Foreign Policy Formulation.

• Author: Smith, Haviland

Editor's Note: A career intelligence officer and contributor to this journal gives us his take on contemporary foreign policy and the political domestic influences which shape it for good or ill.-The Editor

Fifty years ago, the Democratic and Republican parties were close enough philosophically so that an electoral change from one to the other did not create chaos. Quite the opposite, such a level of political agreement was a blessing for the United States. Inter-party transitions were smooth and relatively uncomplicated.

That was a time when other economically advanced countries, Great Britain, for example, were plagued by political polarization. When Britain voted one party in and the other out, it meant either the nationalization of basic industry, or its denationalization. Taxes went to 95% on unearned income, or were completely removed. There was absolutely no way to predict who would win and what would then happen. That level of political and economic uncertainty meant that businesses couldn't plan. Economic, political and social progress was difficult to impossible to achieve.

At the same time, American political transitions were fairly pain-free. This led to a climate that favored development in the broadest sense of the word. There was no reason to consider any negative aspects of impending political change when making business or other decisions, simply because they were so unlikely to occur.

Would that that was true today!

Today, America is so politically polarized that we have become a country of single party rule. That is, one of our two parties is always in charge, with the other party marginalized and in total opposition. Over the past few decades, there has been little to no bipartisanship. What used to be called honest negotiation has become heinous compromise. Those in power have shoved their agendas down the throats of the minority while, as we see so clearly today, the party out of power, having no real agenda of its own, simply obstructs anything and everything in every way it can. There is no arena in which this is more evident than in the formulation and conduct of foreign policy.

During the Clinton years, his administration was prone to getting involved in foreign issues that were not necessarily of critical national interest. Bosnia, Haiti, Northern Ireland, North Korea, Somalia, Rwanda, and the Middle East all come to mind, no one of which, with the exception of a Middle East "success" that has since gone no...