or diplomatic wing rarely look at religion, except for the contemporary focus on jihadism emanating out of the Islamic world. Lost in this is the planetary view that attempts to identify titanic, or potential shifts, in world politics.

On Sunday, Pope Francis attended the Divine Liturgy celebrated by the patriarch at Etchmiadzin, the center of the Armenian Apostolic Church. He reiterated his much used word, “scandal,” to describe Christian disunity. Much has been written about Pope Francis’ attempts at reform, his possible views on immigration, climate change and economics. However, far above all of this are indications that this pope has a renewed interest in Christian unity. Those who watch and study this know all too well that we have seen this before, and it came to naught. However, there are signs to indicate that we may be witnessing a more fundamental desire.

It also may be that the usual focus points of international relations such as the current wars and acts of terror may help to motivate the Christian community. In an unprecedented meeting between Pope Francis of the Roman Catholic Church and Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church in Havana, issued a joint declaration which stated:

“Orthodox and Catholics must learn to give unanimously witness in those spheres in which this is possible and necessary. Human civilization has entered into a period of epochal change. Our Christian conscience and our pastoral responsibility compel us not to remain passive in the face of challenges requiring a shared response … We call upon the international community to act urgently in order to prevent the further expulsion of Christians from the Middle East.”

Some have reported that a meeting and declaration like this has not happened since 1054 AD. Talk of unification from both Patriarch Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Pope Francis of the Roman Catholic Church about unity, and finding a common Easter date could in part be caused by the persecution and killing of Christians in the Middle East. One hopes that they feel when Christianity is under siege in its birthplace, now is a good opportunity to cast aside differences whose fire had cooled long ago. Francis has made statements of rapprochement indicating that reunification would “not signify the submission of one to the other, or assimilation.” Bartholomew has stated that Christians “no longer have the luxury of isolated action.”

The papacy’s actions and statements towards Protestants may be even more revealing. It is best summed up by the pope’s declaration to an ecumenical gathering in June 2015: “If the devil unites us in death, who are we to divide ourselves in life?” Francis has called the separation of the Christian community a “scandal,” especially in light of the threats posed by Islamic jihadism and militant atheism. Although there is some talk of lesser issues, such as allowing priests to marry, there are more strategic decisions, not least of which is his planned celebration of the 500th anniversary of Luther’s reformation in a church in Sweden, as well as apologies to various protestant groups for sins committed against them, such as the Lutherans and Waldensians.

Protestants are divided over many overtures made by Francis, with evangelicals more skeptical than mainline denominations. As the first pope from the Americas, he has a keen interest in the region and in reform. Sixty-nine percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of him as well as the vast supermajority of all Roman Catholics.

Perhaps we are witnessing a similar nexus of forces as we did in the 1980s with the election of the most anti-communist conservative president of the United States, Ronald Reagan, at the same time as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the only pope from Eastern Europe, Pope John Paul II. It was at this moment that the evil empire was ready to fall into the dustbin of history; unwittingly managing this decline was Mikhail Gorbachev.

Should Francis’ efforts begin to prove successful and palatable to Orthodox and Protestant Christians, there will be no greater story in international relations in the 21st century. Those of us wired to the hard politics of war, diplomacy and trade forget that all of this pales in comparison to the power of God and the church. If Christendom were once again to have unified positions on all of these ideas, it would be an unstoppable force for good in a world rent by the evils of terrorism, human degradation and political tyranny. The shift would be incalculable to the current mindsets of international relations, to both theoretical academician and political practitioner alike. Perhaps we are bearing witness to the truly most transformative political story in centuries.

Many will denigrate this as old wine in new bottles, but then again who would have believed a Roman Catholic Mass would be held for the first time since 1550 at Henry VIII’s Hampton Court Palace? C.S. Lewis famously wrote in “Mere Christianity” that the divisions in Christianity should best be understood in the following way:

“It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals … You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling.”

Christians around the world have been horrified by the acts of brutality against fellow Christians. They are saddened at the mocking of their faith in arts, letters, education and pop culture. They have placed less than biblical divisions between each other. Perhaps at one of the greatest times of chaos in Christianity, events are unfolding to force reflection on those differences and focus on how Christian unity can change the world for the better.

In 2012, Dr. Lamont Colucci was approached by U.S. News and World Report to write a weekly column on foreign policy and national security. This is under the aegis of World Report – Insights, perspectives, and commentary on foreign affairs. View the article on USNews.com

---

Great power conflict is now acceptable to discuss. Since 9/11, those of us who warned that an over-abundance of attention paid to counterterrorism would result in enhancing the myth that great power conflict is over have been proved right. Great power conflict is not back, because it never left. All the time and energy spent on how to defeat al-Qaida and likeminded groups has always been a side-show to the threats that could be posed by a resurgent Russia and rising China.

Finally, it is understood that these threats have reappeared in the new frontier of space weapons. We are now witnessing the opening salvos in this renewed arms race. Amid talk of Cold War-level simulated air attacks and increased naval forays by the Russians, maritime adventurism by the Chinese, and the shadow that the events in the Ukraine and Crimea will be replayed in the Baltics is the looming threat of new weapons that seek to undermine American military strength and defenses.

The new categories of weapons fall under three main categories: hypersonic missiles, new drones and anti-satellite systems.

