Ideally, the president would be working with a team of highly competent people advising - and willing to contradict - him or her. The job is too difficult for one person.
Let's look at the records of the candidates in terms of who they hire, turnover, etc. All these people have staffs. Maybe the press should question them about their prospective picks for key positions.
The other thing is working with Congress and having an effective Congress to begin with, to reinforce or rein in presidential power, as necessary. Voters have to look at (and be informed about) the whole picture, not just the figurehead at the top of the ticket.
18
Foreign policy is important, but not as important as combating climate change.
In the next decade, we can expect to see an increase in mass migrations from the equator toward more temperate regions, and not just people, but disease vectors like mosquitos as well. Sea level rise will begin to threaten coastal cities, especially low-lying ones like Miami and New Orleans. And these migrations will take place in Europe and Asia as well.
The Democratic candidates are focusing on the greatest security threat first, because it's the most important battle ahead.
13
I'd say Joe Biden is more than ready, readier by a country mile than the current occupant can ever hope to be; if he has the inclination, interest, curiosity, tenacity, a modicum of intelligence, a healthy dose of his own infallibility, .....
Back in 1988 I thought Biden was ready. He was, but had to withdraw for a reason that seems insignificant now. OTOH, in 2016 a guy who said he could shoot a person on Fifth Avenue in broad day light, and be still elected, did.
Adlai Stevenson was once approached by a young woman supporter, the first time that he decided to run for the president’s post. She said, “Governor, every thinking person would be voting for you”. He retorted, “Madam, that is not enough. I need a majority.” (FamousQuotes123.com)
He should have campaigned for the 'deplorables' vote.
1
The disdain for and antagonism toward China that is expressed in this column is shocking and utterly without merit and harmful. Are these attacks on China really racially motivated? For I can think of no other reason.
4
Apparently Friedman's ears wax-up whenever Tulsi Gabbard speaks.
4
Democracy is the most important word you used. Its only powerful when you practice it and set a strong example to the world. Bush/Cheny and Trump/Pence were not democratically elected. The last two supreme court picks were not democratically chosen. This is what the rest of the world observes. If you want them to stand with you and change their systems you got to practice what you preach.
4
We need a conservative hand guiding our foreign policy, not namby-pamby policy wonks with misplaced notions about kumbaya. Fortunately there are enough people in the USG under the stratospheric heights that Mr. Trump occupies who know this. I cannot see who on the Democratic side can do as steady a job managing risks and benefits in foreign policy. And I'm a Democrat.
1
High up on my list of candidates to take the 3AM call is Tulsi
Gabbard, the Congresswoman from Hawaii.
She did a Town Hall that CNN carried. Watched her for an hour. She is very impressive. She's Hindu and been in the Military.
Plus, I think its an actual benefit to have experienced the multi racial environment of Hawaii. Michelle Obama has said that the key to understanding Barack Obama is to know that he is from Hawaii.
Keep your eye on Tulsi Gabbard. She's cool, reasonable and unflappable.
1
Time to colonize outer space
Senator Bernie Sanders has a well thought foreign policy.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-speech-at-sais-building-a-global-democratic-movement-to-counter-authoritarianism
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/21/16345600/bernie-sanders-full-text-transcript-foreign-policy-speech-westminster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_px88C0iAzY
President Sanders will manage any 3am emergency with wisdom, calm and good judgment.
He, alone, has my vote!
Hopefully his running mate will be Congressman Ro Khanna of California. Khanna has sane ideas on foreign policy too.
Check him out.
Neither would seek advice from Tom Friedman!
1
You're leaving out Israel, which is going to become a much more potent force for division within this country, and possibly the West. More and more liberal, secular, and modern orthodox Jews, are starting to distance themselves from AIPAC and Israel, in heart-rendering decisions. Trump has called on Jews to join the Republic party, making their loyalty to Israel the issue with the Jewish Democrats. More, surely, goes into party affiliation for Jews, than the question of Israel. The one issue, abortion, probably tops all for Republicans, but I think Democrats are more diverse in their thinking.
I think Americans know, the US will not abandon Israel, but I think a new doubt about our unequivocal support for Israel is emerging. Our tax dollars spent on support of a mighty little military country is also a factor in the new evaluation of Israel. It is not an issue to minimize.
1
Just another way of saying, believe it or not, that we miss Dick Nixon - who understood the world and how it works - and adopted strategies accordingly.
2
Unless I remember wrongly, Thomas Friedman is the NYT columnist who led the America-first cheeering squad for the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Of course, that was a while ago--though he still seems to believe it would be a good idea to invade Syria and partition that country.
So: is he really the best person to give advice to a future president on what to do in a foreign policy crisis? Would anybody be surprised if that crisis arrived Friedman advised that future president to shoot first, and analyze later?
4
Tom, I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong in your assertion that that none of the candidates so far has addressed foreign policy and security issues. I will refer you to an Article in POLITICO:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/17/bernie-sanders-is-quietly-remaking-the-democrats-foreign-policy-in-his-own-image-221313
Bernie Sanders has expended a great deal of time and energy on this.
3
Mr. Friedman appears to disregard the likelihood that one of 3 A.M. calls could be triggered by our nuclear standoff with North Korea, when he dismisses the country as one of the “small units.”
1
Presuming American foreign policy can survive the incumbent president (who’s far-reaching foreign affairs experience was limited to wives from Eastern European countries) the current crop of possible Democratic hopefuls doesn’t look that bad!
4
"but it was in many ways a unipolar belle epoque, in which an American hegemon stifled any serious great-power conflict."
No, the post cold war era was one in which the American hegemon created and fed serious great-power conflict. The people we were told were the "strong", the "capable" were the ones who gave us the Indian Pakistani, Iranian and North Korean nuclear arsenals. They suffocated Russian democracy in the cradle and gave it cause to resurrect the great game. They inflamed the Arab street. They let China sell us the rope they would use to hang us.
Progressives would be smart not to ape our foreign policy "experts" but rather concentrate on devising a strong and forward looking domestic policy and base their foreign policy on asking other countries to join us in our progress.
2
Whom to Elect for a Foreign Policy Crisis at 3 A.M.?
[ Simple, Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard. ]
3
Easy answer: Somebody who can read and complrehend the daily briefings, hire experts in diplomacy and intelligence, give them the resources they need, and listen to them, so there AREN'T surprises at 3am. Let's get real, nobody is prepared to be the president by knowing everything they need to know (except perhaps the last Dem candidate, who probably knew more than anyone nominated for that job, ever). What makes a great foreign policy prresident is having a great foreign policy team.
6
One reason no Democrat is talking about foreign policy is that they seem to be in a race to see who among them can come up with the craziest fiscal policy. Who has time for dictatorial threats when you're spinning an intricate web of social programs (health care and college for all!) that will send us spiralling into an economic abyss we may never emerge from? The irony in all this, of course, is that we are in no position, morally or financially, to dictate to anyone. With an administration awash in felons and fools and a Democratic resistance embodied by a precocious freshman Congressman who yearns for a more socialist America, the balance of America is left betwixt and between these two cartoonish forces. It is hard for anyone, domestic or foreign, to take either side seriously. It is harder still to imagine that the U.S., with all its infighting, investigations, income disparity and so forth, will be looked to as a source of stability or inspiration any time soon. Maybe before we go charging to the rescue of other countries, we might consider getting our own house in order.
1
Of the three "principal disturbers of the peace", two - Russia and Iran - are utterly dependent on oil revenues for their economic survival.
Do we really need any other reasons to undertake a Manhattan Project style initiative to facilitate the development of green energy sources?
2
Trump is the guy to take the call at 3: AM because he does not sleep at all. As far as we know he did very well so far to promote American national interest. As a result, the world is a better place today than in 2016, notwithstanding the Tom's belittling of Trump as a result of his jealousy of Trump's achievements.
3
@Alex E - pointing out reality isnt belittling of Trump or evidence of jealousy of Trump's achievements. Most of those "achievements" are not in the long-term interests of the United States.
5
After four hours there were only forty-nine comments to Friedman's thoughtful column. Meanwhile, a story about a couple Hollywood people getting busted had over three thousand comments. Now there are 319 for this discussion and 4276 for Hollywood.
That pretty much sums up why a Trump can get elected from either party.
As to the issue at hand: A President cannot know all the details involved in his or her making an informed, intelligent decision. That is why the most important qualification for any President is the ability to choose good, knowledgeable advisors. To make good executive decisions a President also needs to have substantial experience over time, something not required for Members of Congress. That is why our Founders placed in the Constitution a higher minimum age for President than for Members.
In order to make good decisions of consequence, especially under stress, a President has to have had the opportunity to make mistakes in a lesser capacity, admitted to and learned from those mistakes, and then moved on.
So far Joe Biden is the only Democrat I would consider both qualified and capable of answering the 3 a.m. foreign policy crisis phone call. As to whether he can secure the nomination, that is truly another story. The only people who can reelect Donald Trump are the Democrats. Unfortunately, they seem to be doing just that, adept as they are at nothing so far other than producing a circular firing squad.
5
As an Iowa Democrat that must cast a crucial caucus vote in 9 months, I must confess that I also share your concerns. Yesterday, I found myself watching a clip of a potential candidate mulling over the prospect of running for president. Their demeanor had a comic like disposition laced with a nonchalant passivity to what is a very serious endeavor, where rash decisions could mean life or death for millions; everyone wants to take the oath of office on Jan 20, 2021, -- but from what I’ve seen no one has thought deeply about how they will manage the world on Jan 22nd, when all the official celebrating is over, and all the challenges are fully mounted on their saddle. Contrast this with the seriousness that I was exposed to in December 1991, being a CSPAN junkie—seeing then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton give a speech on Foreign Policy at Georgetown—a speech that made the media cast him as a front runner and serious presidential contender (how things have changed). The irony in all this is as people lay out their hollow visions of a better America, unless they can truly understand what (social, economic, and political) shocks happens outside their borders, the plans they have espoused on the campaign trail will at best be muted or at worst become failed governance. I guess for this group, timeout is warranted, because they are talking as the teaching is telling them to prepare for a test quiz next class.
God help us.
2
63 million people have spoken.
They like who we have...you may not.
That is our system.
Next time, put up a more viable candidate.
Until then, this is the system and the person we have chosen.
2
@ZEMAN
Sounds lime the line from Godfather ll. Where the guy playing Meyer Lansky says to the Al Pacino character...
"this is the life we have chosen."
2
Right now, American foreign policy has only one task: to rebuild America's reputation, to resuscitate American values, and to restore the ability of allies to trust America.
This will not happen with Trump in the White House. Moreover, Trump has done so much damage to that reputation, those values, and international trust, that the task may be impossible for anyone.
But I know this: any and all of the announced candidates on the Democratic side will do better, and is more able to handle foreign policy crises, than the current President.
280
Friedman says we need a president with foreign policy savvy - like Hillary Clinton, who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, one of the most destructive foreign policy decisions in recent American history? What we really need is a president who is wise enough to keep us out of foreign wars, especially those in the Middle East. Americans are tired of useless, wasteful wars. We need to substitute clever diplomacy for stupid military "solutions."
17
@Donald Seekins
I must agree with you. Our problem, as the old saying goes, is that when the only tool you have is a hammer (make that battlefield nuclear weapons!!!), every problem looks like a nail. We spent the nation's treasure funding the Pentagon and its allies in the MIC, developing the largest and most expensive military in history. Of course politicians and generals want to use it - they have to in order to justify the taxpayer's loss of bread and butter.
7
white house use call forwarding, wapo readers could take the calls in shifts. i'll volunteer for 30 min a week.
1
I'm not sure how much credit is owed to the author rather than to Mr. Mandelbaum, as this seems to be mostly a (very interesting) book review, but this is the first Friedman piece in a long time that I have found both interesting and original. Kudos for raising an underappreciated topic to the forefront, where it belongs.
Not to repeat other comments, but it still bears saying: the key to foreign policy right now is to undo the damage the current president has done to global alliances and the economy. That's not a 3 am phone call, but slogging through interminable meetings with boring but intelligent and powerful people to build relationships. Then when the call comes at 3 am, 2 pm or during the NBA Finals, you know where you stand in the world.
1
This article as well as Mr. Mandelbaum's book give an overblown role to Iran and its capability to shape global affairs. The Islamic Republic is a nuisance at best, they can hardly compete with China or Russia. In fact, their interest, in the long run is aligned with the west.
Since you brought it up, then ignored it, Mr. Friedman, why don't we take a closer look at what is prompting the humanitarian crisis at our southern border. No, it's not MS-13, or all the drug mules, it's the alarming numbers of genuine refuges, coming mainly from failed states in Central America. I'm not opposed to admitting those who legitimately deserve asylum, but where does it end? How can we be so powerless as to be unable to effect democratic change, so that Banana Republics stop behaving like, well, Banana Republics?
One of Trump's "greatest foreign policy weaknesses is his inability to build and maintain alliances". I know you are trying to be measured and professional, but this takes understatement to a rather surreal, shall we say post, post-modern level.
I'm a liberal Independent and I am liking Biden, Bill Weld, I believe they could get trust of our allies.
4
@Bill Evans - they might get some allies to trust us but the bigger question is would the general US trust them. In my view, any promotion of Biden or Weld leads to a second term for Trump.
1
If there were to be a crisis, it may not be at a certain time. We should all be on a round the clock alert. That becomes more important for the POTUS.
The biggest threat we can have is from cyber warfare. It is unclear where we stand on this subject today. How well prepared are we to deter or withstand a cyber attacks to any of our infrastructure and other facilities around the country?
Mr. Friedman, you speak well in stressing the importance of maintaining the association with our allies. If we neglect this area, we can be sure to see both China and Russia capitalizing on it. This is already happening. One thing they both have in common, from several decades past, is to promote their communist ideology. Both countries are back to their old game.
Pretty soon, we will all try to question, where did we go wrong?
The current crop of candidates don’t discuss these topics because they’re detached or unconcerned. They don’t raise them because they know most American voters don’t vote on foreign policy issues, vital as they may be. The average voter is more concerned with their pocketbooks, healthcare, getting their kids into college, and living in safe neighborhoods—the more tangible issues for a struggling citizen.
@Judith - I think what you say is precisely how folks like Putin are thinking.
These are valid concerns. The positive, in this, is that any of the current crop of Democratic candidates will select qualified advisors carefully; invest time to be become familiar with world events and not pander to “their base.”
1
Asking "Who is prepared to manage an imperial foreign policy?" is better than having no debate about America's role in the world, but it's not the debate that we need to have.
2
The 3 A.M call is over rated. No president can be ready for a real one except our defense forces, law enforcement and the medical establishment. I agree with Tom that no democratic candidate is claiming to be ready but should that matter. How did the claim workout for Hillary in 2016? Claims are always controversial. The right question is who in the democratic party can be trusted to be ready to take on the job of the president of the USA? The shut down and the congressional hold on the purse of the nation has demonstrated that the president is not only not the most powerful person on earth but not even the most powerful person in the USA. Indeed we expect the world from the president but we tie his hands thus far in getting the job of the president done.
1
I've also noticed the lack of clear foreign policy positions among the Democratic candidates. Of course, the domestic situation is so fraught at the moment that it's hard to ignore. A larger piece of the puzzle, though is that there is an increasing disconnect between our stated goals and our real time behavior in the world. For a long time we were able to harness public approval with the position that we were defending democracy, when in practice, we were consolidating business interests.
Things have changed. There are no more strictly American business interests, but multinational corporations. About the only purely American interests remaining are what is generally called the military industrial complex, which is only served by war. Also, communication is no longer limited to a few newspapers or TV networks that can deliver a coordinated message of American greatness. We have alternative facts, conspiracy theories, and political blocs demanding an ultra-othodox membership.
The 21st Century has brought us to a society characterized by a newly defined class system, a culture of blame, and generally reduced expectations coupled with increasing demands.
Whoever answers the 3 am phone call can expect to be second guessed in his or her decisions, whatever they are.
It is probably too much to hope for, but it would be nice to see some honesty about what it is in the world that we are supporting, and who our allies and adversaries are.
Is there a candidate who can do that?
Interesting article, but:
Democrats currently have no one in the running who understands even the issues
Weaker nations are and will be imploding but not for the reasons stated in the article. Most of the problems stem from poor governance, dicttorship, inadequate supervision, and crony-based appointments to complex operations.
The poor relationships with other nations started well before Trump. For example, Obama maintained a frosty antagonism to Europe and beyond.
1
"But one issue has been largely absent: foreign policy..."
The establishment Dems are so fond of endless war, they're doing their best to ignore Tulsi Gabbard.
1
Nobody is up to it at 3 a.m. Or at least shouldn't have to be, unless it means unleashing an atomic bomb, in which case, such person would be better off not waking up. The president, thank God, is not the only person required to be awake at 3 a.m. That is why we have a military. So this crazy requirement of being ready at 3 a.m. in the morning is superfluous at best. The better test would be, "who is alert and smart enough to be president?"
In that case, my vote would go to Pete Buttigieg.
5
Watch the film 13 Days, a dramatization of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and how JFK steered the runaway confrontation with Russia away from the brink of nuclear war. When the next such crisis arrives (when, not if) I want the brilliance of JFK and the focus of Sully Sullenberger on the bridge.
2
Excellent points! I hope the 2020 candidates read it. But as was true during the Reagan years, it's hard to get people to pay attention to anything unless they immediately gain from it.
