"The Stormy Present"

This is the title of a West Wing episode in which President Bartlet finds himself on Air Force One with several former presidents going to a funeral. Their conversation turns to a situation in Saudi Arabia, where thousands are protesting for freedom and democracy. Walken, a former Republican president, advocates using our superpower status to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia by force - overthrowing the royal family, setting up a provisional government, and getting out. Owen, a former Democratic president, strongly disagrees, saying that would leave them with a weak and hated government. He pointed out that during his term he spent billions on Saudi oil and billions more supporting the princes selling it - all to preserve stability. But it came with a price - now the people hate us because we support their oppressors; we are their oppressors. His final words for President Bartlet - "If you start saddling up camels in every country in the Middle East, then you better be prepared to spend the next 50 years sifting through sand. Because this isn't a quick run on the beach, Jed - this is the new world order."

After this conversation, the President sits with his Communications Director, Toby, who's supposed to be writing the eulogy. He hasn't made much progress, though, saying: "I've been walking up and down these aisles, looking at these old men - these great, terrible old men - and thinking: prosperous, free, and democratic Saudi Arabia, something to wish for. But the men on this plane spent the better part of the late 20th century trying to play God in other countries, and the regimes they anointed are the ones that haunt us today."

This episode gets at the heart of dilemmas in US foreign policy. There are many repressive regimes in the world, and spreading freedom and democracy is a laudable goal. We have the power to bring it with force, but do we have the right? Can democracy imposed from the outside ever take hold? And can we stomach the long-term consequences of intervention? It seems that in trying to solve one foreign policy crisis, we always create more down the road. If that is the case, should we intervene at all? As well-intentioned as it may be, if we make things worse wherever we go, might it be better to return to isolationism?

These are questions that have been on my mind over the last few months - brought on by some conversations and experiences in France, and resurfacing in earnest during my summer classes. Recent US History has given me so many examples of "blowback" - the weapons Iraq used against us in both Gulf wars we had given them to fight Iran; the Taliban, which trained the 9/11 terrorists, was supported and armed by us to fight the Soviet Union; and on and on. In retrospect it seems so counterproductive, yet hindsight is 20/20. If I've learned anything from my US Foreign Policy class, these decisions are never easy or clear-cut. Leaders faced with crises have limited information and limited time, and are operating under both foreign and domestic constraints. I used to think of foreign policy in terms of bumper sticker slogans, but now I am realizing more and more how impossibly complex these situations are. Protesting against bad policies is not enough - intelligent, nuanced, and pragmatic policies are needed.

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present."
- Lincoln's 2nd State of the Union