The most dangerous of the three is the hypersonic missile: this hypersonic rocket re-enters the atmosphere, then a glider pulls up to fly horizontally, unpowered, for up to thousands of miles at preliminary speeds in the high hypersonic range of Mach 10 to 20 (about 7,000 to 14,000 miles per hour). There is no defense against this type of missile.

Aside from speed, the missile can travel close to the ground, and evade defenses; the highly vaunted Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system is incapable of hitting it.

Russia is exploring missiles like the 3K22 Zircon system, while China is working on the Dongfeng 21D, often referred to as the aircraft “carrier killer,” or the Dongfeng 41, which is potentially the longest range ICBM in the world. (The dragon is leading the bear quite significantly in this area.) China may be able to have its missiles operational by 2020, and hope to have conventional versions that can target American naval assets in the Pacific.

The second category comes from new sophisticated drones. The Russians are pursuing unmanned submarine drones that could carry a nuclear payload that would, in theory, allow them to sneak in or near an American port. Russia also seems to be revisiting Cold War concepts where they would develop an underwater nuclear device to create the conditions of a tsunami or, in another case, to produce clouds of radiation.

The third category is anti-satellite weapons, primarily weapons used to jam, blind or shoot down American satellites. Both Russia and China are feverishly attempting to find newer and better means to do this. According to the head of Strategic Command, “Russia’s 2010 military doctrine emphasized space as a crucial component of its defense strategy, and Russia has publicly stated they are researching and developing counter space capabilities to degrade, disrupt, and deny other users of space. Russia’s leaders also openly assert that Russian armed forces have anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, conduct ASAT research, and employ satellite jammers.”

However, all this talk of weapons platforms is meaningless in a strategic vacuum. The question should never be focused on when these weapons will be deployed, or how. The question is why? Why the pursuit of weapons that will inherently threaten the United States from an existential perspective? The threats here are not about degrading American influence in a region like the Middle East, the threat here is to topple America from a position of strategic primacy, which guarantees international stability. It will overturn the old concepts of Mutual Assured Destruction and lead to inevitable thoughts of preemption and prevention. The side that wishes the arms race would not happen has already been left at the wayside of history.

The question for the next president is how to overcome this looming threat. It will mean the United States will not only need to accelerate its own timetable on these weapons, but will need to create innovative new ones. America will need to invest in new missile defenses such as the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense Extended-Range. Finally, and most crucially, the U.S. will need to commit to controlling near Earth orbit and beyond: space weapons, space defense, spacecraft and, ultimately, platforms and bases.

If America chooses to ignore this due to naiveté, strategic foppery or bean counting, we will be subjects to those powers that are more fastidious and realistic in their approach. We will wake up one morning like the French knights at Agincourt wondering how their ranks were decimated by the English longbow.

In 2012, Dr. Lamont Colucci was approached by U.S. News and World Report to write a weekly column on foreign policy and national security. This is under the aegis of World Report – Insights, perspectives, and commentary on foreign affairs. View the article on USNews.com

---

In this final article in my series concerning the issues that the next president will face, we turn to the often forgotten topic of great powers. In the end, the next president will face the perennial problem faced since George Washington: the relations and threats from other nations. These relations and threats can dwarf the en vogue issues of today. The current administration has been ultimately reactive in most arenas of national security and foreign policy, though it has been almost neglectful in the realm of great powers.

European crisis and betrayal.

The United States has gone to war two times to save Europe. The landscape of Europe is occupied by many American graves. The special relationships with the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, to name a few, are critical to American values and American interests. The term Atlanticist, once a badge of honor, is being relegated to history.

NATO, even with some success in Afghanistan and Libya (hamstrung on both cases by a lack of foresight and grand strategy), is on a precipice of an identity crisis. NATO is the most important alliance to the United States and requires dynamic American leadership. Events in Crimea and Ukraine should bolster the pressing need to re-evaluate and revamp NATO, as it has been the most successful alliance system in the history of international relations. It served as a bulwark against communism and the Soviet threat during the Cold War and serves as a guarantee for peace in Europe and abroad today. In an age where the American people are less likely to endorse unilateral American action, NATO can serve as the best conduit for American national security and create a united front for the democratic west.

There must be a reinvigoration of our relations with Europe, with greater integration of security and economics. Only 5 percent of our European partners’ militaries have the ability to deploy outside of their borders, and only four of the 28 NATO members spend the required 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. Even during the anti-Gadhafi Libyan operations, American forces had to provide the foundational structure, logistics, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and refueling for the operation to be successful. The alliance has yet to come to terms with the future financial responsibility of supporting Afghan security forces once the more dramatic U.S. drawdown occurs, training the Afghan National Security Forces, modernizing and synchronizing training and technology, meeting defense spending goals and pursuing a united front on NATO enlargement. And in many ways, Western Europe faces a much starker threat of Islamic extremism, and there must be common cause to promote Western values.

This cannot happen when America talks more about burden-sharing and less about leading. In Eastern Europe, this is even more critical; it was the United States that engineered the expansion of NATO eastward, and now it is America’s responsibility to protect that trust. The people of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic know the price they have paid under the tyranny of Nazis and communists, and they know that part of that was a betrayal by the Western powers. There must be an unambiguous policy that the grand strategy of the United States includes these people under all conditions.