We have a president who models selfishness (and worse) as a way of life. So, rather than be inspired by our president to solve global issues, many people don't care or think about global alliances or people in other countries unless they can personally gain something from them. As with climate change, it's hard to get most people to pay attention unless they believe it will directly benefit them.
2
Tom
Perhaps the best person to answer the 3am foreign crisis phone call, as described in your column, is Jon Huntsman, currently US Ambassador to Russia and former US Ambassador to China (he also speaks Chinese) and two time Governor of Utah, who is a not-so-popular Republican.
2
Maybe we shouldn't expect that the best candidate will be the one that declares they're the best. Our current president has repeatedly assured us that he "has the best brain". How's that working out for us?
2
Ok then, Michael, Thomas, and Kevin. Our past presidents have been some of the most globally hated world leaders and have displayed zero cultural competence. Have you ever thought about why certain people just give off a “vibe” that they’ll be good at political science junky type work? It’s called g-e-n-d-e-r b-i-a-s. We need a leader with empathy who listens well. Period.
1
"Russia and Iran took the lead in devastating Syria." Funny, I thought the Islamic State had more than a little to do with that. Your US domestic analysis is, I fear, mistaken. American voters generally don't vote because of foreign policy concerns. Lee Hamilton, then a Democratic senator from Indiana, warned incoming President Bill Clinton, who disdained emphasis on foreign policy, that the world has a way of sneaking up and biting a president. Months later Clinton was confronted with Mogadishu.
1
Call me naïve but are we really speaking about Iran and those other three countries (US, China, Russia) in the same breath? And no I do not think they have any nuclear weapons.
1
insightful and excellent analysis Thomas
indeed we now live in a dangerous and unpredictable world
the economic inequality and rising populism is also a danger on the domestic front where the haves are getting wealthier faster than the rest and the losers from globalisation have no where to go and vent their frustration at politicians and policy makers that have let them down
it almost seems like a dog eat dog world, one man/woman for himself/herself and survival of the fittest
The person who first warned us of 3 a.m. phone calls didn't do so hot when she got one, so saying you're ready and being ready are two different things.
In 2002, Mandelbaum published "The Ideas That Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy and Free Markets in the Twenty-first Century (2002)". He was 100% wrong then probably gets close to 100% now.
Ant POTUS with Brains will have the phone calls transfered to his national security staff, while getting a good nights sleep so a clearer decision can be made in the morning. Do you really want someone make groggy, sleep deprived decisions, on the fly at that time?
Hillary tried to scare the American Public that Obama was inexperienced. It didn't work then and she didn't bother with that nonsense in 2016, when it might have has greater resonance.
Mr. Friedman, what is your point? Anything and everything you mention could happen at any time.
Perhaps if US foreign policy was based on co-operation instead of domination, there would be no 3 AM crises.
2
My favorite recent bumper sticker: "Any adult in 2020."
4
So did you just choose to ignore Warren's foreign policy platform speech at American University, or are you not interested in progressive candidates?
2
Biden-Abrams 2020. Biden has national and international on-the-job experience, and, in addition to her many Georgia chamber of commerce awards and tax legislation economic bonafides working with both sides of the aisle, Abrams is a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Next Generation Fellow of the American Assembly, an American Marshall Memorial Fellow, a Salzburg Seminar – Freeman Fellow on U.S.-East Asian Relations, and a Yukos Fellow for U.S. – Russian Relations.
2
It's kind of early for potential Democratic party nominees to be setting forth foreign policy positions concerning the details of possible geo-political events don't ya think? Yes Trump's an incompetent anti-democratic wanna-be dictator buffoon when it comes to foreign policy or for that matter anything else but it shouldn't fall to the sane Democrats to assert themselves into explaining policy positions.
What's the upside for candidates to publicly address how they would answer those "3 a.m. emergency calls"?
I say that as a matter of campaign strategy, there is none.
It's pretty clear that most Americans don't understand foreign policy's complexities or its consequences. We've already witnessed how easily the public's views on nearly any political matter can be manipulated by mere tweets and other digital media posts. In that arena, the most simplistic pronouncements will always be the most persuasive.
Consequently, over-simplified foreign policy positions are the only way candidates will be able, if at all, to attract additional votes by taking on foreign policy in their campaigns. Moreover, any promises and positions made by the winning candidate will consequently be too superficial to be implemented successfully.
It's a lose-lose proposition. My guess is that campaign strategists (other than those whose candidates are willing to promote more international antagonism and xenophobia than Trump) would agree.
2
Putting Iran into the same grouping as Russia and China is just silly in terms of global risks to the democracies. In describing the parallels between the three he says that Iran, 'has pursued nuclear weapons'. Well, they signed an agreement not to and maintain with the other signatories despite the Trump withdrawal. Sure, it's a theocratic dictatorship and anathema to our way of life, but appears to have a stronger base for evolving democratic institutions than either Russia or China. Mr Friedman should stay away from the Middle East. It confuses an otherwise creative, intelligent mind.
1
Sec. Clinton knew what to do at 3 AM. And she knew how to manage the big three geopolitical trends. Our generals knew that she knew. And Putin knew that she knew. And that's why Russia interfered in our democratic elections on behalf of the campaigns of Mr. Trump and Senator Sanders.
None of the present set of Democratic candidates clearly has the comparable skill set. Governor Inslee or Senator Warren could conceivably get there, with good advisors. Vice President Biden will need to show us that he has the requisite skills.
This should be a Democratic theme: We're going to fix it. We're going to fix the big three geopolitical trends. We're going to fix everything that the unfit Trump and his personality cult and his immoral McConnel Republicans have broken, no matter how many decades that takes. We're going to fix the roads, and health care. We're going to be brave and idealistic, and take on the never ending mission of fixing socioeconomic inequality.
2
Even if the question hasn't been framed yet, I would trust Tulsi Gabbard because of her two tours of duty in the Middle East. I also think that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would have the good sense to listen to knowledgeable people. So if that phone call came at 2:30 AM.....
"Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t heard any of the Democrats running on the argument that he or she is the best person to answer the White House crisis line at 3 in the morning."
Would you as a candidate make that claim, Thomas?
although it's true that people generally get the government they deserve, the russian, chinese, and iranian people have all been subjugated for so long that there are too many willing to let it continue. if those states can hack our systems imagine the chilling affect it has on any form of dissent.
Your point is taken but people will elect the candidate who agrees (at least says they agree) with voters' narrow issue, like stopping illegal immigration or signing on the the Green New Deal. The idea of electing someone prepared to lead the country and have a plan for the multitude of issues is just too wonky for the political bases that decide elections. You just need to make people FEEL good and empowered. Then if things don't work out its not because the plan was weak, its just because of the bad people who didn't agree with the plan.
Democrats will nominate the candidate that makes them feel good about themselves. Just like the the Republicans did.
2
Mister, we could use a man like Jimmy Carter again.
3
The person to elect to handle a 3AM crisis is a person who realizes there is no such thing as a 3AM crisis, who has been aware of those potentials beforehand, and has prepared for them. Even the 9/11/2001 attack or something similar was predicted to a large extent. George Bush and his team simply did not prepare for it. That leadership and agency failure has left its mark much like Pearl Harbor, not because there were no forewarnings but because the forewarnings were not heeded.
Friedman has got it wrong. It's not the 3AM warnings that are the greater threat but the failure of having responsible day to day leadership.
7
Call it CWII: Cold War II. It is every fit as dangerous as the first cold war and much more complicated, since we have a president who doesn't realize there is a problem, or doesn't want to.
2
@Cassandra -- Starting and continuing CC2 is also a serious problem.
Iran a threat to the US? I don't think so. They may be a regional power, but Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region keep them in check. Russia is a declining great power, but has nuclear weapons. So we should be cautious in how we deal with them. However, China is a rising great power that is looking to remove any US presence/influence out of East Asia. This means that the US should look to contain China by firstly implementing the TPP (this was eliminated by the current administration) and secondly forming a balancing alliance in Asia, including Russia (despite our poor relations with them right now). The reason I think Russia would be willing to join the alliance is because Russia is just as worried about China's rise as the US is. Also, remember that Russia and China engaged in a vicious border war in 1969 and that as a result, Russia and China are still not on the best of terms. Experts say that China's economy will be as big as the US economy in five years. So they will be looking to surpass the US as the leading power on the world stage as well. In sum, it's a new world out there and the US should adapt its policy accordingly and not look to past slights/disputes as a guide for future policy.
2
As long as America is implementing Israel and the al Saud family foreign policies with Iran, not much chance for any reasonable dialogue with Persia.
2048 will be the centennial of the chinese communist revolution. Their Eastern front will be real tight for conventional and non conventional warfare. Eurasia is getting a lot of chinese attentions right now on all competitive levels.
Most probably i'll be dead by 2048, but i wouldn't like being 'the one' who miss today's and yesterday train departure for Eurasia. Who controls Eurasia, scoops Europe and protects China's Western front.
China thinks in centuries, not the next election process.
1
My neighbor's old black Labrador retriever, Blossom, would make better, more informed split-second decisions than what we've got hovering over the go-code now. She's loyal, intelligent, empathetic, and will bring that stick back no matter how far you throw it into the river. Every time. That dog has stamina and courage.
And just a little something for Mr. Friedman to stick in his pipe and smoke, the Green New Deal was a set of ideas put forth by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. She's not running for president. She's simply asking us to think about some stuff. I didn't know thinking was off the table.
7
Bravo! Well said!
2
What a mess. When Trump is finished with his term (first or second) I think the country will collectively agree it was a complete waste of time. And that our country has fallen so far behind because we got a POTUS more interested in ratings then real governing and leadership. What a blown opportunity.
2
Seriously, that's still a thing? (Huge laughing cat here!)
1
There seems to be a singular failure at the Foreign Policy level to recognize that "isolation" is sometimes the best strategy for survival when the world goes mad.
Despite all the nashing of teeth and rending of garments over Trump as President.......he may well be forcing us to accept the obvious and best tactic for our near term survival.
The USA may well have to gird itself for a tough battle.
We will have to reassess the need to send military aid to the Middle East oil fields........they are next to impossible for USA to jealously guard from China's nearby sphere of influence.
Meanwhile....we ignore our own backyard. Why do we continue to allow Cuba to roam around outside our orbit?
In the short term, USA does in fact need to control the flood of humanity streaming out of Central America....which we have ignored for 30 years, our Guilt Trip is ridiculous....these places should be US Territories by now....and THAT is the only way to solve the Crisis.(until we come to our senses, that wall increasingly looks better).
We have deluded ourselves about "free" internet....and we need to wake up immediately and react to the threat this poses to US security.
The key to being an outstanding president is to have intelligent, knowledgable advisers. No one person can be prepared for all contingencies. Democrats tend to do this, republicans do the opposite.
2
Scary. Unfortunately, Mr. Friedman is correct.
2
Many Americans are woefully ignorant of foreign affairs and do not care about them until they are threatened or affected by geopolitical events in their personal lives. In the meantime they settle for sound bites and are all too happy to follow a leader like Trump whose empty rhetoric feeds into their xenophobic fears and skepticism about the world.
Trunp's simplistic "foreign policy strategy" worked for him even if he could not define what the nuclear triad was nor why we needed nuclear weapons if we didn't use them.
It will be interesting to hear how the Democratic presidential hopefuls will define their foreign policies to reach a majority of voters and inspire confidence in them that he or she will be a stronger and steadier commander-in-chief than the dangerous one who currently has his finger on the nuclear botton.
3
Difficult to read yet understandable that Trump has diminished the number of our allies and yet more faces us in fact of failing states. Our current period in this country is in constant flux in so-called peace time. He had rudely and roughly treated Merkel, played nice once with Marcon and May, and prefers the company of Kim and Vlad, perhaps Bibi, too. Rumored to be getting rid of the natl. security man, who does "advise" this president?
A medium-sized rock as president would be an improvement. Friedman's concern seems to be that no candidate is laser-focused on the issues Friedman thinks are most important.
Patience, Thomas. There's a lot of Trump detritus to wade through. They'll get to foreign policy.
5
I agree that any of the announced Democratic candidates would be far better able to answer the call than Trump. At 3:00 a.m., he is busy hatching his latest barrage of killer tweets. He should be watching reruns of “Madam Secretary.“ He might learn something.
4
“Russia and Iran took the lead in devastating Syria"
One nice thing about the written word is that you don't have to keep a straight face while making statements like that -- or the rest of the article.
1
Foreign countries are too afraid to cause a crisis.
That's a good thing.
1
Obama summed up his foreign policy succinctly: "Don't do stupid stuff." It stood him---and the country---in good stead. Had the rest of the Senate voted with him, for example, we wouldn't have bombed and invaded Iraq.
None of the potential Democratic nominees would have done the "stupid stuff" that this administration has. None would have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement or the Iran Treaty. None would have systematically alienated all of our Western democratic allies. None would have initiated a trade war with China or would have declared that "trade wars are easy to win." None would have cozied up to autocrats, human rights violators, or would have "fallen in love" with the dictator of a nuclear-armed adversary. None would have systematically rejected the advice of their intelligence agencies or their generals.
None of them is/will be as massively uninformed or capricious or injudicious as the current resident of the White House. It's the next two years I'm worried about. Not the four after that.
3
Easy answer: Joe Biden. He's got this.
1
I'd like to make a joke about any primate walking more or less upright being more qualified than the current occupant of the White House.... but it just doesn't seem very funny anymore.
I'd like to reconsider the idea that the rise of three big regional powers represents a crisis. Looking at history, large powers dominating their region seems pretty natural, and stabilizing. What is unnatural, ahistoric and destabilizing, is the American attempt to preserve its post-Cold War role as the sole hyper-power.
Why should the US work to trim the sails of China in Asia, if it generally acts as a good global neighbor? How much of our current antagonism with Russia is the result of our desire to push NATO right up to Moscow's backdoor after the fall of the USSR? And would the world really be worse off if Iran ran the Middle East instead of the Saudis and other Arabs?
I'd like to see a president with the right temperament, one who is not so neurotic to believe the US must reflexively "do something!" in response to every bad event in the world, lest we the world believe we've lost our mojo.
3
I have zero problem with the new candidates addressing American problems first. It would be rash to do otherwise. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that just because in March of 2019 none of the still incomplete field of candidates has addressed our foreign policy challenges yet hardly means that they won't do it ever or are afraid to do it. All we need for a 3am foreign policy crisis is somebody who:
1. Cares first and foremost for the safety and health of the United States of America.
2. Is smart and confident enough to hire people who are equally smart or smarter and then take their advice.
3. A person that understands the world and our place in it.
We have none of these things right now. But I can think of several Democrats who could easily fill that bill.
1
“Among President Trump’s greatest foreign policy weaknesses is his inability to build and maintain alliances. Few other countries want to follow him into battle.”
Tom, he’s doing it on purpose at the behest of his boss Vlad.
1
Mr Friedman, in spite of your known history I would have put some merit to this column if you had included Saudi kingdom’s indiscreet bombing of Yemen and Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
2
You foreign policy thinkers and doers have to stop obsessing over Donald Trump..........he simply isnt the problem.
In some convoluted, narrow minded way.....people are convinced that the reason the world looks so ominous is because "Trump caused Global Warming."
Yes. You really do look that ridiculous.
....
The current state of foreign affairs didnt happen overnight on Nov 6, 2016..........It took at least 30 years of idiocy and narrow minded, short sighted implementation of foreign policy. A singular failure to recognize that the times had changed. The Berlin Wall fell and it was all "Hurray for our side...lets just keep on doing what we always do." instead of "Uh Oh....the rules just changed"
1
If the subject of this opinion piece is the qualifications of the person in the Oval Office, why does Friedman go off topic and editorialize on Iran, trying to tell us how evil that country is:
" Iran has trained and funded proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and has pursued nuclear weapons"
Iran ...."rule through aggressive nationalism, at the expense of their neighbors"
"..... Iran took the lead in devastating Syria,.......destabilized Europe...... have weaponized the new technology, hacking the U.S. and Europe"
"The principal disturbers of the peace — ...... and Iran"
Mr. Friedman I suggest you stay on topic and, when you get the chance, tell Netanyahu to do his own propaganda.
3
Senator Bernie Sanders is a deep true blue Progressive, and has a well thought decent foreign policy, and is the only candidate I am comfortable with, for managing a 3am emergency, with calm, wisdom and common sense.
I am thankful, knowing he will not consult with Tom Friedman.
Unlike Hillary, Sanders would not, giggling, say of Qaddafi,"we came, we saw, he died".
Nor would Sanders say of the hellhole Obama/Hillary created in Libya, "Smart Power At Its Best'.
The world desperately needs the refreshing wisdom of Senator Sanders.
We had a candidate which could have easily, wisely taken the “3am call”.....Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton! She has experience, she is wise, Intelligent and strong. She BEAT the idiot in the White House by ....THREE MILLION popular votes! If Putin and his GRÚ army of bots and hackers had not attack us, in 2016; had the venerable New York Times done a very explicit investigative report on Donald J Trump’s rise to wealth as they did a few months ago back in 2016.....we, would have a brilliant POTUS named Pres. Clinton!
Oh how I wish that Congress once the Mueller Report pro es collusion, and all the various crimes of the Trump Crime Syndicate could nullify and void the 2016 presidential election!! It was a ....farce! Stolen by Putin, to install his asset, Donald!
