Selfishness Is A Dangerous Vice

Selfishness has always been a prominent, albeit unattractive, human characteristic.

The French political theorist Alexander de Tocqueville, whose seminal 19^th century work Democracy in America is still widely read, wrote extensively about selfishness:

“No vice of all the human heart is so acceptable to it as selfishnesss: a despot easily forgives his subjects for not loving him, provided they do not love each other.  He does not ask them to assist him in governing the state; it is enough that they do to aspire to govern it themselves.

In Tocqueville’s view, however, Americans had overcome the evil of selfishness through its free governmental institutions, especially at the local level where citizens came to recognize the necessity and benefits of working together.  One wonders what he might conclude in today’s atmosphere of hyper partisanship, for in the 21^st century selfishness has expanded its reach and depth and threatens America’s democracy.

Synonymous with greed, one of the original seven deadly sins, selfishness is usually thought of in relation to concrete or tangible things such as money or property.  However, it is manifest in other realms as well, generally where access to wealth may be an enabling factor such as the desire for power and control in politics, economics and social status.  Racism and xenophobia, or disrespect for those who are poor and do not enjoy the privileges of class or profession are also manifestations of selfishness.  

The Powell Memorandum has been a major contributor to the ratcheting up of selfishness in American society.  Entitled “Attack on American Free Enterprise System,” the memorandum was drafted for the US Chamber of Commerce in August 1971, by Lewis J. Powell, at the time a Virginia corporate attorney.  Still accessible on the Internet, it was a call to arms for the nation’s business sector. 

Powell, who a few months later was nominated to the US Supreme Court by Richard Nixon, argued for strong and broad measures to counter the influence of virtually every other sector with an interest in the country’s economic life---unions, consumer groups, college campuses, pulpits, the media, intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences and politicians. His proposed counterattack was swift and sweeping.

By 1978, the number of corporations with public affairs offices in Washington had grown from 100 in 1968 to over 500.  Only 175 firms had registered lobbyists in Washington in 1971, but by 1982, nearly 2,500 did.  Today, there are approximately 12,000 “registered” lobbyists in Washington, DC.  Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business according to a 2015 article in The Atlantic magazine.

The Powell Memorandum also precipitated an explosion in the growth of US think tanks.  Funded primarily by corporations and wealthy individuals, these “expert” organizations produce research studies and policy proposals generally supportive of corporate views on a variety of subjects.  By 2009, a study by the University of Pennsylvania identified nearly 400 think tanks in Washington, DC, but only about twenty percent of the think tanks in the US as a whole. 

Despite their role in influencing legislation and shaping political opinion, these organizations enjoy tax exempt status under the IRS code.  Donors to those claiming not to be an “action organization” (501c3) also receive tax deductions for their contributions.  While donors contributing to those openly engaged in lobbying and political activity (501c4) do not received tax deductions, their identity is sheltered. 

Inexplicably, individual citizens who contribute directly to political organizations and candidates receive no tax deduction and their identity is publicly recorded.  The result has been a decline in the role of political parties as arbiters of major governmental issues.

Changes wrought by the business sector in the media field have also had a negative impact on American democracy.  Removal of restrictions on ownership of broadcast and print media led to the elimination of the “fairness doctrine” for broadcast media and to an unhealthy consolidation of both broadcast and print media. Locally owned and controlled in the past, media outlets enjoyed a much highly level of public trust than today.

The Internet and the subsequent rise social media has filled the resulting void, but not always in a good way.

In the nearly fifty years since this selfish approach to governance was initiated income inequality in America has exploded, public and private debt have intensified, worker rights have been diminished and health care access has become problematic for many of the poor despite obvious medical advancements.  Granted the assumption has always been that various interests in American society would naturally prioritize their own concerns.  But for nearly a half century now corporate interests have sought and gained almost total dominance.