NATO needs a geostrategic mission that does not react to one crisis after another, but rather a mission that melds the grand strategies of the nation states that comprise it, headed by the United States. This mission must combine the promotion of democratic civilization, human rights and realist interests. NATO’s shield that surrounds Europe, the United States and Canada, is a given; the sword that collectively deals with tyranny, genocide and illegal conquest would be the ultimate goal. This will not only deter war and atrocities, it will unite the West and relieve the singular burden from one nation or a small group of them.

The next president can be the captain of this alliance, as the ultimate force of good in a world that has received nothing but messages from the abyss. This realist-liberal duality can be the great diplomatic launching pad to launch the foreign policy of the next occupant of the Oval Office.

Resurgent Russia and rise of China.

The last great challenge is the same one our first American president faced as a young officer in the French and Indian War – that of great powers. There is no need for bellicose statements of war or aggression, but the simple realization that the interests of a resurgent Russia and a rising China are often going to be at odds with American interests, both in values and in material ways.

The international situation today bears a disquieting resemblance to that world of 100 years ago that came apart with sudden and appalling violence. The Putin Doctrine also aims in part to reassert Russian regional hegemony: Supported by a rising and nationalistic Orthodox Church, Putin has borrowed elements of the 19th-century Russian state to justify a return to an imperial path. The United States cannot accept the concept of the “near abroad,” granting to Russia the ability to treat sovereign states like Georgia as playthings. It must decide to build a defensive missile system based on its own national security, not on relations with Russia. It must treat any attempt to support rogue regimes as an act of aggression, and it must not forget the state of human rights inside of Russia.

Crimea, and to a slightly lesser degree Ukraine and Moldova, offer places where Russia can establish “breathing space” from the Europeans, the Caucasus, from the Turks and Iranians, and Central Asia from the Chinese. Belarus is in a class by itself, as it will form a joint defense system that will legitimize larger concentrations of Russian troops on the Polish and Baltic frontier. The Putin regime recently announced a new military modernization program that runs through 2025, with a proposed injection of $770 billion over the next 10 years. Russia spends 4.4 percent of its GDP on the military, with a purchasing power of close to $100 billion.

China poses a different problem. China must be made to realize that free trade must be fair trade or no trade at all. It does not get a blind eye for its massive human rights violations and should be put on notice that any attempt to use the modernization of its military to threaten American primacy in the Pacific will be treated as an aggressive act.

Furthermore the continued Chinese support of regimes like Iran and Sudan has not gone unnoticed, and there will be no ambiguity about supporting Taiwan. All of this is expressed in concrete Chinese actions: A $132 billion military budget; creation of a major naval base on Hainan island; a massive increase in land-to-sea ballistic missiles; massive investment in modernizing China’s strategic nuclear arsenal; the deployment of its first aircraft carrier; the development of its first nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine; an immense investment in offensive cyber warfare operations (and attacks); intimidation of Hong Kong; diplomatic isolation of Taiwan (while offering economic carrots); arms and missile technology proliferation; anti-satellite missiles; space weapon research; use of the North Korean regime as a bargaining chip; land reclamation in the South China Sea; development of naval-friendly places in the Indian Ocean; and attempting to create a Chinese Air Defense Identification Zone over the Japanese Senkaku Islands.

It is abundantly clear that China is in the throes of a revival of 19th-century navalism, realizing that the pathway to great-power status, international-trade protection and intimidation capability runs through maritime power.

The next president’s greatest challenge for the long term will be Russia and China. His decisions will very likely help determine if the United States continues to have the largest impact on the world or the international system will de-evolve into a dangerous multipolarity. Casting this battle as a unification of American realist needs and liberal values will ensure public and congressional support to push back against the aggression and expansionism in which both Russia and China are engaged. This is no call to war but rather an understanding that whether one calculates geostrategic bases, trade routes, human rights or democracy, Russia and China pose a long-term threat to the United States and her allies. If the electorate is made aware of the threat, both appeasement and hysteria can be prevented.

Finally, the next president has as very simple calculation in foreign policy to make: Does he want to enhance and expand the Pax Americana or manage its decline? Merging realist and liberal interests and goals will ensure that the 21st century does not only continue as an American century, but sets the stage for its permanence.

In 2012, Dr. Lamont Colucci was approached by U.S. News and World Report to write a weekly column on foreign policy and national security. This is under the aegis of World Report – Insights, perspectives, and commentary on foreign affairs. View the article on USNews.com

---

In the sixth article in my series concerning the issues that the next president will face, the focus shifts to two chronic problems for American foreign policy that hinge on the issue of borders. The new president will be confronted with trouble south of the U.S. border and the issue of borders in the Middle East.

Destabilization of Mexico

The next president must jettison the baggage created by the immigration issue and deal with the root cause of the domestic and foreign policy muddle that is Mexico.

Mexico has been experiencing political and social instability for the last century. Following multiple regime changes in the 19th century, Mexico developed a more stable government in the 20th century. However, the country has been plagued by a ruling oligarchical class and a large poor lower class. In the last 30 years, there has been a tremendous rise in gangs and drug cartels, and the money they have made is seeping into all areas of Mexican government. The police and political sectors have become extremely corrupt and threaten the very life of Mexico itself.