By the way, Tom Friedman, give Democrats time, this primary has just begun! A brilliant leader will emerge, one that will put Country over party...and more importantly over....Putin!
2
Tom is one of the few pundits who, going back at least to his book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" understands the nexus of population growth, climate change and environmental degradation that are among the root causes of failing states and mass migration. The defense department understands this too. Yet, all and any Republican that wins the Presidency will enforce the gag rule, and limit or eliminate support for international voluntary family planning as they kowtow to their religious base. Getting all countries on earth to replacement or below replacement fertility should be a top foreign policy goal as one strategy to help all these stressed states. The continent of Africa, has a total fertility rate of 4.6, highest of any region in the world and a population that is expected to double to 2.6 Billion (from 1.3 billion in 2018) by 2050 (Population Reference Bureau). Many of these African countries are arid or even desert (see Niger for example with a TFR of 7.2!!) and simply cannot support this growth. And, we are currently cutting funding for family planning? In what scenario is this not a recipe for long-term disaster on an entire continent? And, the ensuing chaos will not stay in Africa, regardless of walls and fences, it will spill over into Europe, and elsewhere.
2
Tom is clearly ignoring Tulsi Gabbard, who has talked mostly about foreign policy. She's put forward the beginnings of a "Gabbard Doctrine", which is that intervention only leads to more suffering and makes us less safe, and that we should prioritize diplomacy and alliances.
1
Thank you for that thought. Disappointing of NYT to ignore Tulsi. In a sick, weird upside way, I understand the resentment of MS media. I guess the curtain is removed and Oz has a face. Network Corps. Independent Journalist you go! War War War sells sells sells right? But they'll never go to kill...just write about it.
1
Tulsi is too inexperienced.
If you don't mind an observation, I'd much prefer that we had fully staffed and competent career professionals who would get the 3 am call.
The idea that the president can make a unilateral decision on everything is clearly unrealistic.
Chances are, the next president will not be, as Donald is, the smartest person on every issue. That's why we have deputy secretaries.
3
Hilary Clinton would've been fine to address all these RealPolitik issues. We need someone with deep education, true world knowledge and how it is interconnected, tenacity to see policies through, and ability to see beyond the horizon. Right now that's Biden, a twice picked over, gaffe-prone, fast talker who will be nearly 80.
2
The present white house has been dismantling and disabling the machinery of our federal government for the past two years. We will need a president to repair the machine and get it humming again. This will require an intelligent, even tempered adult who knows how to lead and how to govern. Tom's article suggests that there is a second equally important job that awaits the pesident -- managing our role in the world. There are two jobs. We need two presidents.
1
The need for foreign-policy knowledge is exactly why I believe Stacey Abrams is one of the best qualified candidates to be vice president in 2020, partnered with a presidential candidate with either gubernatorial leadership experience or national legislative skills:
"Abrams is a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Next Generation Fellow of the American Assembly, an American Marshall Memorial Fellow, a Salzburg Seminar – Freeman Fellow on U.S.-East Asian Relations, and a Yukos Fellow for U.S. – Russian Relations."
3
Most people seem to vote based on pocketbook issues, if they consider policy at all. Foreign policy seems to be farther from individual pocketbooks until we remember that trade, military, immigration and other matters are all dependent on foreign policy.
We have limped along for more than 2 years with no coherent foreign policy with Trump. In fact, there seems to be little policy of any sort other than making money.
It's early yet. Give candidates a chance.
The reason that foreign policy has been largely absent from the campaign trail is that this election will be won or lost on domestic issues.
Yes, the world is interconnected. But our yard is overgrown with weeds and knee high grass. It is going to take years of hard work and mowing our own grass before we can get too concerned about our neighbors lawn.
Should an international crisis occur we will have to trust that whomever is President has surrounded him or herself with knowledgeable people that will provide sage advice. That eliminates Trump. At all other times the President is going to be quite busy repairing the domestic disaster created by Trump. The world is just going to have to fend for itself for a period of time.
Hang in there world. We will be back. It may take awhile.
Trump refuses to green light the attack of a Syrian city the last Isis out post there. Trump says it would cause to many civilian casualties and come up with a better plan. A top general resigns stating Trumps knowledge of foreign policy is grade school. Plus he had a book deal.
Kim won't give an inch. All parties in government say keep the sanctions. No one asks is it time to begin dropping the sanctions and see what happens? The experts apparently agree. They also knew what they were doing in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and now Somalia where two hundred died in bombing last week. Indeed call the experts.
Peace.
“The three have an important motive in common: All are dictatorships trying to generate support among those they rule through aggressive nationalism, ....”
First, these countries can reasonably argue that their "dictatorship" is in fact comparable to Mr. Trump's running the US government. They may also suggest that what they need is not democracy, but having a well-tuned propaganda machine. And they can point at the way Saudis have successfully built their propaganda machine in the West by financing elections, funding "Think Tank Organizations" and wining and dining of, and also organizing trips for, prominent US journalists. With that "infrastructure" in place, they are now getting away with murder.
Second - the part Mr. Friedman has conveniently omitted - these countries have all experienced US aggression in some form in the past and much of what they are doing today is to ensure that the US does not contemplate a repeat.
Let's take Iran,for example, which Mr. Friedman calls a "regional power", where Turkey has always been the "regional power" and Israel has also been one in the last 40 years.
The Iranians suffered 30 years under a monarchy regime installed by the US, after toppling their democratically elected government. Then, the US and Saudis armed Saddam Hussein and encouraged him to attack Iran, causing half million young Iranians to parish. The US then shot down an Iranian civilian plane over Persian Gulf, which killed more than 300 civilians, etc., etc.
3
thanks for some proposing some solutions, or at least innovative, new ways to think about the problem
1
It is difficult to predict how anyone will react in command until they actually sit behind the big desk. Mr. Friedman often writes about the intersection of technology and global affairs. Over the past 50 years the job of President has become increasingly dynamic as the world has generally become less stable. Most of that time has been marked by a gradual decline in American influence and involvement in large multi-lateral security arrangements. Military engagements have been limited in scope (not necessarily geography) to counter terror, drug, proliferation, insurgency...simultaneously China (and Russia to a lesser extent) have been developing security arrangements and technology that has allowed each to exercise a level of hegemony (Ukraine, Syria, Spratly Islands Chain, Cyber) that has been difficult to counter diplomatically.
Every President since WWII has made mostly reactionary decisions based on the situations at hand. There are at least two large questions the American people will vote on during the next election cycle:
Who has the most robust and dynamic process to quickly deal with the next crisis in real time?
What vision for the future can inspire, elevate, and encourage the majority of American voters?
Whoever sits in the Oval Office will have to grapple with how to engage a dynamic global environment, across multiple domains, while simultaneously promoting a domestic agenda that encourages a resilient learning economy with opportunity for everyone.
2
If the framework and infrastructure of government itself is so weakened by hiring sycophants, family members and woefully unqualified people all around you ( let alone changing them every few weeks/months, or they all being indicted, convicted or pleading guilty of very serious crimes), then even if you are the greatest strongman to ever live, you will not be able to competently lead by any measure.
THAT is exactly what is happening right before us, with a President that dictates fiats by 140 characters, after having been directed by extremist pundits on a radical television network.
I expect ANY of the Democratic nominees to reinstate that infrastructure of government and leadership ALL around her or him that gets into office.
I expect there to be MULTIPLE people that will be able to head the call at ANY time of day, and then give the best possible information to the President to come up with the best possible solution.
I expect the rule of law to be followed, there to be a defending of human rights, and to govern for all, and not just a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of the population that praises you at every opportunity.
I expect there to be peace under a Democratic President.
7
I was aware of many failings of the Trump administration. I hadn't thought of the depth and breadth of foreign policy challenges. Until now. Now I'm more worried than ever.
2
@cjger31, our justice department and lawmakers ought to do their job of putting away Trump and his family...far far away from politics and administration. The Trumps have literally stolen our dignity, our national moral compass and our leadership role in the world today. Kind sirs and ladies of the Congress, please get rid of Trump “, don’t try our patience anymore.
1
It's a sign of how shallow the discussion about Presidential qualifications has become that after around four hours there are only forty-nine comments. Meanwhile, a story about a couple Hollywood people getting busted has over three thousand comments.
(No better a day later. 319 for this discussion, 4276 for Hollywood.)
Naturally a President cannot know all the details involved in his or her making an informed, intelligent decision. That is why the most important qualification for any President is the ability to choose good, knowledgeable advisors. To make good executive decisions a President also needs to have substantial experience over time, something not required for Members of Congress. That is why our Founders placed in the Constitution a higher minimum age for President than for Members.
In order to make good decisions of consequence, especially under stress, a President has to have had the opportunity to make mistakes in a lesser capacity, admitted to and learned from those mistakes, and then moved on.
So far Joe Biden is the only Democrat I would consider both qualified and capable of answering the 3 a.m. foreign policy crisis phone call.
As to whether he can secure the nomination, that is truly another story. The only people who can reelect Donald Trump are the Democrats. Unfortunately, they seem to be doing just that, adept as they are at nothing so far other than producing a circular firing squad.
9
The answer to your question is: Hillary Clinton. She was the right candidate, at the right time, elected by more Americans and didn't need help from the Russians, Wikileaks, DJTjr., etc. BTW, she was and is a Democrat.
6
@Rita Harris
That is true. But unfortunately, she was elected by more people in the blue coastal states, and not enough people in the states that count towards the electoral college. So, until the electoral college is abolished, winning numerically is insufficient. We have to win in the states that count towards 270: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota (Florida seems already lost), which are not as progressive as AOC, etal. Democrats need to remember this.
5
@dba There is a sensible fix to the electoral college farce. States should apportion their electoral college votes according to the popular vote of the state.
The Supreme Court can find more than enough Constitutional grounds for nullifying the electoral votes that are not apportioned according to the popular vote.
3
@dba
You got that right and she isn't running this time.
1
A nice classic Friedman editorial.
Just to push back a little: Trump is such a loose, crazy cannon you would really be rolling the dice to do a strong arm tactic against him.
Also, per Steven Pinker and others (some of your books?) the price for warfare to get territory (other) may have reached a critical point where it just never pays. Everybody (Russia, Iran, and China) has enough and war means deprivation. Globalism is fun for everybody -- lots of wonderful imports of caviar, sneakers, and dates (Iran).
These two points having been made, things can be twisted back: how could the world get even more from each other with continued peace and even greater shared prosperity? Trump's problem is he's shrinking our modern pleasure palace with his domestic incompetence: continued income inequality and no progress towards renewable, better, ultimately cheaper energy. Healthcare, education, infrastructure are proving to be his true weaknesses -- we are losing are standing by not growing up as fast as we could.
Biden may square the circle -- both entrepreneurial ideas, domestic smarts, and foreign policy credentials.
2
Not to pick on border control. But in this context, the current media convo sounds like pretty shallow political noise. Maybe we need to re-prioritize qualifications for the top jobs in the land.
2
Perhaps one of the best all-round foreign policy experts we could put in the Oval Office lost to the Fox/Assange/Kremlin-backed Trump. But Hillary Clinton's background is incredibly unique; the most we can hope for is that the next president has a team of advisers instead of sycophants and enablers.
3
Even though President Donald Trump wants a "Space Force" separate from the U.S. Air Force. And with the cooperation of NASA and SpaceX going together in the Space Shuttle program. It takes someone like President Donald Trump to make the "Space Force", hence the name "Force", not only weaponizing the Universe but also making war before peace a priority.
How can President Donald Trump have Miss Universe pageants when he dislikes the culture or heritage of other countries. Maybe below the surface he's not only prejudice against other countries but he is also against other countries because sometimes they have "great" ideas in technology, medicine. Or just because the pageant has beautiful women like the First Lady Melanie Trump he his prejudice against how someone looks male or female. Maybe their disability or their material worth he decides they are not American enough. Not even for the "Space Force" or for America.
President Donald Trump wants to "Make America Great Again"? Check out what the National Hockey League did with recruiting "The Russian Five" or what they were also called "Red Army". The beginning of documentary is a note of caution when President Ronald Reagan appears in it and what he has to say. (Note: I just seen the 2014 Documentary "Red Army" this past weekend.) I wonder if Donald J. Trump seen it?
1
Neither Democratic nor REPUBLICAN candidate that is.
Trump is too busy at 3am in the morning to take the call. At that time he is tweeting about the witch hunt and presidential harassment while sitting on his golden loo.
3
If you want a candidate who is strong on foreign policy, with intelligence and empathy to go with it, look to Tulsi Gabbard.
1
The track record of any of our recent administrations, whether Repub or Dem, in intelligent response to 3 a.m. calls is hardly sterling. Nor by the way has Mr. Friedman's in recommending/supporting appropriate responses. I'll take my chances with any team that doesn't include Trump and Bolton.
1
Excellent column overall; the good news for the next president (assuming it's a Democrat) is that after Trump, our traditional allies - the world's democracies - will be ecstatic to welcome the new US leader. Recall the response when Obama succeeded W. As Friedman and others have rightly noted, our network of alliances is one of our strengths, along with our ability, in our better moments, to stand for enlightened, liberal values which are aspired to by millions.
Renewing the nuclear agreement with Iran is a big positive step a new president could take. Also, make it clear that it is not the business of US foreign policy to take sides in a struggle between Sunni and Shiite. Our so-called ally Saudi Arabia needs to be reminded of this.
As for Russia and China, patience is key. Over time, our values will prove more attractive to more people than those of the current regimes.
4
With Bernie and Uncle Joe closing in on 80 years old, don't you really have to worry about a crisis call waking them up at 8:00 PM?
1
Joe Biden is the best out there. No other Dem.
2
I think Mr. Friedman left one country out of his foreign policy equation.
1
Brings up an important question for today.
What's on Fox "News" at 3AM?
2
Foreign policy does not win votes. Trump proved it. So Thomas Friedman's article is most irrelevant. When you have strong institutions in place, the foreign crisis if any, will be mitigated. If you don't have that, then you manufacture the foreign crisis as it is now with POTUS.
Do you trust Trump to take that call, oh master of false equivalences? Anyone but Trump is more than good enough.
Your false equivalence is why we get Trump in the 1st place. The guy hugs the flag, like every authoritarian before him, yet I have to read your drivel about how he is prepared to take the 3am call? Please. I would rather Ilhan Omar take that call than any republican.
1
"The resurgent competition between us, China, Russia and Iran means that instead of our having their cooperation “to try to manage state failure and the technological tsunami, the three revisionists are making them worse,” Mandelbaum told me."
“Russia and Iran took the lead in devastating Syria, ......... And all three have weaponized the new technology, hacking the U.S. and Europe"
This is classic Thomas Friedman. In an otherwise interesting opinion piece, true to form, he inserts a line or two to help in the effort of demonizing Iran. He will often go on at great lengths to criticize the Israeli extremists but, in the very same pieces he totes the party line of Netanyahu & Co. The demonization of Iran seems to be the strategy of Mandelbaum also.
5
Mayor Pete!
I’m not even going to read this article Mr. Friedman. Any one of the democratic candidates are better qualified to answer that 3 am call than trump. At 3 am trump is flexing his thumbs getting ready for his next idiotic tweet.
Mandelbaum..." In the Middle East, Iran has trained and funded proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and has pursued nuclear weapons.'...".pursued nuclear weapons"!! Mandelbuam appears more interested in emphasizing Israeli talking points, perhaps he should consider a career with Israeli Information Services.
4
John Kasich
1
A thinly veiled endorsement of Joe Biden, who is not yet a declared candidate. Biden is about as Third Way as you can get; no wonder Mr. Friedman is swooning.
1
A couple years ago, at a White House Correspondents Dinner, President Obama made a strong case for picking a middle age guy with a prostate issue. 3 AM? Yeah, he'll be up anyway.
Then too, Tulsi Gabbard's emerging stock in trade is her fitness to be Commander-In-Chief. She is extraordinarily intelligent, has nerves of steel, and knows what war looks like. She's my first choice.
Respectfully submitted, at 2:33 AM EDT.
3
@Cornstalk Bob
I'm also behind TULSI2020.
Strangely, she seems to get blacked out by the NYT. She could learn to speak a bit more from the heart than being guarded as much as she is. But her policy initiatives are all spot on and she is not afraid of breaking with conventional thinking.
2
Mr Friedman is such an interesting writer.
All Mr. Trump can do at 3AM is tweeting and eating cheeseburgers.
3
No candidate is speaking about foreign policy because it's not of great importance to most voters and it seems to me that the declared candidates themselves lack experience and expertise in this area. Since Hillary Clinton is not going to run Biden is a sound choice. I'd be ok taking a chance with Klochbarer but the I'll tempered boss profile may make her election unlikely. For inexplicable reasons only Trump seems able to get away with most any behavior without negative consequences.
1
A frightening & depressing article, but one I appreciate. Thank you. Coupled with the column about party-identification aggressions, i’m glad for being an old person who won’t be around much longer anyway....but what about my granddaughter, and the children who will come after, if we (the species), not to mention, our world, survive.
1
You don’t really believe your characterization of the entire Democratic field, do you? It’s very easy to a smart but less-informed person like myself to agree with everything you say about foreign policy, and yet dismiss this column as annoyed snark from a person who doesn’t have great political instincts, given that we’re still 10 months out of the the first contest, and three months from the first of FIFTEEN DEBATES. No one who thinks politically expects any of these candidates to do anything other than define their own stories and visions, and possibily contrast their own character with that of Trump’s in the first few months of the campaign.