Business interests deserve respect and protection, but this kind of absolutism is helping to break down civility in America’s politic arena. Whether the issue is gerrymandering, judicial appointments, funding for education and health care, taxes or voting restrictions, the domination of corporate interests outweigh all other interests.  Relentless selfishness by any significant group within a country undermines the trust democracy requires and risks its existence as a viable republic.

Crafting An Effective Immigration Policy

Separating children from their parents at the US southern border by our country’s immigration service and border patrol has created an horrific backlash against the Trump administration.  The inflammatory rhetoric of both the president and his attorney general intensified the negative reaction to the point that the policy has been walked back temporarily, but the atmosphere for crafting a responsible immigration policy for America is not apparent.

The issues involved in enabling positive immigration are complex.  Both parties are at fault when comes to addressing those issues, but it is not helpful when one party’s leader accuses the other of being in favor of “open borders.”  Lying is not a useful negotiating tactic.

A major source of the respect and influence the US enjoys in the world is directly tied to our status as a place of refuge and opportunity.  As a nation of immigrants America can hardly justify raising impossible barriers to future aspirants, but neither can we fail to impose reasonable criteria for entry. 

The first step in developing an appropriate immigration policy must be determining our objectives.  Currently, there are a multiplicity of objectives being batted around, each championed by its own group of special interests.  Trying to shape an immigration policy serving our collective national interest is being lost in the melee.

From an economic standpoint, our country gains from a reasonable stream of new citizens capable of filling a variety of jobs. The US labor force participation rate, a key factor in economic growth, has been declining since 2000 in part because of baby boomers retiring and fertility rates dropping.  Since immigrant workers tend to be younger that their American-born counterparts, they could help address this problem, but only if they are brought in under circumstances that protect the job and financial security of our existing workforce.  

Dealing effectively with immigration is also critical to our nation’s political health.  The inflammatory rhetoric characterizing the issue is hardening the partisan divide and taking on bitter racial overtones.  This is foreboding since the population of the US will likely become more racially diverse regardless of our immigration policy. 

Race is not the only demographic issue that a sound immigration policy could help us address.  As mention earlier, part of the labor force participation rate problem is the aging of our current workforce.  However, it will not be enough to recruit only young immigrant workers. We also need to maintain some age balance in our labor force.

Finally, there are humanitarian considerations.  Our Declaration of Independence expresses a firm commitment to the sentiment that all people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  And it also speaks to our “respect for the opinion of mankind.”  Ignoring the plight of refugees fleeing tyranny of any origin denies our heritage, and just as the US reacts negatively when other nations treat Americans without respect, other countries will judge us harshly if we discriminate against their citizens. 

Obviously, our present immigration system has not responding well to any of these objectives.  Instead, over the years a rag bag of reactive measures have amassed each designed to appease a specific interest group.

Work visa  programs originally approved for short term needs have become permanent threats to job security and wage growth for American-born workers as well as to the ambitions of US students who see visas used to fill jobs that otherwise might be available to them in the future.

These programs respond to the immediate profit concerns of business and agricultural interests, but do little to meet the long term requirements of a stable and growing US economy.

In addition, there are in the US 11 million undocumented immigrants who have slipped through the cracks in the current system and have been living and working in this country for many years.  Most of these people are not rapists or murderers, but in general are law-abiding citizens meaningfully employed and paying taxes.

Proposals to address the status of undocumented immigrants usually begin by assuming immigrants are all criminals.  Technically, this is correct, but as a matter of practical circumstance this is a bureaucratic obstruction that prevents any common sense solution to the problem.  For the most part these people are already integrated into our country economical and socially.  The only thing they lack is citizenship which would provide the political and security protections that all Americans deserve.

It is not ideal for American citizenship be acquired in a haphazard manner.  There should be clarity as to what criteria a potential immigrant should meet.  There should be programs to recruit future citizens who can meet important needs, and there should be programs that allow the US to respond to refugees.

To develop an appropriate immigration policy our country’s political leadership needs to have an informed debate about the various issues and to recognize that success will be determined in large part by our relationships with other nations.  Border walls and guest worker programs are poor initiatives in that regard.