Americans should be continuously reminded that the purchase of illegal drugs, regardless of direct origin or type, fuels not only the cartels but terrorist groups. There used to be a public service announcement during the George W. Bush years that reminded Americans that if you purchase drugs, you help to kill Americans. This is more than a choice – it is akin to treason. Human rights groups report that 60,000 people were killed in Mexico due to cartel violence from 2006 to 2012. Additionally, Mexico has experienced the rise of armed militias. Some of these militias fight against the cartels and some for the cartels, and some fight each other. The U.S. Justice Department classified Mexican drug cartels as the “biggest organized crime threat to the United States.”

Ultimately it has the potential to be a failed state on the United States’ southern border. There must be a clear policy toward the Mexican government that the United States will not tolerate the violence and chaos created by the drug cartels. The United States must offer the Mexican government the tools to break the back of the cartels or do the job itself. The current policy of muddling through has produced increased death and violence on both sides of the border and threatens the very existence of a viable Mexican government.

Realists recognize that chaos right on our border is simply an impossible situation to tolerate and is the number one factor in the drug degradation of American civilization. Liberals see the potential for a human rights tragedy that has never been seen this continent, let alone the horrors of human trafficking, drugs and the destruction of the last vestiges of Mexican democracy. The next president must level with the American people that this is not about domestic politics or votes: It is about the most basic foundation of American national security along its border and the coming nightmare if American policy continues the status quo or is held hostage to those that make money and power off of the domestic issues of immigration and race.

Israel and Palestine

The United States has been a partner with the state of Israel from the beginning.

President Bush turned away from the policy of accommodating Palestinian terrorists in an effort to promote democratic Palestinian forces. There is no other alternative to dealing with this crisis. There must be a permanent and continuous policy for the support of Israel; terrorists groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and states like Iran and Syria must be put on notice that an attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on American interests.

Further, any support of Palestinian aspirations must be predicated on peace with Israel, recognition of Israel and the development of Palestinian democracy and civil society. Hamas, which seized control of Gaza from Fatah in 2007, continues to launch attacks against Israel and receives aid and armaments from Iran. Objective analysts have known for years that the Arab states do not care about the fate of the Palestinians, but it has served the interests of propaganda and domestic consumption.

However, the basic question that needs to be asked is this: “What is the alternative to Israel?” No other nation in the region is as democratic, competent and stable. There is no other intelligence service that can be trusted, no other military and no other government equal to Israel in the region. Realists who seriously analyze American interests without reference to religion, civilization or culture would find it impossible to find another substitute. Liberals, who seriously consider issues of justice, human rights and democracy have even further to go to find such an alternative.

In the end, just like the Iranian nuclear question, it will not be resolved until there is a change of government away from the number one state sponsors of terrorism in the world. The Palestinian issue cannot be solved without democracy in its entirety, not just elections. Liberals, realists and conservatives should recognize together that American grand strategy is best served when there is a vibrant democratic civil society for both Israelis and Palestinians. The next president must reframe the relationship with Israel as not only about American support for the Jewish state but about American support for democratic values, and invite the Palestinians to join that cause.

So called international relations liberals and realists are both served by stable, democratic societies that protect liberty, private property, human rights and a republican political process. The only strategic way to deal with Mexico or the Arab-Israeli conflict is in this lens. The Lilliputian thinking of the current administration – alienating Israel, using Mexico for domestic political purposes and not steering the Palestinians toward a freedom agenda – simply pushes the next administration to have a more difficult and challenging start.

In 2012, Dr. Lamont Colucci was approached by U.S. News and World Report to write a weekly column on foreign policy and national security. This is under the aegis of World Report – Insights, perspectives, and commentary on foreign affairs. View the article on USNews.com

---

In the fifth article in my series concerning the issues that the next president will face, I turn from the twin dynamos (energy security and primacy) to the twin specters of rouge states and failed states. The next president’s administration will be significantly consumed by these two sides of a presidential challenge coin.

In 2002, President George W. Bush identified the “axis of evil.” Two of those nations still spread evil and malevolence abroad and to their own people. Iran and North Korea continue to account for untold misery to their own populations and to the international system as a whole.

The next president will need to formulate a long-term strategic policy that is ultimately designed to bring about an end to both regimes. The current attempts to tinker with diplomacy, to hold off Iran’s nuclear weapons program and to reduce North Korean aggression will at best buy some time.

The next president needs to launch a serious shift in policy whose goals mirror those of President Ronald Reagan regarding the Soviet Union, which rejected accommodation, appeasement and full-scale war at the same time. Both regimes share an interest in weapons of mass destruction and not only nuclear ones, but biological and chemical weapons as well. They both are engaged in advances in missile technology, military expansion, human rights abuses, terrorism and despotism.

Iran, seeking a Persian-Shiite empire in the Persian Gulf, has engaged in a laundry list of policies and behaviors designed to kill Americans and hurt American interests since 1979. It is engaged in a massive campaign to produce its own nuclear weapons; it is engaged in building, modernizing and developing long-range ballistic missile capabilities; it is the number-one state sponsor of terrorism, with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah; it is the number-one partner or sponsor of other rogue regimes like Syria and Venezuela; it is the number one conduit for the training and arming of Shiite militias in Iran that killed U.S. troops and Iraqis; it has assisted, when it deems its own interests are at stake, both al-Qaida and the Taliban (regardless of theological differences, just as in the case of Hamas); and it continues to be one of the worst human rights violators of its own people.