1
Given the circumstances, can't we just advance the clock three or four hours.
We can all it some kind of "Crisis Savings Time."
1
"The first is the resurgence of three big regional powers: Russia, China and Iran. Each is seeking to dominate its home region ...."
This pales beside the USA seeking to dominate the entire globe. Looking at it from another viewpoint, perhaps Russia, China, and Iran are simply defending against US interference and domination in their own regions of the world.
5
Hello Mr. Friedman you have joined the frivolous and hyper journalism, congratulations. We have not reached that point yet. You are getting ahead of yourself. We do not know who the candidate is. Run this article in about four months then we will see.
The answer to your Foreign Policy question is that each and everyone of the Democratic candidates would be leagues ahead of the dullard we have in office now, and the Walrus and the Carpenter who aid and abet him. Each and everyone of the Democratic candidates would work to rebuild the political alliances which the dullard has tossed into the toilet. Each and everyone of the Democratic candidates would rebuild the State Department and would listen to the advice of experts. And in the end, like all presidents before them, whoever is elected will inevitably make mistakes. But they will be mistakes born of a desire to do the right thing, and not because Mr. Putin's whispers in their ear.
2
No person on earth has the breadth or depth of personal knowledge to manage US foreign policy single-handedly, thus there are briefing books, the daily threat assessment, and in depth intradepartmental analyses provided to the President and the Office’s close advisors. At the end of the day 1 person makes the judgement call, decision, is on the President. If the call comes at 3 am with no time to consult the team, so long as the President has read/reviewed all of the briefings, then the President is prepared to exercise his/her judgment. So the election is and has always been about judgment which encompasses ethics, empathy, and comprehension.
2
The Honduran refugee families are Hillary's revenge.
She supported a coup in Honduras at the urging of her old pal Lanny Davis who represented corporate interests in Honduras,
After the coup, journalists and activists were killed and violence spiked... and surprise! the US has hundreds of refugee families lined up at the border who are going to be very expensive to deal with humanely.
The US needs a President with a foreign policy orientation that does not call for regime change all over the world for US corporate interests.The US has wrecked enough countries and killed enough people, often at the behest of Tom Friedman types.
Hands off Venezuela! and the rest of the world,too.
The US and the world will thrive under the wise leadership of President Bernie Sanders,
1
Warren/Beto
2
"unprecedented mass migration of families from Central America pushes unauthorized crossings to the highest levels in a decade,"
Tom, did you miss the strategy meeting of your party of clowns, aka Democratic Party, that concluded "THERE IN NO NATIONAL EMERGENCY ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER".
So relax :)
Certainly not Trump, nor Bolton, nor Pompeo, nor any of the other Republican clowns who have made the GOP an international joke. As for the Dems, I haven't heard one presidential candidate denigrate NATO. the EU and what's left of our Asian allies, nor have any of them cuddled up to Putin or Kim Jong-un, nor have any of them said trade wars are easy to win, nor have any of them voiced support for another nuclear arms race. That makes any one of them more acceptable for a foreign policy crisis than the moron in the White House.
3
May be we should remove that job description of answering all the crank calls at 3 AM from the foreign land. Security sales well. Everything else languishes. America should come home . Very soon ,otherwise it won't have one.
Tulsi Gabbard.
2
Hopefully, once regime change (hopefully by peaceful democratic elections) comes to DC we will have someone in charge who will: 1) tell us the truth & 2) step back from playing the god of war (even, or especially, war by other than military means- coup subversion, economic constriction, "social media "cluster mobs" & cyber attacks).
An analysis that begins with something like pushing back "dictatorships" 'aggressive expansion' locks us into the same bad old think we have followed since the late 1940s.
Iran & Russia "destroyed" Syria? Aside from the fact that Iran's power there overblown, and the actual Russian effect was to block the US from military adventure there, the actual destruction appears to result from an overthrow Op run by (our) usual Gulf suspects.
It is hard not to see the current DC regime as behind a good deal of the economic problem, and the Guaido move in Venezuela now. Bad think in a historically bad spot for us...worse if we have deployed a "Stuxnet" virus to cut power... a bull move that might see the bug cross borders (again). All Latin America going dark for the current DC regimes pipe dreams of god-like power would have unintended consequence.
That said, ANY Dem will be better than the current claque at 3 AM. Or ANY time.
2
"If you think managing strength is hard, try managing weakness — try attempting to put broken countries back together. It’s hell on wheels."
So Thomas L. Friedman's prescription is to have a president who can break strong, ancient societies (like China and Iran) and have that president or successor put them back together again? How did that work with a non-ancient society like Iraq?
If America wants a president who can deal appropriately with the 03:00 international crisis call, it would help a great deal if America would elect someone who characteristically acts in good faith; who respects fact and logic; who does not try to precipitate a crisis where none exists, and who will not try to lie the world into a war.
Mr. Friedman wants a presidential candidate to boast of being the one prepared to handle that 3 a.m. call, but that has got to be a trick Mr. Friedman wants to pull on people. Anyone who says as a candidate, especially a non-incumbent candidate who boasts of "being ready to handle that 3 a.m. call" is lying, and immediately demonstrates their unsuitability for the office. The world is too complicated, and there is nothing in anyone's prior experience that prepares him or her to deal with any realistic international crisis. And definitely not without taking good-faith advice they would not likely have been in any position to receive prior to occupying the office.
3
We would do well to strengthen democracy at home. It has morphed
into kleptocracy. With massive amount
of money in elections, big corporations
and wealthy individuals have seized
huge influence than one person one vote. It is weakened further by the
efforts to disenfranchaise voters and gerry mandering to ensure
re-election. It is mindboggling that
the real contest in the presidential
election is in six to seven states out of fifty and voter turnout 52%. Democracy
has been eroded here and people
overseas know it, making it hard
to be a serious advocate of democracy.
1
It isn't like previous presidents ran very much on foreign policy and when they did, it was usually to deceive the people.
JFK ran on a nonexistent missile gap; LBJ barely mentioned Vietnam in 1964; Nixon said he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam; Carter, Regan, the two Bushs, and Clinton didn't talk much about foreign policy when they ran. Obama's main foreign policy qualification was that he had voted against the invasion of Iraq.
Let's face it, most Americans care little about foreign policy so it's understandable candidates aren't going to waste time talking about the issue.
1
@Steve This may be true but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a president capable of dealing with foreign affairs.
That 3 am phone call was one of Hillary Clinton’s go to lines in the 2016 campaign. How did that work out for her - or for that matter the country or the world? We have to rid ourselves of Donald Trump & company - some way some how. That is by far what matters most. The domestic issues being raised by the many Democratic contenders are likely to be decisive. I will gladly take my chances with any current Democratic candidate answering that 3 am phone call over the current occupant of the oval office.
1
Hopefully, the rigors of the election season will help show who has the stamina, judgement, and wisdom to answer the 3:00 AM emergency call.
For now, I wonder why our enemies haven't made their move yet, but I offer a possibility. I call it the crazy man syndrome. If you're dealing with a crazy man, you can't provoke him unless you're willing to fight. We still have a very capable military. So our enemies shore up their positions, attempt to erode ours, and hope to stay under the radar enough to prevent Mr. Trump from having a tantrum and sending in the Marines.
This will make life harder for the next president, but if the theory is correct, it is preventing a high-visibility crisis for now.
The hopeless cynicism of Thomas Friedman today is disheartening. Yes, it's going to be hard to put it back together. It is always easier to break something than to build. Whoever we finally pick, ready or not, had better not be a Republican, or Tulsi Gabbard.
You're leaving out Israel, which is going to become a much more potent force for division within this country, and possibly the West. More and more liberal, secular, and modern orthodox Jews, are starting to distance themselves from AIPAC and Israel, in heart-rendering decisions. Trump has called on Jews to join the Republic party, making their loyalty to Israel the issue with the Democrats. More, surely, goes into party affiliation for Jews, than the question of Israel. The one issue, abortion, probably tops all for Republicans, but I think Democrats are more diverse in their thinking.
I think Americans know, the US will not abandon Israel, but I think a new doubt about our unequivocal support for Israel is emerging. Our tax dollars spent on support of a mighty little military country is also a factor in the new evaluation of Israel. It is not an issue to minimize.
1
Great essay Thomas Friedman, thank you. I look forward to hearing Jay Inslee, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders debate. Don't have much interest in the others that I can think of. You might have mentioned that both Warren and Sanders have given speeches on foreign policy.
Lost my excitement for Joe Biden, when I learned he helped a climate change denying GOP senator keep his seat in Indiana.
The next 8 years isn't for lightweights.
David Lindsay Jr. is the author of “The Tay Son Rebellion,” and blogs at TheTaySonRebellion.com and InconvenientNews.wordpress.com. He performs folk music and stories about Climate Change and the Sixth Extinction.
1
John Doe would do a better job. Just vote him out, regardless who's up at 3 A.M.
1
None of them are qualified. Including Biden.
Middle East in a 30 year war mode, China seeking to be the Great Britain of the 21st century, Russia in Ivan the Terrible mode, Europe flailing about, Central and south America groaning under cartels and corrupt politicians, and the US just staring at its figurative bellybutton. Our world order is collapsing, we just don’t know yet how bad it will get. A new era is obviously dawning and, if we manage to get rid of this s—show of a government, we need to be totally rethinking security, democracy, our economic system and the way we fight wars. I don’t see anyone capable of leading us through such times but I have to hope that the dire need will produce the person.
So... Please mention "Saudi Arabia" in the same breath as "Iran". One really is no better than the other.
1
As compared to Commander Chaos?
Seriously?
3
Well said, as usual, but methinks Dirty Donald will see this and think, hmm, perhaps I need a 3AM phone call...
1
At 3 A.M. Trump is too busy Tweeting and filling his face with Big Macs to answer any phone call.
1
Very perceptive analysis from Mr. Friedman, and another reason why Joe Biden is the best candidate for the job that America's Great White Dope has made such a hash of. Biden has an expansive resume with respect to foreign policy and with the assistance of a Sec. of State like, say, Bill Richardson, can restore our nation's alliances with a minimum of difficulty. Those three bad actors that Mr. Friedman identifies here can be managed well enough if not compelled to return to status quo ante conditions: We can accept Russia's claim to Crimea and a de facto partition of the rest of Ukraine (with neither Russian nor Ukrainian troops stationed in the East) in exchange for a promise of no further intervention in Europe on their part, no further expansion of NATO on ours and a level playing field for trade across the continent. The South China Sea problem notwithstanding, the danger we confront from Beijing has mostly to do with a trade imbalance that will continue to grow as long as our feckless leader withdraws from trade alliances with China's neighbors in the Pacific. As for Iran, that nation has been trying to forge a "Shiite crescent" in the Middle East that, with the possible exception of Bahrain, has no further room to grow. Even if it manages to consolidate the dominance it's already achieved, it's strength will remain no match for that of Israel and its Sunni Arab "allies" (which is to say, it's not our problem). I'll continue once this comment has been published...
1
@stu freeman: The migration dilemma does, indeed, constitute a major problem for both the U.S. and western Europe. In our case, we need to take a far more active role in the affairs of Central America, working more closely than ever before with the governments of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador to smash the drug gangs and alleviate the poverty. That would require tax money- but possibly less than would need to be spent on the impractical Great Wall of Donald. Europe would likewise have to handle the problem of refugees (both economic and political) desperately fleeing those failed states in Africa and the Middle East. Insofar as Mr. Friedman's last point is concerned, I agree that we have the tools at our disposal to identify and take reciprocal action against those nations that have targeted us with cyber-attacks (most notably Russia). So what are we waiting for?
1
You call the USA a democracy? Maybe, but in name only. We have a dictatorial leader whose attempts to undermine and corrupt the rule of law are legion. Our immoral and unethical senate majority leader in concert with an assortment of mindless and spineless henchman all do his bidding. Gerrymandering has made the votes of thousands of citizens worthless. The press has become the enemy. Don't worry about China, Russia, and Iran. Worry about Washington.
1
Seth Moulton - a dark house, but nevertheless, national security is a priority of his.
If you want a tough leader, we can look to Kirsten Gillibrand to deal with the likes of Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un on our behalf--just look to how she dealt with Al Franken. And her "A" rating from the NRA shows she is willing to stand her ground.
Being agriculture secretary is easier right now than being secretary of state, Tom?
To say that any of the announced or prospective candidates for the 2020 Democratic Party nomination could not possibly do worse is deeply cynical. Anyone who is not part of the Trump cult knows this.
There is no one except a few deeply compromised hand-wringers on CNN (and ocassionally MSNBC & Fox) pining for either of the 'Moderate Joe's' (Biden and especially not Lieberman) who did much over the past few decades to get us into our current situation in the Muslim world and our defense posture in general.
Thanks anyway for pointing out where the NYT stands!
1
Biden is the only one with heavy international experience who would have the support of our traditional allies that Trump has dismayed at best if not destroyed the relationship. Our allies have made America a respected powerhouse in the world and our adversaries feared us for it. Now Trump gets his intel from Putin and demeans our own intel and justice dept. preferring to be our dictator. Trump is a bombastic buffoon ignarant erratic and corrupt and the world knows it.
1
I remember watching Biden on CSPAN on the Foreign Affairs Committee warning his fellow Senators about the possibility of a major terror attack in New York City--I think he said it could be a shipping container loaded with a dirty bomb--well BEFORE 9/11. He was also attuned to the danger of Pakistan and terrorism BEFORE 9/11. He deserves more credit for his vast knowledge of foreign affairs, more deep than Obama's ever was.
2
In 2016 America had a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Clearly this is not a topic that American's choose to understand or prioritize.
2
There is nothing to indicate that Clinton wouldn't make a fine President. But remember, she is not running.
2
No Democrat appears up to the task? Cripes, even Beto would do a better job than the current Oval Office occupant. Pick one, any one, it would still be better than what we have.
There isnt one Republican in office I would want answering that call.
3
@gene -- While true, nor are there many Democrats who are not just compromised parts of The Blob of DC group think hawks.
Obama tried. We need someone like him, but who will try with more success to control The Blob.
Friedman wrote: “The three have an important motive in common: All are dictatorships trying to generate support among those they rule through aggressive nationalism, at the expense of their neighbors...”
Sadly, it seems that both Mandelbaum and Friedman missed one such country in their listing---- In two short years, our political system has devolved to the point where it is nearly impossible to distinguish our own nation's foreign policy behavior from those other dictatorships.
Friedman also wrote: "democracies are much less prone to war."
This is true only when the government and nationally respected columnists like Friedman do not tell lies and coax us into wars of opportunity that benefit only the war profiteers.
1
Really excellent, Sir. I’m a non-coastal elite. Meaning educated, upper middle class, very informed, politically and otherwise. What do I want in a Candidate for 2020 ? Simple. I don’t want a Dummy. Someone that is so dumb that HE is unaware of the depths of his incompetence and complete lack of qualifications. Someone that operates from his “ gut “ or from direction from FOX news. Someone that doesn’t require babysitters 24/7, and fills his Regime with bootlickers and grifters. In other words, the antithesis Of Trump. No GOP Collaborators need apply.
2020. Make America SANE Again.
1
The only candidate who has been even close to answering that phone call at 3am is Joe Biden.
1
I wouldn't fret about which Democrat will best answer the 3 am call -- a bogus hypothetical, considering that ANY of the candidates, present or future, will be better to have by that phone than the utterly incompetent, ignorant, bellicose buffoon who would answer that phone today. If he weren't watching himself bloviate on Fox news. Trump is "uniquely unsuited" for his office, to quote our last real president, Barack Obama, who was being kind. Trump is a menace 24/7, and he needs to be removed. The niceties of who would be more accomplished at foreign policy are just that, niceties. Get him out of there with the best possible replacement, and we will be okay.
Your essay leaves out one crucial point: the nations that have been our steadfast allies, many since the end of World War II, will heave an enormous sigh of relief once Baby Huey and his bizarre, lunatic fringe playmates have been expelled from the White House, State Department and other positions responsible for our strategic relations with the rest of the world.
That alone will go quite some ways toward resolving much of the friction and instability you describe here. Removing the blustering, ill-behaved child and his twitching, twittering fingers and belligerent, loudmouthed, amateurish accomplices from the Oval Office and environs will quickly heal many wounds.
So whom do you suggest?
I disagree. The answer to your headline is just about anybody except Trump.
1
"Policy Crisis at 3 A.M.? So far, no Democratic candidate is claiming to be ready" - Thomas L. Friedman
As opposed to?
I would take a wet rag compared to what we are currently relying on.
Hillary sounds like the best choice in that light.
Too bad...
1
There is only one person in the running with the potential for handling that 3 AM call.
Joe Biden.
Thomas Friedman has done his best to help create a climate for a multitude of such calls. His know it all, adrenaline flowing, macho breathless aggressiveness should be put in The Museum of Perpetual Recklessness. He has done more than enough harm over the years. His role as chief cheerleader for the war on Iraq was him at his most disgraceful. The world is a scary enough place. It is better for all of us if he is fast asleep at 3 AM.
3
We should be more worried about how countries like Russia, North Korea and Iran will react to Trump's 3:00 AM Tweets.
Guy in Moldova, If you are Listening, Shut down Trump's Phone!
This Op Ed is the scariest thing I’ve read in a very long time. Oh that Mr. Obama were still at the helm.