Conducting US Foreign Policy

The terms, “diplomacy” and “negotiation” have been heavily used in recent weeks.  Although these terms can be used in a variety of settings, including business and even personal relationships, their application in the international context has relevance in the current discussion. Significant interests of the United States are at stake based on how these terms are understood by our national leaders.

Diplomacy is sometimes used interchangeably with foreign policy, but it is not the same.  Foreign policy generally is set by political leaders with advice from diplomats, military leaders and economic experts and includes goals as well as strategies and tactics for achievement.  Diplomacy is defined as the pursuit of a nation’s goals through representation, communication and negotiation.  It is the chief instrument of a nation’s foreign policy.  And while coercion may be in the background, a primary objective of diplomacy is to avoid the use of force or punitive measures.

It is also best conducted without great fanfare and publicity.

Negotiation may be defined as the process of discussing in order to reach an agreement.  If any party asserts there are preconditions required, other parties probably will refuse to participate except under duress.  Successful negotiation is also unlikely to be accomplished in too much public glare.   

Major differences exist between governance and politics in a single country and within the international arena.  Besides the likelihood that within a single country you find greater commonality in political beliefs and cultural heritage, you also likely will find a generally homogeneous population…the United States being an exception that confirms the rule. 

Perhaps the most significant difference is the absence in the international system of an overriding authority capable of resolving any question that might arise among the individual nations who consider themselves autonomous political units and act appropriately.  Despite extraordinary efforts to establish international organizations with the power to enforce decisions none exist today, and some that once showed promise have been diminished in their effectiveness.

Because of the nature of the international system understanding the concepts “diplomacy” and “negotiation” is of infinite importance.

Dealing with human beings makes the conduct of foreign policy difficult to plot and plan for; people are complex and their motives can be difficult to ascertain.  Donald Trump is not the first US president to assume understanding the leader of another country is easy.  Lyndon Johnson was perplexed when Ho Chi Minh did not rush to the negotiating table after he promised to replicate the Tennessee Valley Authority in the Mekong River Basin.  Colossal economic development welcomed by American politicians in the Appalachian South left Vietnam’s nationalist champion unmoved.

The foreign policy decisions of a nation’s leader will be based normally on the internal circumstances of that country.  Frequently, those circumstances may appear opaque or even counterintuitive.  Even experienced diplomats and scholars can be flummoxed.  In any case, it should be recognized that the most important policy objective of any state is its survival as an independent unit.  When considering the probable behavior of Kim Jong Un in regards to North Korea’s nuclear weapons, this fact should not be underestimated.

History is strewn with examples of national leaders who were certain they knew how to shape the international system to serve their country’s national interest.  Some have been motivated by the desire to extent their ideology or belief system, some have been driven by racial or ethnic animosity and some have been motivated by personal greed or raw ambition.

Those leaders who have been most successful in protecting their country’s national interest in the long run have recognized the wisdom of approaching the international community with respect and a willingness to accept the need to moderate their own country’s goals.  Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower are prime examples.

Managing power within the world order is a constant struggle.  Diplomatic representation, participation in international organizations, negotiating bilateral and multilateral agreements as well as formal treaties are all instruments nations use, but they only work when all participants accept the immediate goals in question.  It is natural that leaders of every country want their nation to prevail in most such interactions, but maintaining a viable international system cannot be a zero sum game.

History has proven that “winning” in the international arena is an ephemeral goal and it may open doors to greater losses down the road.  Attempting to gain leverage with another country through fear can prove to be a double edged sword.  It may result in the initial acceptance of a policy dictate, but inspire an ongoing effort to retaliate.  Using fear or hostile rhetoric in dealing with friendly nations or treaty allies is likely to be viewed as a betrayal and result in long term enmity.

Finally, it should be noted that the US Constitution envisions the Congress as a partner in the shaping of US foreign policy.  Since the end of the Vietnam War, however, the Congress has essentially neglected its oversight function.  This has embolden the executive to take unwise risks to our national detriment.