The United States must make a permanent and declared policy that it will not tolerate any further development of its nuclear or missile program and that unless Iran reverses its terror strategy, America will consider it an act of war and act accordingly. The United States should be prepared to call on the successful implementation of the Truman, Reagan and Bush Doctrines to destabilize the regime, use covert operations, prepare for the use of hard power, and assist the pro-democracy elements of Iran with more than rhetoric.

Iran can be made to pay a high price for its recalcitrance with the use of American hard power that has nothing to do with the use of conventional ground troops. The Reagan years proved the efficiency of these policies.

Due to the dithering and lack of strategy by the Clinton administration, North Korea is a more difficult problem, as it already has an advanced nuclear and missile program, proving the need to have acted in Iraq and the need to take action immediately on Iran. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has developed nuclear weapons and is a massive arms proliferator, counterfeiter of U.S. dollars, drug seller and, worst of all, the worst violator of human rights on the planet.

North Korea operates a vast empire of concentration camps where people are treated worse than animals and punishes any type of dissent with torture and execution. Pivotal to American strategy and inherent to American values is the destruction of these camps by covert and overt means.

The United States must make a permanent and declared policy that seeks to remove the North Korean totalitarian regime; declare that any further missile tests will be treated as an aggressive act; stop, by any means necessary, its nuclear program; assist elements in South and North Korea that seek liberation; and prepare concrete plans to assist South Korea in eventual reunification in an effort to avoid one of the potentially worst humanitarian disasters with refugees ever seen.

If there are any regimes and leaders that are diametrically opposed to American values and interests, they would be Iran and North Korea. We have been in a state of war with both, and it is time that our grand strategy reflects that fact. The existence of these regimes and their actions are inimical to the security and values of the United States. These illegal regimes are an abomination against both God and man. They violate the bedrock of natural law that the United States was founded on: life, liberty, and property.

Their actions can unite realists who realize that two entire regions of the world face destabilization, anarchy and chaos because of their existence and liberals who should be horrified at the totalitarian nightmare that has been allowed to victimize and abuse millions. The next president can create a legacy here that will ensure his place in the upper echelon of presidential history and united the American people behind a just cause that mirrors that of World War II.

The next president must also jettison the baggage created by the immigration issue and deal with the root cause of the domestic and foreign policy muddle that is Mexico, which has been experiencing political and social instability for the last century.

Following multiple regime changes in the 19th century, it finally developed a more stable government in the 20th. However, Mexico has been plagued by a ruling oligarchical class and an extremely poor lower class. In the last 30 years there has been a tremendous rise in gangs and drug cartels in Mexico, and the money they have made is seeping into all areas of Mexican government and administration.

The police and political sectors have become extremely corrupt, and threaten the very life of Mexico itself. Human Rights Watch reports that 60,000 people were killed in Mexico due to cartel violence from 2006 to 2012. Additionally Mexico has experienced the rise of armed militias. Some of these militias fight against and for the cartels, and some fight each other.

The U.S. Justice Department classified Mexican drug cartels as “biggest organized crime threat to the United States.” Ultimately there is the potential for a failed state on the United States’ southern border.

There must be a clear policy toward the Mexican government that the United States will not tolerate the violence and chaos created by Mexican drug cartels. The United States must offer the Mexican government the tools to break the back of the cartels or do the job itself. The current policy of muddling through has produced increased death and violence on both sides of the border and threatens the very existence of a viable Mexican government.

Realists recognize that chaos right on our border is simply an impossible situation to tolerate and is the number one factor in the drug degradation of American civilization. Liberals see the potential for a human rights tragedy right on this continent, along with the horrors of human trafficking, drugs and the destruction of the last vestiges of Mexican democracy.

The next president must level with the American people that this is not about domestic politics or votes: It is about the most basic foundation of American national security along its border and the coming nightmare if American policy continues the status quo or is held hostage to those that make money and power off of the domestic issues of immigration and race.

If the next president is able to create a unified policy on rogue and failed states, his legacy will last decades. If the president is unable to do this, the results for the American people could be catastrophic.

In 2012, Dr. Lamont Colucci was approached by U.S. News and World Report to write a weekly column on foreign policy and national security. This is under the aegis of World Report – Insights, perspectives, and commentary on foreign affairs. View the article on USNews.com

---

In November, I started a series of articles about the issues that the next president will face, and how that commander-in-chief can unite international-relations realists and liberals into a new American renaissance in foreign policy and national security.

In continuation of that theme, there are two nonregional issues that the new president must ensure: energy security and military and diplomatic primacy.

Energy security. It is, after decades, in vogue to discuss national security and energy policy. Energy security is one of the most important aspects of national security to everyday civilians.

It affects the way they live their lives and brings peace and order when there is enough energy, and there are necessary means to access it. Various historical events such as the OPEC oil embargo from 1973-1974 have led the United States to take steps toward energy independence. However, there is a debate as to whether or not energy independence will ensure energy security. The United States Army has realized this and has stated concrete goals to achieve energy national security: “materiel, readiness, human capital, services and infrastructure – with targeted measures and metrics as guides. These goals are Inform Decisions, Optimize Use, Assure Access, Build Resiliency and Drive Innovation.”