“9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan, to be sure”
Except Afghanistan and Iraq were (are) wars of choice. That latter still explicitly illegal. Nor is there any legal justification for the 2019 version of the war in Afghanistan.
“The first is the resurgence of three big regional powers: Russia, China and Iran.”
Iran? Did Iran invade Iraq?
“In the Middle East, Iran has trained and funded proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and has pursued nuclear weapons.”
Yemen, really Friedman (“Mandelbuam”) needs to share some evidence of this. And the fact that there are Shiites in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon seems to be news to him. Now which country illegally invaded Iraq?
“We are going to see more and more weak states — like Venezuela, Libya, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and many in sub-Saharan Africa..”
Libya? The destruction of which Friedman backed. Venezuela? Another country the US is bent on destroying. The US and it’s partners have lowered the price of oil, made sure that Venezuela can’t sell its oil or trade against its gold reserves–which party is at fault?
Honduras? In 2009, that was victim of a US approved coup.
I’m seeing a party that could change its policies and improve things, and it’s not Iran, Syria, Venezuela, China, or Russia.
Mr. Friedman, I think you need to read a little bit more before pontificating.
May I suggest your own paper:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/opinion/sanders-warren-foreign-policy.html
And maybe Foreign Affairs?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2018-11-29/foreign-policy-all
Both Warren and Sanders are not only thinking about foreign policy, they are actually laying the groundwork for their presidency.
2
For two on your list consider fostering existential self-reliance at the neighborhood level. See Self-Reliant Neighborhood Option at sirno.org.
The obvious answer: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Perhaps someday when this benighted country grows up, it will elect someone as qualified as her. Not holding my breath...
2
One word: Biden.
With the bombastic Trump in office, I would play things low key right now if I were seeking nomination for the Democrats. Lift your head up and he’ll blow it off with his blowhard rhetoric. The right candidate will emerge at the right time - and this will ensure the most interesting election in the history of The United States.
Thank you Mr. Friedman for this excellent survey and summary of the current configuration of forces in the world. We need clarity and leaders who can articulate what it is we are t trying to achieve. Your column today helps us see what our goals need to be.
Thomas Friedman may be right that none of the Democratic presidential candidates have spoken – except by implication during a discussion of judgment – about answering the White House crisis line at 3 a.m.
In the 2+ years Donald Trump has been in the White House, does anyone recall reports of his answering the crisis line at 3 a.m. or at any other time of the day or night?
The phone could have rung endlessly, if President Trump was in the middle of editing a staffer’s proposed Tweet to make it nastier or if Mr. Trump was watching “the shows” on Fox which shape his policy.
What a silly premise: excepting our current president, I am confident that every candidate is very aware of the burdens of all of the aspects of the job. To essentially run around screaming "none of them has addressed this issue yet" in March of 2019, while also decrying the exhausting length of campaigning sounds like a writer who so relishes the drama that he can't help adding to it.
2
There should not be a foreign policy crisis at 3am in the first place. Diplomacy done right heads off that sort of thing before it even happens.
That's why a professional diplomatic corps exists, or did, before Bush/Cheney put wars of adventure and profit before diplomacy, and Trump further trashed the profession and its members.
As to the candidates, any of them could do a better job to protect American interests than Sean Hannity or Fox And Friends.
Failed or near-failed states in our backyard, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, indicate a failure of U.S. foreign policy closest to our southern border.
Not smart.
Money that could be used to do good, to stabilize their economies, promote democracy, and help ensure justice within those states is being wasted on "fortress America". The inhuman response to a human crisis.
Not smart.
1
Let's prioritize. Our current leader is a 24/7 unbridled crisis which is more of a threat than any other to be phoned in to his successor at 3 a.m.
First of all, anybody would answer that 3 A .M. phone call better than Trump because even most GOP would know who the USA allies are.
Additionally, I am sure that a President for the Democratic party can do as Reagan, Louis XIV or even to some extent, George W did: surround themselves with qualified people, expend enough time going through security briefing and, be guided by experts. Ignorance can be handled efficiently, with success. Ignorance plus arrogance plus mega-ego, not,
By the way, just for the record, Venezuela will "either fall apart or hemorrhage lots of their people..." because of a dictatorship committing genocide. If I am kidnapped, tied-up and victim of human traffic, can anybody expect I become James Bond and free myself?
"So far, no Democratic candidate is claiming to be ready" for the severe crisis to awaken the commander-in-chief at 3 a.m. The scary thing is that neither is any Republican, most especially the current squatter in the Oval Office.
I would suggest that any of the umpteen Democrats running for president would be better prepared than the Prince of Orange. Let's humbly remember that it's only March 2019, hardly a moment when sophisticated foreign policy formulations should reasonably be expected.
1
I don't see any of these countries as being suicidal as yet. Iran, China, and Russia are all vulnerable to rebellion from within. Most of their citizens are living in poverty. It will become harder to keep outside information from its citizenry in all three. American intelligence can promote that thru advocating for human rights and access to information from the outside world.
Oh please, any of the current crop of Democratic possible nominees would do better than the person currently living in the White House.
1
I'd have to say Biden.
Experience does matter.
I guess I'm gonna be obstinate and say, "Wait a moment!"
It was Richard Nixon who, running for President in 1968, had a chat with political journalist, Theodore White. Voicing what Mr. White called "an intriguing suggestion" that the U.S. president's main job OUGHT to be--foreign affairs. The country (he said) was big enough, stable enough to run on its own.
I think not.
The President's job always has been, always SHOULD be--the United States of America. Consider, Mr. Friedman, the innumerable problems that roil our country. Economic inequality. Racism. Border stuff. On and on it goes. A long list.
Am I suggesting--he simply forget about Iraq? China? Russia? North Korea?
But no means! OF COURSE--he'll have to deal with these countries. To say nothing of the fraying bonds that join us to France, Germany, Britain et al.
But (in all honesty) we don't ELECT him to deal with those nations. We ELECT him to run things at home.
One last thing:
I would submit that yes! we HAVE elected leaders that, like Wilson or Roosevelt, were concerned primarily with inequities, with bad stuff at home--
--and nevertheless--
--rose to the occasion when foreign affairs, foreign crises obtruded themselves.
That, sir, goes with the territory. And Mr. Donald J. Trump?
Well, sir--he ain't risen to much of ANYTHING.
ANYONE would be preferable to THAT man.
But on that, I suppose--
--we're all pretty much agreed.
With a return to the cold war, that unthinkable 3 A.M. crisis is more likely than ever.
Everyone admits that it would be insane for wither side to launch their nuclear arsenals against the other. Few, however, see the insanity in placing ourselves in a position where MAD is not only possible, but probably inevitable. If we are to pull away from the ridiculous posture we've now assumed, there will need to be a paradigm shift in human thought around the world, and particularly in the United States and Russia. If not, we are doomed.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a linguistic "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of all. When we understand this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
I really don't think Iran deserves equal consideration with China and Russia as global competitors of the United States.
2
Biden is the only choice given the rest of the field. In my opinion, Bernie would be the worst. There are several other candidates that could grow into the job with Biden as the anchor.
Ideally, every person that holds the office of President should be a Rhodes Scholar or be a member of Mensa. But truth be told, aside from a few very smart men, it seems that most of the presidents were chosen because of their height.
That said, there is no need for some type of 'expert-in-every-field' in the Oval Office.
What you should strive for in a President, is to have a smart and honest person in office. A wise President will know to surround themselves with even smarter people than him/herself - economics experts, legal experts, (climate) scientists, medical doctors as well as a few good generals. An expert in philosophy and ethics and a few historians would not be a bad idea either. This way, when the 3 am call comes in, the President will be able to get good solid advice from experts in the field.
This time around you elected somebody who has surrounded himself with Yes-men/women, and crooked lobbyists. His chief adviser is a reality-tv personality and clothing designer. Oh well, on the up side, if a fashion emergency should strike - you'll be in good hands.
1
Joe Biden is obviously prepared.
Seems like you didn't watch Pete Buttigieg's Town Hall on CNN. He's a veteran who has served in Afghanistan. He is also a Rhodes Scholar. Plus, he was Mayor of South Bend, IN.
He's got experience managing a small city as well as overseas military experience. Seems like he could assess situations both in macro and micro terms.
He is thoughtful and intelligent and humble.
He would make a great President.
I agree. Mayor Pete is an intriguing and thoughtful candidate who has the IQ and EQ to handle an international crisis.
@Barbara T
Mr.Buttigieg doesn't stand a chance in the Democratic primary as a white male, no matter his qualifications. He cannot win the "AOC/Omar Ilhan" primary. The Dem's will run a woman, preferably (to them) a woman of color because that strokes all their virtue signaling impulses and will lose to Trump by default because the middle of the country, (think Electoral College) simply isn't "woke" enough for that scenario. Much to the detriment of our country as a whole. We need someone of gravitas, with hands on foreign policy experience, with both successes and failure from which to learn and I see no such person on the horizon thus far.
There is much that is grievously wrong with Iran's regime and its domestic and external actions.
But to elevate Iran's power, impact and influence to the same level as Russia and China (as Friedman, and apparently Mandelbaum, repeatedly do) is wildly disproportionate - and rather dumb.
Conversely, to portray China as merely a "regional power" is naive - and not too bright either.
World security won't stand to loose much if Tom and Michael remain soundly asleep at 3am - good night.
1
I think Mr. Friedman has some good points. I would note, however, that we have a long history of inept meddling in the affairs of other countries.
I would hope that if someone calls at 3 am with a crisis that the next president listen to the pentagon, has read up enough on said country, and knows what the next steps to take and not go by gut instinct. Interloper Trump idea is to cozy up with the bad guys in order to keep them within his sight. Kind of like when Trump wanted to buy a football league and lost, he was dealing with professionals and now he is in way over his head.
"Leaders from China to Egypt to Uganda to Turkey are all making themselves presidents for life." I know this is a big bowl of Dear God, but does anyone really think that Trump wouldn't welcome the same opportunity here?
1
Here’s the thing, Mr. Friedman. Democratic candidates for president are almost all better suited to respond to crises than Trump and to repair our damaged international standing.
1
Who can we elect to be prepared for the 24-hour crises as will be left to deal with when finally sworn in?
Where is Dwight Eisenhower when we really need him?
1
Well, the current president's only argument for why he should be the one to take the 3 a.m. call is that he’s already up at that hour, tweeting. As Friedman notes, he’s destroyed long-standing alliances, created economic and security instability, and surrounded himself with a rogues’ gallery of so-called advisers who whisper in his ear and take advantage of his ignorance of world affairs.
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush. The next president should start making plans for a visit to Stockholm in 2021.
I believe climate change and overpopulation is the cause of many of our problems. That said any person from the GOP is unqualified to lead because they don't believe in climate change or family planning.
2
One of those already up at 3 AM, is DJT. ( 'No rest for the wicked', as they say.) Unfortunately, spewing out venomous tweets at that hour - what he is usually doing - is not an ideal way to handle the next world crisis.
Trump's greatest foreign policy weaknesses is not his inability to build and maintain alliances it is his abysmal ignorance of the world, his inability to read, his complete disinterest in learning and a briane that does not work well.
3
"No wonder no one wants to boast being the best person to answer the White House crisis line at 3 a.m. They all prefer to let it ring and hope that it’s a wrong number."
Problem is americans could care less about the issues you raised (let alone be able to read and understand this commentary.
They want someone who is as shallow and vulgar and obtuse as they are themselves.
Trump's approval rating is 88% among the GOP. -A person who if his lips move is lying or dissasembling! (and a climate science denier)
Put THAT on our tombstone!
1
Why am I not shocked that Friedman incorrectly includes Iran on this list? Nevertheless, the biggest threats are not Iran, it is China and Russia. The next president might start by repairing the damaged relations with our friends in Europe. Also, the president needn't be a FP expert, s/he just needs to surround herself with competent people. Friedman needs to tap the brakes on his cynical, end-of-the-world fear mongering.
Since the election of Mr Donald J Trump in 2016, the question posed by Thomas L Friedman has haunted me each and everyday. Soon it will be 3:00 AM in Iowa. A Cuban missile crisis for the 21st century? What will happen at 3:00 AM if decisions must be made urgently, without delay? How would our current leader, Donald J Trump react? How would Donald J Trump, USA President, vested with almighty and absolute power, respond? My answer is simple and straight forward: tunnel on down beneath the black earth of Iowa. Dig deep and without end.
The easy answer to the question is Anyone But Trump. It's not that complicated, Tom.
1
Mr Friedman you said of President Trump "Few other countries want to follow him into battle." ..... That includes us
1
After nearly twenty years of bipartisan interventionist disasters there is no excuse for an article like this which papers over them. Someone reading Mr. Friedman would never know that we invaded Iraq for no good reason ( with his support), causing several hundred thousand deaths and setting the stage for ISIS. One wouldn’t know that we toppled Gadaffi and left Libya in a shambles. One wouldn’t know that we poured weapons into Syria, into the hands of people who fought side by side with Al Qaeda ( called Al Nusra there). Some of those weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS. We helped keep that war going. We also bombed cities into rubble just like Russia did. And finally there is not a word about our support for the brutal Saudi war in Yemen. Friedman was a big supporter of Bone Saw before the Khashoggi murder and had nothing to say about Yemen.
What is the point of patting ourselves on the back about our democracy if we aren’t going to talk about our own disastrous failures, unjust wars, war crimes and in the case of Yemen, complicity in something close to genocide? Well, I know what the point is. The point is to avoid accountability both for the politicians who were responsible for these policies and for the pundits who advocated them.
3
The real problem is that our two parties are overly in the thrall of their more extreme wings and this is making it impossible for the political system to deal pragmatically with the serious problems facing our nation today, whether global or domestic. There is a centrist majority in the population, center-left on the main issues according to polls, but it is being stymied by structural flaws in the political system that have become salient in recent years, leveraged by the Republican Party to cement their hold on power in the face of declining popular support.
With respect to the refugee crisis on our southern border, we have Trump and the Republicans demogoguing the issue rather than trying to mitigate it through compromise on pragmatic, humanitarian policies. The Democrats seem unwilling to engage the problem with full honesty out of fear of being punished by their immigrant constituencies.
With respect to great power politics, we have a defense establishment clamoring for more resources to meet new threats, yet which has failed to do the strategic reassessment one would think ought to be done in the face of the multiple failed wars we've paid for in this century. They want to keep doing business as usual, just more of it. Uh... no thanks.
But the bottom line here is that the system is broken. Friedman wants someone who can keep juggling the foreign policy balls. Fair enough, but we need more.
1
"quoted Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan as saying: “The system is well beyond capacity and remains at a breaking point.”"
Obviously, the one person one can rely on to take care of this is Trump.
He went out of his comfortable way to declare an emergency and start to build the clearly needed wall.
No Democrat came with even a vague idea of a solution...
1
@novoad
Don't worry, the Mexican narcos came ahead with a solution way ahead than any American politician: Tunnels and way cheaper.
Honestly, no one cares who will answer the call. For Dems to win, they simply need to flip the few voters that Trump flipped. If the electoral college is not in play then the Dem candidate doesn't even need to do that. Ultimately, a monkey could make better international policy than Trump. Just ask Pompeo, who has to scramble to make sense of Trump's midnight tweeting. Of course, I don't feel bad for Pompeo, who has brought this on himself.
Your sometimes cheeky comments add nothing to our search for a new and better foreign poicy. It is a neocon argument if I ever heard one, and that has failed us and our former allies.
How you do twist things. Surely you know the current U.S. and European border crises are the result of our failed foreign policies.
What you call failed states (Venezuela, Libya, etc.) were doing okay on their own until our foreign policy intellectuals decided to take them down. They didn't fall apart from the stresses you mention.
If as you say democracies are less prone to war, I say we are a democracy and we have been led into too many wars by our neocon foreign policy and the military/industrial complex. Of course few other countries want to follow us into battle.
We need a president who sees the errors of the past and acts to correct them.
2
TF: Why no mention of the autocratic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a principal disturber of the peace? Although not the focus of Madelbaum's thesis, surely you must recognize it's imperviousness to human rights and its atrocities in Yemen and Syria. There is no doubt that it's actions rival that of Iran.
2
This is the most significant problem these candidates face and the current resident has failed miserably, listened to the wrong voices, and just flat doesn't have the intelligence to see what this means. The fate of the world and peace reside in a person who can gather together these factions and keep the peace. It is frightening to the average person to hear all the talk thrown around about nuclear acceleration and missiles being fired. For goddess sake we grew up in a time of real nuclear threat and it is worse now with dictators like Kim having the capacity to destroy. Great column.
Um, Iran is not one of "the strongest countries in the world." It is downright silly to keep them together in the frame with Russia and China. Nor is there much reason to believe that Iran will be one of the biggest perpetrators of unwarranted aggression in the near future. Their military actions in Syria and Iraq, whether direct or through proxies, have been entirely predictable: their neighbors have been in a state of civil war, terrorist groups have been running wild, and so Iran moved to stabilize the Assad regime and continues to seek dominant influence in both countries. The Assad regime is despicable, as are the tactics employed by some of these Shiite proxy militias and Revolutionary Guard units, but the general strategy is not one of maniacal aggression. In fact, they have been strangely docile when it comes to Israeli air strikes on their forces in Syria. After dozens of strikes, they still have not reciprocated.