Giving Meaning to Memorial Day

The roots of Memorial Day reach back to the Civil War.  Official credit goes to General John A. Logan, leader of the Union veterans’ group, the Grand Army of the Republic.  Apparently inspired by several uncoordinated commemorative events during and immediately after war, in 1868 Logan called for a nationwide day of remembrance on May 30 each year.

“Decoration Day” was the original name Logan applied to the celebration, so designated since the intent was to strew flowers, or otherwise to “decorate” the graves of those who died in defense of their country during the “late rebellion.”  By 1890 virtually every state had a day of remembrance, although Southern states celebrated on a variety of different days.  “Memorial Day” did not become the more common name until after World War I, and it was not until 1967 that federal law officially recognized that appellation. 

Both NC and SC recognize the national holiday on the last Monday in May as well as Confederate Memorial Day on May 10, the day General Stonewall Jackson died. 

In 1968 the US Congress passed legislation that to some extent has undermined the purpose of several holidays, including Memorial Day. Under the Uniform Holidays Act, effective in 1971, only four holidays maintained their connection to a specific date:  New Year’s, Independence Day, Veterans’ Day and Christmas.  Most holidays now are celebrated on Mondays, facilitating three-day weekends that encourage tourism but sometimes blur the intent of the holiday. 

Memorial Day deserves to have retained its special status since it commemorates the ultimate sacrifice an individual can make for his or her country and fellow citizens. Perhaps a bit more solemn approach might encourage thoughtful consideration of how we view war and how our persistent conflicts around the world impact those who serve in our military.

Most of the dead we honor on Memorial Day died during a time when the military draft was in effect, but conscription ended in 1973 which means the majority of Americans living today never have had an obligation to serve in the armed forces.  The result is we sometimes appear to be rather cavalier about war since so few of us are affected directly.

Those who serve in our volunteer military today continue to discharge their duties and responsibilities with honor and patriotic commitment.  The value of their sacrifices is no less than that of earlier armed forces personnel, so they deserve our appreciation as well as our concern for how they are deployed.  Just because they are volunteers does not mean they should be utilized recklessly.  

If we wish to show proper respect for the men and women who have given their lives for this country and for those you continue to risk their lives in the service of the United States, we might start by insisting our politicians tone down the partisan divisiveness that frustrates the resolution of many significant issues related to our country’s international relations.  Political rhetoric that demonizes religious faiths or ethnic groups does not enhance the security of US armed forces attempting to stabilize already deeply divided countries or regions.  

Nor is it helpful to pursue policies and practices that demean and deny basic human rights to those with whom the United States may have quarrels.  Guantanamo should have been closed long ago.  If there are those who should be imprisoned, try them in US courts and sentence them in accordance with the law to serve in US prisons.

It would also be helpful if the commercialization of Memorial Day could be diminished.  Thanksgiving and Christmas have been hijacked.  Can we not preserve some space safe from greed?

Memorial Day is a time to reflect, not on the price of some trinket, but on the value of patriotism.

Patriotism is vital for a nation’s survival, but it is not merely a symbol.  Patriotism is a commitment to the ideals on which the country is based:  equal justice and equal opportunity.

Exploiting patriotism for commercial or political benefit should earn disapprobation.  Respect for the country is one thing.  Using your country for personal gain is something very different and potentially harmful.

Neither should patriotism be assumed.  It is an attitude and a virtue to be cultivated.

In the late 1960s when this country was torn asunder by the Vietnam War, I was a young political science instructor with highly opinionated students on both sides of the issue.  I did not attempt to dictate to either group, but instead set up debates where the two sides could share their views.  They did not always find common ground, but they did learn to respect their differences and avoided disruptions.  

If we could get back to that status in our current national debate, it would make for a better America and be a fitting memorial for those who have suffered to protect our freedoms.