A huge part of this equation is enhanced oil-recovery technology. These technologies have changed the global reserve of oil assessed in the past at 1.6 billion barrels to 10.2 billion barrels with enhanced oil-recovery technology. Domestically, we are already witnessing the 21st century oil boom generate prosperity for states like Colorado, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming. Current estimates indicate that by 2020, the United States will be the dominant worldwide producer of both natural gas and oil and achieve energy independence.

The energy policy of the United States must reflect its grand strategy and be based on some fundamental and permanent declarations and actions: The United States will not tolerate any power or group that seeks to deny its people access to petroleum; the United States is prepared to use hard power if that denial occurs; the United States seeks favorable trade relations in energy based on free commerce; the United States will not sacrifice its interests or values for that access; the United States will support pro-democracy adherents and groups that wish to replace despotic petrocracies.

Tom Friedman of The New York Times introduced the concept of the First Law of Petropolitics, stating that as the price of oil increases, so does repression and lack of change in places like Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The reverse is true as well. Oil profits fund military adventurism, nuclear weapons development, terrorism, oppression, extremism, secret police and tyranny. These nations will engage in some if not all of these without oil, but the pressure on them to curtail or slow such malevolence, combined with increased pressure domestically (due to economic trouble), will occur.

The United States will enforce the Carter Doctrine and free navigation; the United States will combine alternative energy sources with the opening of all viable petroleum sources domestically. It must mean that the war against nuclear power ceases and stops being dominated by the most childish aspects of pop culture.

This must become a permanent and declared strategy, and it must be enforced. Realists are clearly in favor of greater energy independence and liberals want to pursue methods that wean the United States from fossil fuels, but also the corruption of many of the nations we purchase oil from. The ability to aggressively pursue enhanced oil-recovery technology will give the United States the breathing room to pursue the most promising alternatives in wind, wave, solar tidal, geothermal and hydroelectric.

Primacy. The United States took a long road to military primacy, which has ensured world order, world commerce and world peace. It has achieved all three more than any territorial empire in the past and any international treaty or organization of the present or future. This not only means maintaining, and most likely expanding, the 11 Carrier Task Forces but all branches of the military, intelligence and even diplomatic services.

The stability of the international relations system is entirely dependent on U.S. military primacy and the Pax Americana. It must be the permanent strategy of the United States to ensure this primacy continues and expands. Linked to primacy is the development and deployment of a multilayered national missile defense that should ultimately cover our allies. There must also be permanence to the American way of war and a resurrection of the Weinberger Doctrine concerning overwhelming force. American national security at home, during violent riots and looting, and abroad, during war, is served best by swift and massive force. This always results in lower casualties for both U.S. troops and civilians.

There are two immediate ways this can occur. The first is to stop any attempt to reduce the defense budget to dangerously low levels. The defense budget must be based not on bean-counting but on the grand strategy of the United States designed to protect American vital and national interests. This should be a bipartisan and immediate commitment.

The second way is a reinvigoration of the U.S. space program under the auspices of NASA. This primarily revolves around the resurrection of manned space flight exploration and a realization that primacy and any future military conflicts will be won by the nation that realizes that a new strategic navalism will be in space: space weapons, space defense, spacecraft and, ultimately, platforms and bases. The nation that fails to do this will be entirely at the mercy of those nations that achieve space dominance. The evolution and history of military technology, whether it was the longbow, the cannon, the rifle, the tank or the aircraft carrier, has proved this for 5,000 years.

Domestic budget matters should not drive the dual mission of energy security and primacy. The next president’s mission is to create the conditions of continued American strategic preeminence. Realists and liberals both have reasons to ensure that the mission is achieved, and the abyss is avoided. The next president needs to be commander-in-chief, not “bean-counter-in-chief.”

In 2012, Dr. Lamont Colucci was approached by U.S. News and World Report to write a weekly column on foreign policy and national security. This is under the aegis of World Report – Insights, perspectives, and commentary on foreign affairs. View the article on USNews.com

---

2015 will go down as an annus horribilis for United States foreign affairs and national security. The missteps of two terms of the Obama administration have blossomed into a new normal of crises, competition and miscalculation. In general the international system and in parallel fashion U.S. foreign policy is more problematic today than on Jan. 1 of this year. The Obama administration’s reliance on inertia has hit a wall that can no longer hold. The numerous forks in the road have become narrow and tortured and the next president will need to spend an enormous amount of time correcting these mistakes.

One can examine a number of case studies that are illustrative of the major issues in the world today and include the following: The Islamic State group and Islamic extremism, cyberwar, Libya, Russia, Ukraine, China, Japan, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. There is not a single one that shows more promise today than a year ago. The current administration has plunged the country into a permanent crisis mode that is dangerous and to many, incomprehensible.

Islamic State group and Islamic extremism. The Islamic State group has dominated world media attention and is considered by many to be the single most difficult issue that will face the next president in the near term. Although the Islamic State group does not pose a strategic threat in the manner that Russia or China could, it poses the worst problem for our Middle Eastern allies such as Israel and Jordan and contributes to a multitude of other problems such as the destabilization of Iraq and refugees, and is an illustration of the problems of current American foreign policy. Though the Islamic State group has stalled on some of its territorial conquests, it has also metastasized into areas well beyond the borders of the northern Middle East. The Islamic State group, its adherents, franchises and allies have claimed to be behind attacks in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Turkey, Algeria, the Philippines, Nigeria, Sudan, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Tunisia and Mali.

