Foreign Policy: Smart or Strong?

It remains a truism that American foreign policy hardly changes when a new family moves into the White House. But does anybody still think politics ends at the water's edge? Then-candidate Hillary Clinton challenged both notions during Bush 43's tenure, first by shouting (literally) that dissent is patriotic, and then with her contention that the way to fix things is to implement Smart Power. She cast U.S. foreign policy as an intellectual exercise (not to mention implying GW Bush's stupidity). How's that workin' out Madame Secretary?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton return to their seats after speaking during the transfer
of remains of the four Americans killed in an attack this week in Benghazi, Libya.
(Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

Rhetoric is coin of the realm among diplomats because the price—paid in blood, treasure and stature—of taking action can be astronomically high. Firing barbs at each other is preferable to firing bullets and bombs. But while most Western "democracies" behave themselves peaceably, the world has no shortage of Bad Actors. The non-state bad-guys have become famous since 9/11: Al Queda, Hezbollah and their affiliates. They're universally loathed outlaws who can be shot on sight without much blowback. But there's also a roster of nasty nation-states worth worrying about. They are, in descending order of awfulness: Iran, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, China. 

The first three on that list, while spinning dangerously away from Western norms, do not possess nukes. No such comfort with the last four. 

In its most charitable light, Smart Power imagines that pointing out "shared interests" or "being nicer" will alchemize swords into plowshares. Thus does President Obama task NASA with "Muslim outreach" as their number one priority. And he travels to Egypt to apologize for America's having been arrogant. So an ascendant Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt plays an insulting YouTube video to stir things up for the 11th anniversary of 9/11. Riotous demonstrations ensue in 22 Muslim capitals—and four U.S. embassies/consulates are breached for an Al Queda flag to replace the Stars and Stripes. Brilliant.

About the only city where there wasn't a riot was Benghazi, where Al Queda in Libya assassinated our Ambassador and three other Americans (two of whom were not part of the Ambassador's team). No word on what flag is flying there now.

Here's the problem with Smart Power: what America deems smart rarely appeals to power-crazed dictators or wild-eyed Jihadi mullahs. When Hillary uses the word "senseless" for the 50th time to describe the actions of the Usual Suspects, she is blowing her cover: what makes sense to these people will never add up for us. And vice-versa. How smart is it then, to expect being "reasonable" will get us anywhere with them?

It's all well and good to, in Teddy Roosevelt's words "speak softly and carry a big stick." But if nobody believes you'll use the stick, you're wasting your breath. Remember what previously happened in Libya when America used a Big Stick on Saddam Hussein? Correct: Mouammar Kadhafi turned into a kitty-cat and relinquished all his WMD. And therein lies a lesson of its own about Arabic countries: any leader seen as weak is in grave danger. Kadhafi became vulnerable at that point, and it was only a matter of time before he tumbled. 

So while Mitt Romney hasn't laid out details about "what he would do" in foreign policy overseas, he's done all he needs to do by adding John Bolton to his team and emphasizing American strength. If you don't think what happened in Iran on January 20th 1981 is instructive, then you weren't paying attention. America's Weak Horse, Jimmy Carter, was surrendering power to a horse the Ayatollah considered Strong: Ronald Reagan. Ronaldus Magnus didn't have to lift a finger toward Iran—they just let our people go. Which they thought was the smart thing to do.