This unhealthy obsession with Iran is a serious risk for US interests, and is equally if not more dangerous for Israel. The Trump Administration is transparently pushing for Iran's anti-Western hard-liners to crush the moderating forces from which Rouhani draws his support. Apparently they want Iran to give us an excuse for war; already Bolton has reportedly sought to attack Iran on the pretext that a rocket from one of their proxies landed in an empty lot next to a US facility in Iraq. Tough times are ahead if they succeed.
1
The current candidates could be a Cabinet dream team. For the #1 job there are potentially some very strong candidates but unfortunately none have yet been enticed to run. These might include:
- William Gates
- Mitch Daniels
- Michael Bloomberg
- Joe Biden
- Adam Schiff
- Bob Corker
- Mitt Romney
- Gen. Mattis
1) Were it not for the specious inclusion of Iran in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (AKA, Great Powers) by you and Professor Mandelbaum, this would have been singularly important call to the candidates to study up for their most deadly responsibility.
2) Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu also intends to become ruler for life (if the Attorney General does not interrupt his auto-golpe). He and Iran's ayatollahs are destabilizing forces for the Middle East but not the globe.
3.Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.
“The resurgence of Russia.”
Really? You mean that country with a GDP that is now less than one tenth of that of the US and equal to only 40% of Germany’s?
“Russia has occupied part of Ukraine.”
Only part? At one time they used to occupy all of it until Obama and the CIA took out their stooge, Viktor Yanukovych. Yes that’s right, the very same Vik that Paul Manafort was taking payments from but not reporting them on his tax return.
“Russia and Iran took the lead in devastating Syria.”
Russia again? And there was me, thinking that it was ISIS that devastated Syria; the terror regime that dominated Western media until it was defeated - with some help from the Russians.
Mr. Friedman also neglects to mention the role of Israel as a stabilizing force in the Middle East. Take a look inside – there’s a nuclear weaponry that’s one of the most efficient on the planet. And that - with what the US has got under the hood - may be enough to help anyone answering a 3,00 a.m. call.
Placing Iran among Russia and China is indicative of a certain sort of bias.
Thank you, Thomas L. Friedman for sharing your insights, but I disagree with your one-sided article.
Why limit yourself to one party for criticism? The record shows that faith in either major party to be misplaced. For example, many evil Democrats and Republicans voted for the Iraq War. While Hiroshima and Nagasaki show that Democrats cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons not to kill innocents, Republicans also cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons such as the nuclear terrorist threats made by Eisenhower, Nixon and Trump.
We should remember that the Vietnam Holocaust, with its Trump-size lies and deception was a bi-partisan evil, fully embraced by both parties. The vast military power is a tool whose use by either party is difficult to resist by morally imperfect presidents. Democracy cannot be relied upon to consistently select morally perfect rulers; sometimes, you get a Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., but more often you get blood-thristy killers of innocents. Just do the math.
During the Cold War, a Russian official, questioned about the belligerent rhetoric emanating from the American democracy, blamed the four your election cycle. For democracy to act morally correctly requires moral perfection of the rulers that vastly exceeds what history shows the system is capable of producing.
Thomas L. Friedman, democracy simply cannot be trusted to act as morally correctly as you.
5
During the 2016 campaign, Bernie was asked on CNN about foreign policy, and the potential for war. His answer? Tax the 1 %. I almost fell of my seat. It was incredulous he didnt have a prepared answer. He didnt even have to mean it. Something??
Although Trump wasnt negotiating with foreign leaders on a state level before he was elected, he was negotiating with them on a business level. You cant build multiple skyscrapers all over the world without negotiating with their leaders and even their local governments. Thats why he has been so eager to address the trade issue. Hes been living and breathing it for years. Or we could go back to the liberal way - no experience or knowledge about world affairs, so just ignore them. Did you ever wonder why Obama and even Bush never attempted to address trade? It was because they hadnt the slightest clue as to how it works. Seems neither does Bernie. Ya think think Kamala or Booker, or Warren does??? Sheesh!
1
Let me be clear as day. I want the job of chief economic advisor to the president.
My advisor panel:
1) Paul Krugman
2) Brad Delong
3) Dean Baker
4) Jared Bernstein
5) Mathew Yglesias
6) Noah Smith
7) Bern Bernanke
8) Others...
"In the Middle East, Iran has trained and funded proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and has pursued nuclear weapons."
Shiites are minorities in Lebanon (24%), Syria (13%) and Yemen (30%). Iran comes to their defense because of the Saudi-Wahhabist, genocidal, religious war on Shiites. Saudi clerics have issued fatwas calling for the killing of all Shiites; men women and children. The foreign policy of the US is party to those Saudi funded genocidal efforts.
I don't want the President getting up at 3:00 a.m. to order a retaliatory nuclear strike to destroy the world a second time. Let's all just sleep in. I'll see you in heaven. In the event that it's not a nuclear strike, have some State Department night owl take a message.
Friedman earned his stripes reporting from Middle Eastern war zones and won a Pulitzer in 2002 because he declared (wrongly) that 9/11 was "the beginning of World War III." In fact, it was just America's first direct, homeland experience of what the CIA has long termed "Low Intensity Confict," the name it gave to the Central American Wars of the 70's and 80's where death squads trained in Georgia, aligned right-wing governments and terrorized entire populations by "disappearing" opposition to the repression, including the assassination of Catholic Archbiship Romero in El Salvador who was shot dead while celebrating a public mass in church. So when ordinary political violence and extrajudicial killings occur somewhere else, it's "low intensity conflict," but when it occurs in the homeland, it's "World War III." Such is the ignorance of journalists who trade in euphemisms designed to obscure reality.
And about those tiny sand spits China is building in the South China sea; America has 14 territories around the world -- American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and 9 other rocks and atolls claimed as "appertenances," a word created to mask land grabs.
1
From even before taking office Trump showed little interest in foreign policy briefings, and even then in only the most abbreviated forms. His first official appearance at the CIA was not spent addressing the challenges for our intelligence services in a world of increasingly complex geopolitics, but rather the size of his inaugural crowd. He has chosen his advisors on foreign policy matters apparently based on their swagger and sycophancy. His forays into foreign lands have largely consisted of ignorant bombast, mean-spiritedness towards our “allies” and just plain weirdness, and he has been played like a fiddle by Putin, XI, bin Salman, and Kim.
Donald Trump shouldn’t have a “crisis telephone” in his White House bedroom, he should have a “baby-monitor.”
TLDR;
Everything Friedman has been saying for several decades now about the wonders of globalization and all those awesome disrupters out in Silicon Valley and their technology that is "making the world a better place" has been wrong.
And now he's really, really scared about what the consequences will be, which is about the only thing he's been right about in a very long time.
The job has less to do with someone who can claim immediate job proficiency in the Oval, than the capacity of that person to learn quickly, and be able to respond deftly to the turns and turbulence of the office. Excellence in the job infers enough flexibility and native intelligence to revise a point of view, many times, if necessary, as events unfold, and more information becomes known.
The person who comes next to the job must be humble enough to appoint advisors who know more about a topic than the President, and be able to learn and absorb from those advisors, and others.
And the job is complex and stressful enugh that it necessitates someone with reasonably good health, who can respond to the job quickly, and thoughtfully.
All that said, the job cries out for someone who has an inherent honesty and good character. Yes, morals count.
Absolutely none of the above charcateristics are noted in the current occupant of the office, which is what strikes so much alarm in Americans and persons across the globe, as we watch our foundations being jackhammered on a daily basis.
Why isn't Bernie, with decades of Senate experience, much readier now for 3 AM than Obama was in 2008? We know that our worst nightmare is Trump's getting that call. So our choice is between a known nightmare and any Dem who is smart and decent. As usual, Friedman is carrying water for Wall St., trying to use fears about foreign policy to make sure the Dems will nominate the supposedly "seasoned" Biden. When FDR died, everyone was frightened by the former men's clothing salesman Truman taking over control of our foreign policy at the end of WWII. But actually Truman was much savvier about Stalin than the dying FDR had been, and turned out to be an excellent, wise foreign policy president. Does Bernie strike you as highly intelligent, like most University of Chicago students or not? Does he strike you as smarter than Joe Biden or not? Those are the questions you should be asking about qualifications for 3 AM calls. My answer, of course, is "yes" to Bernie on both questions. Bring on the crisis.
Americans were pretty adamant in 2016, that foreign policy doesn’t matter to them. It’s not a make-or-break issue, at least.
We want to see the gutting of our middle class reversed. Trump promised that, and won. How anyone believed him (and still does!) is beyond me.
If the Dems can nominate a candidate with the chops and background of ACTUALLY representing the economics of middle America, they’ll win in a walk.
I find this article extremely informative and thought provoking. Yes Trump as a diplomat is an oxymoron - it’s not his skill set. However asking European countries to come to the table and pay up to help these international crisises is not unreasonable at all. In fact it needs to happen. The amount of foreign aid the US spends on international development is multiple times more than any other developed country. As for democracy - I love it . But it will never succeed in a country or culture that does not believe in the judo-christian ethic. So let’s not waste money and lives in trying to establish one. - Exhibit A -Afghanistan. My new mantra: Democracy - it’s not for everyone.
I'd rather have a dead dog in the street answer the 3 am call than the current possessor of the telephone. No need to make that point--ANYBODY is better.
I don't think Democrats are avoiding foreign policy positions because everyone knows what lies ahead: Trying to repair the wreckage left by the Trump administration. There's not a lot of room for debate when everyone agrees. What that effort will look like is largely contingent on what happens in the next two years. Trump can upset entire global relationships in a single day. Who knows what the field will look like come January 2021.
I think most people agree though: We don't want Trump answering the phone when that 3 A.M. call comes in. We've actually been remarkably lucky so far. Please, let it go to voicemail.
@Andy
There was a huge amount of wreckage left by GWBush and the Obama/Hillary team.
They wrecked Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,Syria, continued the wrecking of Somalia, and worked hard to destabilize Venezuela.
Of course, Trump is now trying to finish off Venezuela, in what could become a hellish civil war.
Senator Bernie Sanders has better foreign policy instincts and a well thought foreign policy, that the US and the world desperately needs.
The first name that popped into my mind was Joe Biden. Even if he supported the invasion of Iraq based on false 'evidence' he came around. Biden has always had a keen interest in foreign affairs and I respect that plus he can learn from mistakes unlike some politicians and that includes more than Trump. Just his warmth, smile, true 'family values, and experience would have won him the presidency. Is he too old now? I can't answer that but at least he would choose a candidate for VP a cut above Pence. About Bernie. I'don't think the 9/11 vote should be a litmus test. I cannot think of where he stands on other foreign policy issues. The world is truly a big mess on so many fronts that America's foreign policy is the most important issue for me. Hey let's make the world great again.
Maybe start with a different perspective. It's not just the USA worrying about this and that, there are other huge stake holders. Europe is larger than us and has plenty to think about in dealing with its own security in the east--more than we do. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and numerous others worry about Iran. Surprisingly, maybe, Russia has more to worry about from China than anybody, although the rest of Pac Rim is certainly concerned. We are more than one deep and need to stop thinking like loners.
"I haven’t heard any of the Democrats running on the argument that he or she is the best person to answer the White House crisis line at 3 in the morning"
I'm glad you point out that knowledge of foreign policy is essential for a President, but maybe you haven't heard about it because when the most qualified person was running, who could talk in depth about those issues, all the reporters cared to write about was emails.
5
Tom: The man we currently have in the Oval Office is watching Fox and Friends reruns and eating a burger at 3 in the morning ----the public seems to care less who is on the other end of the phone at 3 in the morning.
143
@Amanda Jones
The American public has historically spent more time navel gazing at domestic issues than looking at the very real dangers abroad, especially during election campaigns. 2020 will be no different. We learned the hard way that the current occupant of the White House can't read a briefing book, and would rather look at pictures than listen to foreign affairs debriefings. Our next crisis could be at home, but chances are it will be from somewhere over yonder where Trump can't find on a map. Hopefully the next President will be different, but will most Americans care? Not so much.
10
Not only do the candidates not discuss the 3am but neither do they mention what they plan to do about the decimation that has taken place in the State Department. This is in spite of their ideas to reduce military involvement overseas which they discuss without presenting alternatives.
The candidates say they are going on focus on domestic problems when history tells us that they will spend most of their time in the 1st 4 years coming up to speed on foreign policy issues.
Tom, you are giving way too much credit for these candidates even for domestic experience.
Aside from Elizabeth Warren whose policy ideas I disagree with, few of the other candidates has accomplished much in their current jobs.
What important legislation can be claimed by Kirsten Gillibrand or Corey Booker ? In previous years, someone like a Sam Nunn or Dan Rostenkowski or Daniel Patrick Moynihan could claim expertise in some important part of our government.
Aside from making a decent speech, what has Beto done, or Kamala Harris ?
Bernie has plenty of ideas but has accomplished none of them.
Joe Biden is the only potential Democratic candidate to have any real meat on his resume (not that I like Biden).
It is a tragedy that Obama and Trump were able to win a presidential election after having accomplished little in public life.
It made any two-bit politician with an ego believe they can run the world's largest economy and largest military at the same time.
If you take a look at politicians in countries with parliamentary systems of government, their prime ministers are typically very seasoned with many other portfolios first.
We get bench warmers.
While past performance is no guarantee of future events it seems to me useful to look back in time and see what a candidate had to say at a time when a determined Vice President aided and abetted by our foreign policy establishment was about to lead America over a cliff.
My personal litmus test, if you will, is where a candidate was on the run up to the Iraq War. Was he or she one of the vanguard pushing for invasion? Was she someone who kept her head down and quietly voted along with the majority even though she had doubts. Or, and this was very rare, did he speak out forcefully against the invasion?
Naturally many of the current round of candidates were not in Congress at the time and there may be no record of their views but Biden, Sanders and I believe Gillibrand were.
Biden was outspokenly for the authorization but later became a critic. Sanders was strongly against it but I believe later voted for some funding. Gillibrand, I’m not sure of.
Which of these candidates would you trust to stand up to his or her advisers, to ask the right questions and in the end make the right decisions?
We all have to make our own decisions and there are many issues but for me the candidate who seems to have had a certain clairvoyance on this one issue gets my nod and that would be Senator Sanders.
1
@Brooklyncowgirl
"a certain clairvoyance on this one issue gets my nod and that would be Senator Sanders."
But Sanders voted with the crowd to invade Afghanistan, something several of us warned against in these boards.
Tom is making the strongest case for a border wall that i have heard so far. Also many contradictions in his analysis. Since when did the people around the world loved Americans when Dick Cheney and Bush were the leaders. And Trump has taken on two of the three trouble makers he talks about. Iran and China like no one ever did before or will ever do in the future. And on Russia may not with words but certainly more with action such as a stronger military and supplying Ukraine with arms and calling out Markel for buying Russian gas to name a few.
"Super empowered small groups" will include the 1%.
Putin and his oligarch friends tried to buy Trump who seemed more than willing to go along.
If the US can be bought then just imagine smaller , more desperate countries and leaders having the "For Sale" sign.
it is Friedman, not the state of affairs currently, which are 'more like the Cold War'. Simplifying the world to one benevolent and fair actor, facing three dictatorships of malevolence, is childish. To suggest that a modern president "handles" these things, rather than the larger foreign policy establishment, also is dumbing down the facts to the point they are both cutified and wrong. I agree this is no simple world the next president faces. I would prefer a comment from this century, with a commentator - perhaps from less represented portions of our large and varied population - who can analyse in 21st century complexity.
More than ever, foreign policy should employ at least as much carrot as stick. The GOP in general is heavy on stick, witness Iraq. Trump and his advisors are even more stick oriented. It may well prove true that the world is now so chaotic that only a stick approach will be successful, but I am sure that even if that is the case any success will be only temporary. Challenges are now global in scope, and existential in nature. Only by working in harmony do any of us stand a chance at a "long run". And I sense far more respect for carrots on the Democrats' side. We were making progress, granted sometimes faltering, but progress nonetheless, under Obama's stable leadership. Then we lost it and elected The Tweeter. if he's reelected, and I fear that outcome more by the day, it's all over.
3
Ah, yes. More worry from the chattering class, served up with a healthy dose of suppositions. When was the last 3am foreign policy crisis anyone solved properly (or improperly)? When was the last one at all? Why are we to believe the next few decades will be chock full of them? Friedman told us Trump would be the end of time. NATO. North Korea. Syria. Mexico. And on and on and on. And, here we are, still. There haven't been (for fifty years), nor will there be any 3am foreign policy crises anytime soon.
Did anyone seriously believe the “American hegemon” would last forever? Things have a way of evening out over time. The unfortunate conclusion to be drawn from this article is that democracy is too complex and that we need to follow suit and install our own President For Life who Is tougher and crazier than all the rest.
Mr. Friedman wants to scare everyone into the Cold War mindset so that some corporatist Democrat like Biden will save us from some hypothetical conflict. It's always about war and international crises with the centrist crowd (there is a lot of profit to be had in the fear of war and international crises).
Enough of the Democrats who are nothing but the Republicans of a decade ago. Democratic socialism actually builds on peoples hopes and dreams, not their fears. It's time to inject some socialism into our greed driven nation. Climate change, decent health care for all, infrastructure investment, and end to crushing student debt and massive fraud in the financial sector are what we need, not more war planes or bigger navy. Alliances are important, but so is the health and welfare of our children and that of future generations.
3
The chief disturber of peace in the world is the United Sates with help from the war-mongering people in Israel (those few will soon, I hope, be out of power and/or in jail). Then Israel can get back to restoring peace through use of intelligent discussion rather than armed incursions to destabilize their neighbors.