Appraising the Whims of Billionaires

America has become the land of billionaire philanthropy.  But Jeff Bezos, the founder, chairman and chief executive officer of Amazon, the world’s largest online shopping retailer apparently intends to pursue a different approach in allocating his wealth. 

Some people viewed Bezos’ decision to buy the Washington Post, in 2013 as an act of philanthropy, but a newspaper is not a nonprofit, at least not deliberately.  If not a flood of new dollars, his ownership of the Post has earned Bezos substantial attention from Mr. Trump.

Perhaps of greater interest, and potential investment, is Bezos’ fascination with “space travel.” 

In 2000 he created Blue Origin, a company that builds reusable rockets and is developing a new orbital launch vehicle with the intention of sending tourists into space and eventually heavy industry along with millions of workers.  In 2016, he began a plan to invest $1 billion a year in this endeavor.

Surely there are whims with more likely value to the American public than space travel towards which Bezos could direct his largesse.  With a fortune estimated at $132 billion, the Princeton graduate and tech entrepreneur could almost fund South Carolina’s state budget with his annual interest alone.  That might be appropriate since Bezos has acquired his billions in large part by refusing to collect state and local sales taxes thereby slashing state and local government revenue while undercutting traditional brick and mortar businesses.

A more realistic and immediate alternative could be to start paying all Amazon workers a living wage---a minimum of $15 an hour.  According to the latest annual report of the internet behemoth, the median pay for Amazon employees is $28,446, which means that half of all workers make less than $14 an hour.  For comparison, Target Corp. has announced plans to pay at least $15 an hour to all employees by the end of 2020.

Bezos could also improve the general climate for economic development in the United States by dampening down the frenzy engendered by Amazon’s competitive search for a second headquarters.   Not every city was as wild as Newark which offered Amazon $5 billion to come to New Jersey ($100,000 for each employee), but all have been too willing to mortgage their community’s future for the prize. 

Amazon's HQ2 competition is part of a deeply disturbing trend in today’s America.  State against state, city against city, a wasteful and economically unproductive bidding civil war is undermining the nation’s infrastructure.  Revenue is being spent, or foregone, to provide tax and other incentives to footloose enterprises instead of going to investments in schools, housing, transportation and healthcare access.  This is happening in a country that is supposedly a single economic unit; at least that was the intent of the US Constitution when adopted.

As one of the world's most valuable companies, Amazon could set an example by declining tax and other costly incentives.  Instead, it could judge sites on the basis of their infrastructure plans for the future.  Other major corporations might follow Amazon’s lead.

  

Billionaire philanthropy has been a mixed bag generally.  Sometimes it works out alright---the HIV campaign of the Gates Foundation in Africa; Gates meddling in education has not been so great when it has joined in the scapegoating of teachers in America. 

Then there is Stephen Schwarzman who famously compared the Obama administration’s plan to raise the tax rate on carried interest to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.  He later apologized.  In 2015 Schwarzman gave his alma mater Yale $150 million for a “cultural center.”  Yale has an endowment of over $27 billion.

And of course we have the Koch brothers.  The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity, a 501©(4) “social welfare” organization, are two of their pet projects.  ALEC, touted as a “public-private partnership,” has promoted to state governments a multiplicity of model bills with conservative agendas including “stand your ground” and voter ID laws.  A tax exempt advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity is free to spend unlimited money “educating” the public about issues---as long as these efforts are not coordinated with any candidate’s campaign.  There are a plethora of such groups bankrolled by big money donors seeking to influence legislation and regulations to enhance business interests to the detriment of consumer and worker protections.

Admittedly, the political leadership of this country in recent years has not been much better at investing in productive ideas, but part of the problem there is the lobbying avalanche funded by alleged “philanthropists”

Recent tax legislation did nothing to remedy this situation.  Bumping the top marginal tax rate to 80 percent might give governments at all levels something to work with---and it might even inspire the wealthy to go ahead and share their largesse with their employees and their community more generously.  Not a bad idea since both have a lot to do with generating that wealth.