The Islamic State group also poses a growing threat to homeland security and claimed to be behind the May 5 attack in Garland, Texas. The FBI in the Twin Cities area openly worries about Islamic State-inspired attacks among the Somali population. The potential here for “lone wolves,” or “self-radicalized” inspired and affiliated attacks is high and has already been witnessed in places like France where the Islamic State group is linked to the Charlie Hebdo attack in January and the train attack (stopped primarily by three American servicemen) in August. Western nations also believe that the Islamic State group was behind the October bombing of the Russian airliner traveling from Egypt back to Russia, killing all 224 people on board. The paradigm shifted on Nov. 13, 2015, when three Islamic State assault teams engaged in a well-coordinated mass attack in Paris, resulting in over 100 dead. This coupled with assaults during the same time period against civilian targets in Beirut and Baghdad has forced all governments to reevaluate their policies. In May 2015, the Islamic State group claimed to have cells in 15 states in the United States of America. By year’s end, this all came to fruition with the death of 14 Americans in San Bernardino. The intelligence and law enforcement community seem to all be suggesting that 2016 will be worse.

Although the Islamic State group is facing pressure from a variety of nation states and allied groups, they have managed to transform a radical Sunni terrorist movement led by al-Qaida into a full blown territorial insurgency. This transformation has been missed by the media and even many experts. The Islamic State group is not a terrorist group: Typical counterterrorism tactics, the limited coalition air war, let alone law enforcement measures, will not stop a pseudo-state that has resorted to using chemical weapons.

Further, the Islamic State group has given Russia the twin gift of being so evil that Russian involvement has been perceived as neutral by many, and their client, Assad, is therefore not so bad. Russia can not only justify intervention but support for the current Syrian regime.

Cyberwar. The threat of cyberwarfare continued to rise during this year. Although the media was focused primarily on the November 2014 Sony hack, probably by North Korea, 2015 proved to be a greater security problem in cyberspace. Notably, the two strategic threats to the United States, Russia and China, were behind the most notorious of them. Russia was behind attacks against the German parliament and the American Joints Chiefs of Staff, and China was behind the attacks on the Japanese pension system and the United States Office of Personnel Management. The first notable cyberattack of the year was on the Japan Pension Service. This attack revealed roughly 1.25 million employees’ personal information. In a very similar move, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management was hacked and revealed roughly 22.1 million federal workers’ personal information. China was blamed for both attacks, and some theorize that China is building a database of federal employees. Both the White House and German parliament were hacked within two months, with Russia being the primary suspect. This resulted in the leaking of nonclassified, but sensitive, data. The last hack of note came on July 25. The Joint Chiefs of Staff email was disrupted, and their email server was disrupted for 11 days. The suspected culprit was again Russia.

The next president will need to decide how the United States will respond to cyberattacks that are acts of war.

Libya. Libya is often touted by President Obama and candidates like Hilary Clinton as one of the major foreign policy success stories. The narrative is based on the premise that the United States had a very light footprint and was able to topple the rogue leader, Moammar Gadhafi. However, the story is far from over. Libya has descended into a state of anarchy and chaos divided along rival lines and warlords. Perhaps the greatest threat to U.S. foreign policy is the rise of the Islamic State group in Libya in places like the port city of Sirte. Libya is the Obama foreign policy writ large; it is the perfect foreign policy case study of the two terms of his presidency. It combined the unwillingness to lead, the justification of limited intervention with ambiguous human rights and a total inability to follow through. Although much time has been spent on the tragedy of the events in Benghazi, the larger tragedy of Libya and the worsening situation is the key to understanding the world today under an America that is often in retreat.

Russia. This has been a banner period for Russia. Although many have focused on the problems in the economy, the Russian economy continues to remain slumped, with a 2.2 percent economic decrease in the first quarter and a 4.6 percent decrease from last year. Experts predict that the Russian economy will continue to shudder and hurt despite Putin’s tough stances. However, this has never stopped Russian Tsarism or Soviet imperialism of the past. There is no reason to believe this is different. In fact, a rousing foreign adventure often distracts the Russian population. Russia overtook U.S. diplomacy over the Syrian chemical weapons issue, allowing for the world to calm itself over Assad’s other abuses. Russia then took advantage of the situation to militarily insert itself directly into the Syrian equation. Russia’s geostrategic position in the Middle East has not been this strong since the height of the Cold War. Russia’s foreign policy is based on a cold calculation of Russian national interests abroad, nothing more or less. Second, Russia has clear goals of where it wants to be at the end of these diplomatic exercises.

Russia has re-emerged as a worldwide player and will be the most difficult long-term strategic threat the next president will face.