A civil war broke out in Syria after years of climate change and the resulting drought. It was handled very poorly by Assad but Russia and Iran are allies of Syria and did more than most countries to defeat ISIS (which to some extent was created by the failures of Bush in the Iraq invasion).
6
" China has claimed most of the Western Pacific as its own territory"
This is certainly news to most of us. The islands and sand banks claimed by both Taiwan and the PRC and occupied by the PRC are east of the Philippines in the South China Sea.
The Western Pacific does contain many islands claimed by a power far away. These include Guam and the Northern Marianas, islands which are heavily militarized with conventional and nuclear weapons but there are no islands claimed by China in the Western Pacific.
3
Anyone who is bold enough to assert that he or she is ready is probably not. I admire your analysis Mr. Friedman but your point here seems specious--I hope it does not spur a flurry of chest-beating claims.
1
In modern world, sovereign national boundary has become useless - city centric global supply chain management has become the only focus of national government. Democracy and Dictatorship use different tools to achieve that goal. Building alliances and using international standard of law and order are the tools of democracy, where as bulling and stealing and intimating own citizens are the tools of dictatorship. In the long shot, dictatorship has a enormous challenge to achieve their goal as it is too complex to use contradictory forces to balance the stability and production efficiency.
The American foreign policy should be an integral part of this supply chain centric nation management - it is useless to have a state department that is not fully integrated with internal security, department of commerce and treasury.
We can not stabilize the weak states unless those weak state cities are connected to global supply gain. Look at Bangladesh and Vietnam- once they are connected to global supply chain, all political and regional tensions disappear.
In America, Trump is confused about his strategy - he is trying to use dictator’s tools in an advanced democratic country to achieve his goal, without using the appropriate democratic tools. It is harming American supply chain links and creating frictions in the economic flow.
1
In view of the potential for urgent crises requiring swift, multidimensional judgement, maybe we should start thinking in terms of which AI system to hook up to the presidential telephone.
23
@Longestaffe
It's clear that the current presidential system installed in the oval office is bigly inadequate. Artificial Intelligence, even at its most primitive level, would be an eye-watering enhancement over the Alouatta seniculus currently playing with the hot line.
3
@Longestaffe
Not only the presidential telephone, how about that suitcase that follows the President around everywhere he goes - the one carrying the nuclear codes.
1
@Longestaffe
“Have machines to make big decisions,
programmed by fellas with passion and vision.”
Donald Fagen
2
The job of POTUS is an absurdly complex and demanding job for one individual. Even a thoughtful, hardworking, informed individual cannot possibly do it all well. Most candidates will come in with strengths and skills in only a few of the necessary areas which a president must oversee. That is why any POTUS must have good self-awareness, a clear sense of what she knows and does not know, and the ability to value and listen to experts in all areas. The last is totally lacking in the present occupant of the Oval Office.
What we should be looking for is not a candidate who assures us that she knows what to do when that phone rings at 3AM (for she would be a fool), but rather one who tells us that she knows whom to call, how to weigh their advice, and how to make decisions in a wise and thoughtful manner.
405
@Anne-Marie Hislop
Agreed!
What we get now in a real emergency is someone who calls FoxNews for what to do, then goes to play golf.
26
@Anne-Marie Hislop
I think the point Mr. Friedman is trying to make is that there appeas to be no she OR he in the pack that seems to care about what happens internationally - other than the much debunked non crisis at our southern border. There is an old saying that when the flag pole has bent one direction or the other for a long period of time it has to be bent the opposite direction for a while to get it back to center. Our so called foreign policy elite has, for the last 30 years been far too concerned about trade agreements that have hollowed out the American middle class while allowing China to build theirs and our European allies to shirk their defense responsibility while building a comfortable welfare state we cannot afford. Mr. Trump has gone the opposite direction and in our next president we need someone who can address both inequities - a very tall order indeed and, again, there appears to be no one from either party currently in the field who seems to understand this or have the ability to address it effectively.
3
@Anne-Marie Hislop One of the best comments of all time. And a fine rebuke to Mr. Friedman who is always looking for superman/woman and then tends to think he's found him in someone like Mitt Romney - yikes!
10
“The three have an important motive in common: All are dictatorships trying to generate support among those they rule through aggressive nationalism, at the expense of their neighbors,”
This conflation of Iranian governance with Russia and China is intellectually dishonest. Worse, it obscures foreign policy options that could benefit both America and Iran.
That Iran is a dictatorship like Putin's kleptocracy or like China's new authoritarian empire ignores the (limited) participatory democracy in Iran which has led to substantive, ongoing political change.
Equally important, both Russia and China could literally destroy our society. Iran can only facilitate our self-destruction via our continued follies in the Middle East. Via continued self-inflicted damage brought on by our hubris and cheerleaders for American military invasion under false pretenses.
Your distorted view of Iran marginalizes the transformative importance of the Six Party International Iran Nuclear Agreement that our current inept (malign?) American President has breached but that Iran continues to observe.
I've got no illusions about Iranian regional attempts at hegemony. But to tar Iran with the same brush as Russia and China only serves the interests of Republican and Israeli right-wing war mongers.
Only one Middle Eastern nation presently has nuclear weapons, Mr. Friedman.
It ain't Iran.
252
@USAF-RetProf
This is one of the finest posts I have seen on the NYT.
22
@USAF-RetProf Isn't Pakistan also in the neighborhood?
@USAF-RetProf
The US has the most aggressive nationalism.
Always with the PRETEXT of doing some sort of "good".
8
Mr. Friedman has chosen a set of viewpoints that cause him to assert that there are three enemies in the world all somehow with the key intention of destroying world peace. The main concern is that all three of these countries are claimed to "[Be] seeking to dominate its home region and is willing to use force for that purpose." They must have learned that lesson watching the US destroy elected governments in Central and South America every time there was a hint of "socialism" (gasp!), or policies which might affect American corporate interests.
But there are other ways of looking at the current situation.
When the USSR was broken up the individual in charge was Ukrainian and wanted Ukraine to do well, so a chunk of industrialized Russia was given to them to increase the prosperity; however the Ukraine is arguably one of the most countries in the region, and ethnic Russians might wish to be with their countrymen in spite of the harsh conditions in Russia. Iran has had two elected government in the past hundred years overthrown by Britain then The United States in order to facilitate the thief of the country oil resources. Perhaps Iran has built up their military to avoid a recurrence, and wishes to create a buffer zone and alliances? China is on the road to a thoroughly industrialized economy and strong middle class, and like America sees the need for a strong navy and a buffer zone to protect the wealth they are creating. Like America did 100 yrs ago.
3
I have grown tired of the sound bite politics pushed by the media and the pols. What is the difference between a crisis at 3 AM or one at 10 AM. Telling people you know what to do in an emergency is easy what you really do is another story. I like Joe Biden but if after all of these years he hasn't made up his mind about running I fear what he would do in a crisis. Few people know what they will do when the shooting starts but some will instinctively run towards the sound of the battle.
36
@Steven McCain
Senator Bernie Sanders has the wisest foreign policy instincts, and has a well thought foreign policy.
He would be calm and have good judgment at all times.
7
@Lucy Cooke Its always 5PM somewhere!!
3
@Steven McCain
He only wants to run if he thinks he can win. Nothing to do with serving the nation. Serving his ego, yes?
Whom to elect to handle a foreign crisis at 3 am?
How about the one a majority of voters (I believe a plurality, despite hundreds of thousands of write-in and third-party votes) in 2018, former Secretary of State and Foreign Policy ace Hillary Clinton - the one person Vladimir Putin feared above all other candidates would win the election.
147
@Eatoin Shrdlu:
Well, the problem for your Hillary Clinton claims is that you've just asked that the Dec 2000 election be set aside and Al Gore declared the winner.
Hillary Clinton knew of the requirement that she win the Electoral College when she entered the race.
Team Hillary2016 chose not to spend big money on the ground in 6 or 7 close states that polling said Hillary Clinton would win by a slim margin. She needed to win 3 or 4 of those 7. She won exactly 1.
This refusal to run a ground game is very different than approach team Obama2012 took. They made sure to contact Obama voters from 2008; they did this by the ones and twos in places like Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio; it mattered. Such actual work also perplexed team Romney.
20
@Eatoin Shrdlu
Clinton considers Henry Kissinger to be a friend. No thank you.
8
@Eatoin Shrdlu
Yeah, foreign policy ace Clinton supported the Iraq War. The excuse people sometimes make for her is that she was fooled by the Bush Administration. We need someone who could be fooled by Bush. Yes, she would be better than Trump. So would our pet cat and she died three years ago.
More generally, as I said in another comment, the US has a long bipartisan record of interventionist disasters up to and including support for the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen. Obama gave the green light for that one and Trump wants to keep it going, partly because he sees Iran as a cartoon villain the way Friedman does. Friedman also supported the Iraq War.
We need honest discussions about the catastrophic disasters we have unleashed on other people and not this self serving nonsense where we simply pretend none of it happened. We have no accountability either for politicians or pundits who supported these disasters because we deliberately forget tha it happened, even in the case of Yemen. The war in Yemen was a front page story for a couple of months last year and then vanished, even though the Senate might vote on it today.
15
I am a contrarian. I am somewhat less concerned about small nations getting nuclear capability, even North Korea.
We must remember, the only nation that has used a nuclear weapon against another country is the USA, and it was done when no other nation had nuclear weapons.
Today, if you are a small nation with only conventional weapons, you can be overrun at will by a larger nation, particularly one with nuclear capability. So, the only practical defense is a "sea urchin" strategy, where you accept the fact that if you are attacked you will be cruahed, but you discourage that attack from ever happening by making it as painful as possible for the attacker.
These nations know that if they ever originated a nuclear attack, they would be destroyed in hours.
We had a Presidential candidate last time who was a Secretary of State. But I think a terrible one. The double cross of Qaddafi, who had given up his nuclear program, in favor of terrorist friendly "rebels" was a disaster. It told despotic leaders, around the globe, that having nuclear capability was a good thing for self preservation. And once you get it, never give it up.
4
I don't share your world power view. After enduring hatred and attacks, it's time for us to remember we are a vast strong nation defended by moats of oceans and friendly neighbors, all of which is at risk with Trump as President. He proclaims his love of Nuclear weapons and makes enemies of our friends. Trump should not be President beyond 2021.
The biggest threat to the world is nuclear weapons. We need a President who will focus their job on curtailing and eliminating them and who would refrain from using them.
But here is the reality check; President Obama won election with the promise of being against nuclear weapons and vowed to rid us of them. He even won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. But others didn't allow it. People probably "Convinced" Obama to actually rebuild the nuclear arsenal to the extraordinary Trillion dollars allocated to do so over time.
You might agree with me that the Military's of the world rule the world. Indeed they do. So it doesn't matter who can wake up at 3 am to answer the call. It will only endanger us if the future President takes the call.
Americans have a crisis of our own. It's the internal breakdown of our enduring Democracy.
2
No president can singlehandedly deal with all the issues taken on by the office. That is why a president must select a number of qualified advisors. Trump has failed miserably at this as he has in every aspect of his presidency.
2
Despite her experience as Secretary of State, Clinton was unable to convince the public that she,as a female was more qualified to handle foreign policy or command the armed forces than the ignorant and seemingly unstable Trump. With so may Democratic hopefuls having less experience or knowledge than she, including the women, it's doubtful that will change in the next election.
1
Oh, please. Consider that the likely Republican candidate has already demonstrated his complete inability to construct a coherent foreign policy, and has about a 30% chance of being on a golf trip when that 3 AM phone rings. Any person of normal intelligence, good will, and common sense would be an improvement.
4
It appears from reading various media outlets that the Democrats are happily trundling down the same "tax-and-spend" path that I recall from decades and many presidential elections ago. Let's make everything good, the sky blue, the grass green, the education free, and we will all hop and skip, hand in hand, down the path the path to Neverland.
I am torn as I ponder our future. I despise what the current administration, filled with incompetents and "led" by a man who cares only about enriching himself and his family, no matter what words he uttered during his inauguration. But right now, I see no candidate in the wings who will find the balance this country so desperately needs.
Can the current batch of Democratic hopefuls speak to foreign policy cred? How will he or she repair the terrible damage done in our country for three or so years? Would they speak to damage control in a society that seems repulsed by anything having to do with "them," meaning anyone who isn't in my own bubble?
It appears, so far, that all of them are running "I'm not Trump" pre-campaign campaigns. That has never worked for them and it will not work this time. Unless someone breaks out of that pack, we are in for four more years of this incompetent administration and a long future of ultra-right wing politicians, those who are now completely afraid to disagree with the president for fear of being on the receiving end of a tweetstorm.
2
@Michael
What terrible damage?
The economy is booming, wages are rising, growth has exploded, there are good jobs a plenty. Not to mention ISIS has been decimated, NK stopped testing nukes, and our European friends are finally paying their fair share in defense spending.
What damage?
As long as Israel is not involved, under democratic leadership, we should be able to navigate foreign policy, answer 3 am call. Bernie has a robust plan so does Liz Warren. Climate is more critical for our kids and grandkids than which country is hostile or an ally to us.
2
the big issue that this points to is the growing absurdity of thinking that ANY one person is capable of and knowledgeable enough to handle the myriad responsibilities that come with the office of president
the fact that we now have a president that is preternaturally incurious poorly read with no governing experience what so ever makes the situation even more worrisome
I assume it would be Biden? In any case, nominate a good Secretary of State. Kerry did a fine job.
2
Just Face it! The mob of Dem candidates has not proposed even one constructive and feasible idea. Friedman is a bit shortsighted to focus on foreign policy. The real issue is "crisis management" for which there are no electable Dems.
Anyone is an upgrade over the person who would be taking the call tonight . . .
2
I'm fine with democracy promotion so long it's not like the democracy promotion that the Times and Mr. Friedman promoted for Iraq in 2002/2003. The real test for the hopeful 2020 Democratic president is if they can break the death grip of the foreign policy establishment that demands the United States have a footprint in nearly every corner of the world for nearly everything.
2
I would hope that whichever Democratic candidate is elected, he or she would surround themselves with seasoned experts...and LISTEN to them. He or she would use our seasoned diplomats and employ agencies like the United States Institute of Peace and the Washington Office on Latin America, as well as ask the advice of previous. still - living presidents, like Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama.
The world you describe cannot best be handled by one person with a "great brain" and the temperament of a two -year old, who relies on his son-in-law and daughter who lack security clearance.
3
What Thomas Friedman does not understand is that there is significant domestic problems in the US that people are looking for a President who will fix what is broken at home, rather than a George HW Bush figure who is more interested in foreign policy.
6
I prefer a leader who manages problems day-to-day so they don't become crises at 3 am!
Why not emulate China's management of its foreign relations? China secures its own borders and refrains from military intervention in foreign disputes. China negotiates international trade pacts and shores up foreign infrastructure to serve its commercial interests through the end of the 21st Century.
2
We have a host of domestic policy crises, right now, that 'trump' concerns of a potential foreign policy crisis. I would call the need to replace Trump a national emergency. I am deeply concerned that, when faced with a choice between Trump and someone Trump can label as a socialist, the executives who run mainstream news outlets in this country will choose to aid Trump in being re-elected because he will promise to cut taxes for their businesses and for them, personally.
4
The elections of 2020 are 400 days from today. The U.S. already has by far the longest presidential election campaigns. Americans have said the campaigns are too long; we suffer through relentless exposure and pitches by candidates. Even with its length, the process does not produce a best result, far from it.
I want to know the Democratic and the Republican candidates perspectives and positions on foreign policy. I don't need to know them now. I can wait to know them, say by this year's final three months, plenty of time before the first caucus and primary.
Give them time to learn, consider, synthesize, and compose their assessments and positions. Let's give all of us time to get to know so many candidates as people. There is time.
7
Climate change should be added to this picture. That will take a major dose of international cooperation and money.
On that point and others, our gleeful endorsement of a new arms race will get in the way of everything.
3
@Jerryg, Tom Friedman has skipped climate change. Remember, he is the one who touted Iraq war back in 2001-2, and we are yet facing the consequences of an unfounded unfunded war. Hence Tom, despite the fact, he travels widely, meets many countries and is very impressed with MBS, lacks judgement and foresight and he is beholden to ME politics because of his Israel-centric views (which is understandable).
1
The familiar fall-back on alliances, multilateralism. Come let us reason together. But all nations have inherent conflicts of interest. We claim China is a new, awakening threat, yet we supported, still support their economy with trade. The EU may see Russia as slowly reclaiming it’s lost territories, but still buys energy from them. The claim that 40 nations agree Venezuela needs new, legitimate leadership sounds great- uh, where were they last week when the food, medicine was stopped at the border? Did the cameras miss all the UN peacekeepers, or did they run away again? And a UN army only a distant vision. Can you imagine the UN spending a year or two trying to decide what the goal of that army would be- in the first place.
And Iran. One half of the ongoing Sunni-Shia religious battles. Pick a side? When both, to varying degrees, treat women as property, as game tokens to be tracked, controlled? Which side would that be?
We’ve always talked a great game of supporting high minded goals. Pick one, even two. Then carry through on them, advantages to us or no. Right.
7
Amongst the many crises created by our esteemed leader, foreign policy ranks very high. In fact, it is an issue that has fallen on terrible times and its repair will be of major importance in the years to come. Just one of many problems before our next president.