Choosing a New CIA Director

“Advice and consent” is the most visible tool the US Congress has for influencing choices for major posts in the executive branch of our national government.  Senior administrative officers have a great deal of say in how the laws are implemented, so you would expect senators to jealously guard their independence in exercising this power.  But the US Senate’s current consideration of Gina Haspel to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reflects the ambivalent manner with which the senators seem to approach this responsibility.

Consider first the origins of the agency Haspel wants to lead.

  

As World War II was winding down, leaders in both the US and among our Allies determined that German and Japanese political and military officials should be punished severely for their treatment of foreign populations and captives.  For several years following the end of the conflict trials for “war crimes” were conducted.  In those trials “following orders” was not considered justification for ignoring human dignity and basic justice.  War would no longer be viewed as an excuse for gross mistreatment of an enemy.

Also based on our wartime experience, America’s political and military leadership recognized our national security structure needed a significant overhaul.  The War Department was inadequate to manage the expanded military establishment, so the Defense Department was created to oversee the individual services and the National Security Council was established to better coordinate advice for the President.  In addition, the failure to foresee Pearl Harbor was considered a major blunder, so in order to better utilize intelligence assets the CIA came into being.  The Secretary of the Defense Department and the Director of the CIA were both considered civilian positions.

When these organizational changes were implemented, the Cold War was in its early stages.  However, they proved useful as the US was forced to deal with persistent international security threats.  Over time the roles and responsibilities of the new agencies have expanded and have changed.  Policing and humanitarian relief have become more significant duties for the military services, while covert interventions have been frequently pursued by the CIA as the risks of war have become more costly.

The American public always has had a mixed reaction to the CIA.  Its role as coordinator of US intelligence assets seems legitimate, but the use of deception and Machiavellian dark arts appear inconsistent with the values of fair play and honest dealings we generally advocate.  Reluctantly, the average citizen has tolerated the covert activities of the CIA as a necessary alternative to full scale combat with unfriendly regimes.

9/11 and the “War on Terrorism” raised the ante as the CIA became involved in using “enhanced interrogation” in an attempt to collection information from captives denied access to US or international courts.  The benefits of these tactics are questionable considering that we are still embroiled in conflicts throughout the Middle East and seem flummoxed about how to deal with China and Russia.

This brings us to the qualifications of Haspel to be Director of the CIA.

Her advocates point to her long years of service in the organization and defend her direct involvement in “enhanced interrogation” with the argument that those activities were considered “legal” at the time.  In her appearance before the US Senate Intelligence Committee Haspel refused to pass judgment on whether or not such activities were immoral.  She did promise “enhanced interrogation” would not be resumed under her watch, but refused to say what she would do if President Trump insisted the CIA do so.

Three questions should be considered by the US Senate in determining whether or not to advise and consent to Haspel’s nomination:

1) Are long years of service the best criterion for selecting a CIA director when we are clearly entering an age when conflict among nations is taking on new forms such as economic sanctions and cyberterrorism?

2) How committed is Haspel to resisting a demand from President Trump to reinstate “enhanced interrogation” given the fact that he has indicated support for such action?

3) While it would be nice to appoint woman as head of the CIA, is there not another potential director with far less baggage and the requisite qualifications?

For me the answer is clear.

The CIA must continue to play an important role in the implementation of US foreign policy, so its leadership should be cognizant of and committed to the fundamental values of our nation and respected by our allies.  Under the circumstances of Haspel’s background, America’s opposition to “war crimes” is likely to be called into question by her appointment. While Haspel’s years of service are for the most part admirable, they are also an indication she may not be able to escape the silo of her experience. Furthermore, her nomination, like several others on the part of President Trump does not appear to have been well vetted.  

The US Senate would be doing the nation and the President a favor to reject Haspel’s nomination.

Limits of US Military Power Need Review

America’s escape from its Vietnam quagmire and the end of the Cold War should have ushered in a more peaceful era for US foreign relationships.  Our Vietnam experience demonstrated the limits of military power in nation building and the Soviet Union’s fall without direct military conflict highlighted the value of other policy tools: diplomatic, economic and informational.