Ukraine. Directly related to Russia is Ukraine. Jan. 17 marked a major Russian offensive in Ukraine. Claims of at least 9,000 Russia troops arose repeatedly. Beginning in early February and throughout the year, these calls continued, effectively calling Kiev to retreat and surrender. Though continuous efforts toward a peace process would be called throughout the following months, they would all be met with Putin’s insistence that Ukraine leave the rebels alone. Ceasefires were called and broken and in late March and April, hostilities resumed and with it came with another influx of Russian troops on April 24. The summer fighting turned into another round of current ceasefires. The next president will face a fundamental choice of whether to face off against the Russians with strong and lethal assistance to the Ukrainian government. The world media seems to have tired of the issue, and this plays well into Russian designs.

China. China also suffered from poor economic news during this year. China’s growth fell to a 20 year low and it has been forced to devalue its currency to keep imports more competitive. It was able to vie for an international focus point by creating the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank despite protests from the United States. President Xi has attempted to ally public fears with a two-pronged attack. The first is on the domestic front by announcing another round of aggressive anti-corruption campaigns. The second is on demonstrating a more ambitious foreign policy. It is abundantly clear that the People’s Republic of China is in the throes of a revival of 19th-century navalism, realizing that the pathway to great-power status, international-trade protection and intimidation capability runs through maritime power. Since Beijing realizes it still cannot battle the U.S. Navy in a symmetrical fashion, they are investing heavily in information warfare and “non-contact” warfare such as anti-access and area-denial strategies.

China poses the second most important strategic concern to the next president, and whatever merit President Obama’s pivot to Asia has, it will need to be transformed into a coherent, strong and consistent policy in the Pacific Rim.

Japan. In light of the rising threat of China and the continued threat from North Korea, Japan has embarked on its most impressive security change since the 1950s. Japan is hampered by a Constitution that the United States wrote and also depends on America for large areas of its security. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is continuing the evolution away from both of these dependencies by slowly returning Japan to its intrinsic geopolitical imperatives. This continues at a quick pace (for Japan) marked by the Diet’s passage in July of new security changes that give Japan the right to “collective self-defense.” Japan is emerging from its WWII shell, and the trajectory will require a deft policy that ensures the U.S.-Japan alliance which is the lynchpin for all of U.S. foreign policy in Asia.

Iran. The attention paid to Iran has been over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and it has been soundly criticized by many over its verifiability and enforcement mechanisms. Lost in the tumult is Iran’s ramping up activity in Syria to support Assad and Hezbollah, the rebels in Yemen and terrorism in Gaza. The fundamental question for the next president will be whether the nuclear agreement makes sense or whether it needs to be dissolved. However, this does not answer the greater question of U.S. foreign policy towards Iran, which is bent on domination of the region, the state sponsorship of terrorism and the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Instead of focusing on the “comprehensive” plan for action, there needs to be a comprehensive Iranian policy. Iran has proven to be the Obama administration’s worst mistake, and the next president will pay for this disaster with time, money, resources and, most likely, blood.

Afghanistan. The Taliban have shown their resilience this year and managed to spread not only throughout Afghanistan again, but to their farthest extent than 2001. They managed to capture the city of Kunduz despite being massively outnumbered by Afghani forces, and have even been offered a possible position in the government by Afghani leaders. President Obama reversed himself in October, announcing that the total withdrawal of American forces is cancelled and that American forces will remain well into 2016 and possibly beyond. Afghanistan, like Libya, also illustrates the problem of Obama’s foreign policy writ large. The allergy to hard power in large numbers was compounded by a battle-hardened enemy who is determined to win at any cost. All of this is further complicated by the Islamic State’s advance into Afghanistan. The town of Sangin, once a Taliban stronghold, now plays host to the Islamic State group black flag. In addition, the Islamic State group has claimed the Khorasan Province. Although they will clash with the Taliban, this could be a short-lived victory if it gains a serious foothold.

The next president will need to address what victory looks like in Afghanistan and engage a policy that will achieve it.

Syria. Chaos, death and violence in Syria have only worsened. If Libya and Afghanistan illustrate the low points of American foreign policy during this period, Syria is the epic tragedy. Not only have both Assad and the Islamic State group continued to use chemical weapons, but the conditions that America refused to address have allowed the Russians to break down the front door and gain a foothold. Further, although Russia partially justified intervention due to the Islamic State group in Syria, Russia is primarily targeting other anti-Assad rebels, some of which are supported by the United States, who was forced to abandon its $500 million dollar training program. If Russia and China are the long-term strategic issues the next president must come to terms with, and the Islamic State group is the medium term threat, Syria is the issue that the next president faces minutes after inauguration. The situation in Syria is worse today than yesterday, and there is no indication that the problems of American foreign policy will be better come Election Day.

Iraq. Iraq mirrors Syria, and the central government is still in dire straits. Although the United States is trying to train up the Iraq army for their offensives in Anbar province, the Iraq government continues to be plagued by corruption and an inability to gain recruits. The oil-dependent economy suffers from the problems in the world oil market. Further, both Russia and Iran have used this time period to exploit America’s unwillingness to lead and are gaining influence in the Iraq government. The fundamental question the next president will face in Iraq is whether America is committed to an Arab-Muslim democracy in the Middle East or not.

Conclusion. It would be difficult to point to an area in international relations or American foreign policy that is better today than it was when the presidential campaign season started. In general the world is worse off, and American strategic interests are more threatened than they were in 2014. The trajectory on most fronts is darker. The next president has as very simple calculation in foreign policy to make: Does he want to enhance and expand the Pax Americana or manage its decline?