For a brief period US decision makers appeared to avoid openly meddling in the internal affairs of unstable states or in regional conflicts where US interests were weak. The end of the draft reinforced an initial reluctance to rely on the military as the leading agent of US power. Neither attitude lasted for long.

The US has seldom hesitated to insert itself unnecessarily into internal religious and territorial disputes in the Middle East.  In Jon Meacham’s 2015 biography of George H. W. Bush, Destiny and Power, the 41^st president admits that after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the region’s oil-rich sheikdoms were ready to accommodate the Iraqi leader.  Pridefully, Bush explains how vigorously he had to work to get the Saudis and their allies to allow him to create a coalition to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.  While the senior Bush resisted the urge to pursue regime change in Iraq, Al-Qaeda was spawned when US troops were stationed on Saudi soil.

A decade later, the 9/11 attacks led the administration of George W. Bush to deepen US involvement in the Middle East, launching military invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.  In the former case there was clear justification, but the rationale for attacking Iraq is still being debated.  In both cases, however, the US eliminated the governing regime, but we have been unable to craft stable replacements.

Obama’s plans for reducing US military forces in Iraq was frustrated by the new Iraqi government’s ineptness and by the rise of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS).  He had no better luck than the junior Bush in putting together coalitions to deal with insurgent groups or civil war.  Where joint efforts were initiated, there have been undesirable consequences. Relying on Kurds in Syria and Iraq has unsettled NATO partner Turkey, while Russia and Iran have taken advantage of the region’s turmoil to enhance their presence and influence.

The sale of military equipment and supplies to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen has been of problematic value.  Although the Saudis claim to be defending the legitimate government of the country against Iranian supported rebels, their tactics have contributed to widespread economic deprivation in Yemen as well as unprecedented civilian casualties.  Some international groups claim war crimes are being committed with US assistance.

In tandem with activities in the Middle East, the US has aggressively expanded its military footprint in Eastern Europe.  Although originated as a Western military alliance to confront Soviet aggression in the region, NATO has been enlarged, primarily with former members of the Warsaw Pact, its defunct Soviet counterweight. Initiated by the Clinton administration and expanded by both Bush and Obama, the enlarged alliance has been used more as political cover for unilateral US action than as a source of real military support. 

The Russians are of course suspicious as to the real target of enlargement, and much of the American public wonders about the wisdom of US commitments to defend countries like Poland and the Baltic States given their history of animosity towards Russia.  Some in the Obama administration were ready to extend our commitment to the Ukraine as well despite its long standing connections with Russia. So far, the Trump administration has not indicated a willingness to take that step.

Finally, the US also is pursuing a greater military presence in Africa. 

The deadly 1993 fiasco in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, in which 18 Americans died in an attempt to capture a local warlord, squelched US enthusiasm for African interventions for many years, but in 2008 the US established an African military command offering training programs to a number of countries.  A major drone base is being built in Niger at the estimated cost of $110 million.  Another drone base already exists in Djibouti.

The cost of a military-based foreign policy are extraordinary and the benefits uncertain.  Military funding is roughly 16-18 percent of the total federal budget and 50 percent of all discretionary spending.  The $600 plus billions the US spends annually is 36 percent of worldwide military expenditures and more than the next eight countries combined.  Seven of the world’s top defense contractors are American and they are responsible for one-third of global arms sales.  A proposed upgrade for the nation’s nuclear arsenal will cost over $1.2 trillion.

Most disturbing is the lack of serious discussion about US foreign policy in the US Congress. The last authorizations for the use of military force from Congress occurred in 2001 (to deal with 9/11 attackers) and 2002 (to invade Iraq).  There should be a national debate about the efficacy of the current strategy and its consequences for our capacity to deal with significant domestic infrastructure needs. Congressional candidates in 2018, incumbent or otherwise, should demonstrate an appreciation of this issue.