Trump has managed to break apart nearly every aspect of America's strong points. Certainly the newly created outrageous deficit is at the forefront and sadly, there are many more problems that will arise. America's problems will grow before diminishing . . . if they ever do diminish.
7
Ask almost any of the newer Generations (X, Y, etc...) about political science and most of them will look back at you like a deer in the headlights. I suspect that most of them either don’t know or care why it’s important to understand how and why it’s a vital part of any country’s success for freedom.
Remember the “Bond Fires & Pep Rallies” of the 40’s & 50’s & 60’s? It was all emotion, with little or no real planning or reality. That’s the way I see Trump and his Rallies. No substance. Just pure emotion. “Build the Wall”, “Lock her up”, “Fake News.” Meanwhile a Tsunami is heading our way and we’re not prepared to get to higher ground.
While it’s vital in my opinion to replace Trump and his entourage of Republican Obsequious Sycophants in 2020, lets also realize that just replacing them without a solid plan to confront the future of not only our country but our planet needs to be addressed to every candidate NOW!
12
I agree that none of the Demo. candidates has yet shown strength in foreign policy. But could any of them be worse than Trump?
10
@Steve
Perhaps that’s why Biden brings comfort and confidence to so many potential voters.
5
If the most important consideration for electing our next President should be his or her ability to deal with a foreign policy crisis it makes no difference who the Democrats nominate. No rational voter can possibly believe that Trump would be better able to do so than any Democratic candidate. Moreover, that issue is of far less concern to voters than immigration, race, religion, LGBTQ rights and medial care. The If the Democrats are to successfully challenge Trump they must formulate and publicize a clear immigration policy that emphatically rejects open border claims. As of yet, the party has not done so.
3
I am constantly amazed by how little my friends and colleagues know about world issues. My understanding from a poll I read a while back is that most Americans do not consider foreign policy experience an important factor during the voting process. Generally, voters are more swayed by the likeability issue than whether a President is intelligently able to handle alliances and crises.
The result of this ignorance is what we are witnessing as President Trump bumbles his way through one foreign policy crisis after another. As many unstable leaders worldwide have access to nuclear weapons we may one tantrum away from serious war.
26
Thank you, Mr.Friedman, for reminding us that the office of President brings critical responsibilities.So many are so eager to throw their hats into the ring to run for this bone crushing job.There will be many calls at 3AM.There will be new threats never before imagined.The threat of Cyber warfare will be central as will be the fractured nature of foreign alliances.There will be climate change refugees-entire population who will have to be relocated.Afghanistan will not b peaceful nor will be Syria.The list goes on and on and one wonders who wants to take on these awesome responsibilities.Our elections dismiss and degrade the possible candidates.It becomes a popularity contest.As you suggest, we need to get serious and look for the wisest , most dedicated candidate-one who will take 3AM calls and all other calls day and night and will be willing to work every hour for the strengthening of our Democracy.
8
Biden/Harris 2020.
Biden is the one I trust on foreign policy.
Moreover, the Dems also ought to be talking more about the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court.
1
@Valerie Elverton Dixon,
"Moreover, the Dems also ought to be talking more about the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court."
No the right time to talk about the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court was _before_ the last presidential elections, when it was possible to install a president and a Senate majority that would have avoided the conservative majority now on the Supreme Court and the packing of the lower courts as was done by Mr. Trump and the McConnell Senate. That ship has sailed.
Any president worth half their weight would have a solid team in place, with a trusting work relationship and mutual understanding they have earned via hard-earned efforts. We need a president who doesn't claim to know all the answers at 3am, but who is willing to build a network of experts who are as ready and robust as a team can be. A truly great president would build a new team, outside the usual small-minded policy circles and groupthink cultures that dominated so many of the presidencies in the past half century. The question is...who is the best administrator running for president? This is something I wish the press would delve into in greater detail, rather than trying to figure out which candidate is most John Wayne-like.
7
@John
So correct. I wish I could have recommended it a thousand times.
The 4th trend, making things difficult for a President on the foreign-policy front, is the hyper-partisan reaction to any initiative taken by a President - whether Republican or Democrat.
This hyper-partisan reaction is accompanied by their respective cohorts in the Media, who echo and in fact sometimes amplify the over-reaction, making it very difficult to build domestic consensus. The accusatory "debate" poisons rather than educates.
8
Sadly, I think the world today looks more like Europe in 1912 than in 1989. The opportunities for direct conflict between major powers are increasing. The US can deter each individually, but may lack the resources to deter all three simultaneously
5
I've watched several town hall meetings and rallies held by Democratic candidates. The people attending these events don't seem to have much interest in foreign policy. The vast majority of questions and comments are about health care costs, income inequality, and climate change. I've only seen one candidate get asked a foreign policy question, and that was Mayor Pete Buttigieg at his CNN town hall in Austin. When asked about the crisis in Venezuela, he correctly pointed out that Maduro has run the country into the ground, but he also pointed out that an American military intervention would be the wrong way to address this problem. The intelligent and thoughtful way he answered the question gives me great confidence that Mayor Pete would be the man I want on the other end of that 3am phone call.
15
This is essentially a warning that America needs a competent president sooner rather than later. It is both a warning and a pathway: On the job training or status quo will be too risky. However, elevating another politician too immersed in Washington power politics carries a lack of imagination.
Hillary Clinton was uniquely qualified to be a competent president. Her weakness was an inability to communicate her vision and a surprisingly inept response to Trump and Fox News.
The table is set for the perfect candidate. Who that is remains an intriguing mystery.
13
No one should down play foreign policy but historically countries that spend large amounts on military and try to expand its influence are countries in decline.
4
We know that the human mind can deal with three (possibly four) variables with any coherence. In this column, Friedman gives us the following number of variables: (4 interaction of strong powers) x (myriad weak countries) x (super-empowered small groups and individuals) x (democracy promotion). This equals a number way beyond the capacities of the human mind. I doubt if anyone can conceive let alone implement a coherent foreign policy.
4
The story added that last month, the busiest February at the border since 2007, authorities detained 76,103 migrants, up from 58,207 in January, and it quoted Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan as saying: “The system is well beyond capacity and remains at a breaking point.”
Pardon my skepticism, but there is nothing more convenient to a President who has declared a national emergency to have statistics that support this emergency.
I hope some news organization has independently confirmed these statistics.
5
The Mandelbaum thesis seems designed to support the Pentagon's shift to great power competition as a justification for sharply higher defense spending. But what is needed are arguments for more non-militarized engagement with the world community--an area where the government in Washington is staging an unprecedented withdrawal.
The American establishment has mismanaged the relationship with Iran for decades. At this point of time--right now--the policy goal of the American government is regime change in Tehran. Ask John Bolton or Jared Kushner. The American hardliners have been consistent on this for decades with the Obama administration being a rare exception.
The American government has also managed to lose virtually the entire northern Middle East. In Afghanistan, it has a self-created Dien Bien Phu -- the Americans may not have to surrender but they do have to leave.
It is the American government that has left the Paris Climate Pact, the Iranian Nuclear agreement, withdrawn from the Trans Pacific Trade pact, created provocative trade tensions with Europe -- with near-majority support of the American people and majority support of the Senate.
Now back to all that increased Defense spending. The American public is moving to support a highly militarized form of insularity if not isolationism.
I don't worry about 3 a.m. phone calls; I worry about reading the newspaper at 7 a.m. and seeing what the government in Washington is doing.
14
At this point it would be pretty arrogant for any candidate to put themselves forward as the foreign policy genius of 2020, and it would be bad political strategy.
Truth is, American today are freaked out by the devastation of the Trump administration and they aren't so much concerned as to what is happening in Moldova or Egypt as they are worried about the trade wars and the rumors of their business moving to China.
Sure, Joe Biden can speak of his knowledge and experience, but all in all, it may cost him votes. And there is no expert who can safely guide the US through the next ten years in the Middle East. None.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
5
But it doesn’t matter, because any of the Democrats would be better than Mr. Twitter. First, because they would hire real advisors instead of Fox News hosts. Secondly, they would listen to that advice.
55
Over population is the cause, as noted here. But the solution isn’t more guns and war. We need to get a handle on developing ecosystem services equal to the population demands for water and farmland. Syria is largely the story of drought in 2011 that drove farmers off the land and into under serviced cities. That caused revolt in Arab Spring. The region, including Iran, is barely hanging on. The area from Iran and Iraq through the Horn of Africa is one big overpopulated drought-afflicted zone. North Korea has its own problems. Russia is a failed petroleum state with lots of resources that look increasingly like stranded assets. There are solutions to all this but it takes some out of the box thinking and backing up to years before the purported 3am phone call. That means the 2020 election might be the most important in history.
6
@Denis
Over population is the underlying cause of all the major world problems: climate change, depletion of natural resources, ecological disasters - with the mass extinction of species, the poisoning of the oceans, etc. Human beings are amazingly clever, and utterly lacking in wisdom. That has been the case as long as we have existed. The more of us there are, the worse off all life is on planet Earth.
6
America’s post-post-Cold War crises have been brought about by its own foreign policy rubric of regime change, which has motivated China, Russia, and Iran to embrace their own brand of imperialism and exacerbated the weakness of Latin American and sub-Saharan African nations, catalyzing the mass exodus of citizens from these regions of the world.
Indeed, the latest immigration trends—or reverse colonization—have fueled Brexit and the socioeconomic challenges that confront European and Nordic nations, as governments grapple with the meaning of national identity in societies transacted by increasingly diverse ethnicities, religions, and permeable economies.
So, too, in the United States. Mass migration from states weakened by US foreign policy is driving the administration’s “the boy who cried wolf” clamor for a border wall dividing the US and Mexico and increasingly xenophobic immigration policy.
Blame US foreign policy for that 3 a.m. phone call.
The incoming President can host an extended colloquium of surviving Secretaries of States to develop enlightened positions on the nation’s most vexing foreign policy challenges. A defining objective would be to reconceive how to raise the standard of living for human beings throughout the world, not just for a privileged few who reside in the West.
That would be a start.
6
The greatest danger to our world - the danger which could destroy our world - is the existence of Atomic bombs, and there are enough such bombs to destroy the earth right now. Russia and the USA themselves have more than 1500 such bombs, and there are at least nine other countries we know of with these weapons, but most of these countries, including China, have ONLY 100 or so such bombs. These bombs are of imminent danger to our very lives and to our world.
Also of great importance are the lack of potable water in many parts of the world and "global warming", but we know how to remove salt from salt water and we have our sun to heat our food and our houses and buildings. First of all, however, we must get rid of A bombs. Even one such bomb dropped on NYC would kill millions and millions of men, women and children, and leave most of the city as atomic dust.
4
One of the greatest differences between the current POTUS and, hopefully, the new one elected in 2020 is that the former would immediately tweet his reckless and random thoughts to the entire world at 3:00AM, while the latter would immediately call all of his/her key advisers together, listen thoroughly to what they had to say, gain consensus on strategic as well as tactical next steps, then lead them and our country forward. While it seems that some, if not most of the candidates thus far in the running not only possess the wisdom to ascertain a crisis and act on it, they also possess the common sense to listen to those who know even more.
Vote.
33
I think a lot of the world does see a significant portion of Americans being responsible for the disaster that is Trump. That is not a problem for him or his supporters since that's the platform he ran on but while he laughs all the way to the bank (see his UN speech - he's internally amused) the people are left dealing with his administration's policies.
9
Thoughtful analysis
Any thoughts re options for managing these issues?
Is isolationism and mutual assured destruction an option?
2
Yes, we have to work effectively with other countries to solve military and economic problems. And we have many problems of our own revolving around the issues of inequality and around the hate for the "other" built up by our rich as a tool to hold on to political power. But our major problem, far more than even the very real danger of nuclear war, is global warming. We are now leading the world toward a nightmare future 10 degrees (fahrenheit) warmer than the preindustrial world within the lifetime of many alive today. We need a leader who will push aside powerful interests to lead the world away from this impending and certain disaster.
16
Well this will keep you up at night
Great article and unfortunately. Spot on
13
Well, the American public is to blame for this problem. Just one example: the risks of nuclear war (which are not insignifcant) don't even make the top twenty list of issues people care about. If the public doesn't care about foreign policy and the international challenges America faces, politicians won't care either.
17
The American people at this point, are mostly worried about the decline in their standard of living, the future of their kids and possibly climate change. To win their attention and votes, candidates have to first and foremost speak to these main concerns. Hillary ran on foreign policy and global issues and lost because she didn't connect to the real issues that bothered the electorate. The foreign policy experience of Barack Obama prior to his election was nil, but he learned fast. The problem with the current resident of the white house is that he is incapable of learning. So - in short - whoever that we elect, should show aptitude and curiosity to learn and understand the complex global system and LISTEN to people that spent their lives exploring various topics.
94
At a minimum, future presidents should commit to reading/understanding the PDB, something we took for granted in the past.
1
I hope no one wakes up the current POTUS for any kind of 3 am crisis management, except if they want to escalate the crisis.
The question is irrelevant. Any candidate of any party is better prepared than the current POTUS.
59
There is a very peculiar omission in Tom Friedman's litany of woes. And that is the acknowledgement that past US actions have contributed in no small way to the genesis of the situation he describes.
That sub-Saharan Africa is unstable is true, but that is due primarily to the US's and the West in general's practice of propping up dictator-like potentates who were left to rob their people blind as long as they allowed Western companies free access to their natural resources.
That Central and South America are also collapsing has pretty much the same reason; the list of countries Friedman provides is a pretty complete inventory of states whose ruling elite "benefited" from American support in its suppression of basic rights.
And for the Middle East, well, what can we say? To this day the US turns not one but two blind eyes to the excesses of Saudi Arabia and the other Islamic fundamentalist regimes, provided the oil keeps flowing and they keep buying American military stuff. Iran wouldn't be in the state it's in if the US hadn't declared it an enemy, indeed if it hadn't overthrown the Mossadeq government in '53.
I also find it odd that he doesn't recognize the weakness of his assertion that the US alone has the expertise to address complex problems. Cite some examples of where that truly worked, Tom.
No, what is really happening is that we're going back to normal. Occasionally violent competition between nations. It will be brutal.
72
Don't know if it's still the case, but during the Cold War, the US State Department's stated definition of a socialist government was one that put the needs of it's people ahead of the desires of the US government.
5
@Rudy Flameng None of this is true. The instability in sub-Saharan Africa is due to the endemic corruption of democratically elected governments, and tribal and religious warfare. The genocide in Rwanda, the civil war in Congo, the collapse of Zimbabwe, all have nothing to do with the bogey man of “western companies”. The depredations of Boko Haram and other Islamist militias are tearing apart countries like Nigeria and Somalia. Is the West responsible for that? As for the Middle East, do you understand the difference between Sunni and Shia fundamentalism? The hostility between Iran and Saudi Arabia is based on their theological differences, so it would be good if Americans tried to learn something about the region in question before blaming “American imperialism” for everything under the sun. And finally, do you want an example of American foreign policy working. The collapse of the USSR and the liberation of Eastern Europe.
1
Don't forget Libya. Another extreme example of what you rightly spoke of.
Well, the former Secretary of State lost in 2016 for other reasons than the 3 a.m. question.
Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will automatically have several advantages campaigning on, and then conducting, foreign policy over whoever becomes the Republican nominee:
* No Jared Kushner
* No potential latent motives (i.e., personal gain, foreign masters, etc)
* Won't have been laughed at by the U.N. General Assembly
* Would understand what's historically important about the E.U., NATO, U.N.
* Won't have created or endorsed the current administration's approach to international relations
26
From the results of the 2016 presidential election, I'm not sure the American voters care much about who is best qualified to answer the 3 am phone call.
33
It's easy to say anything is better than Trump. Because it's true. But since you want a name, Inslee. The time when virtually all conflict will be climate based dislocation is rapidly approaching. At the very least we need someone who can listen to experts in their various fields and make informed decisions.
12
@runaway: I agree. Here is what I love about Jay Inslee:
He was a quiet, no-name, but ever-present figure in WA state's Democratic party. No one expected him to achieve much. And then he ran for governorship, and won. Since then, he's been an amazing, courageous voice for so may issues in Washington state. He has, in alliance with our state's strong Attorney General, challenged many of the activities of our current sitting President.
For him to declare his candidacy for the Presidential run based solely on his platform to fight climate change is a huge wake-up call to the Democratic Party. As NPR noted, no one else is addressing climate change. This man is sacrificing his political career: he probably won't win. His career will probably be over. But he is has offered himself as a sacrificial lamb in order to shine a light on the greatest threat to humankind, which we continue to ignore: climate change. It is the single greatest threat to mankind. No one else is addressing it head-on. But his determination to bring it up again and again forces other candidates to pay attention to it.
This man is a hero. He won't win, and he doesn't expect to win. He is someone doing the right thing for the right reason. I hope people pay attention to this and honor him for that.
11
I think even Patrick Star would make a better president than the one we have now. At least he's eager to wake up at 3 AM.
1
We cannot expect one individual to do the job of that 3AM call.
No matter which person emerges, it will be the "team" behind that Democratic president who will provide the strength of combined intelligent decision --- experienced cabinet members and intelligence departments, a State Department workforce, etc., -- they will be the "team" dedicated to repairing all the damage that Trump and his "team" of incompetents have implemented.
They will be the intelligent deciders.
Any other team than what we have now --- is a more comforting thought. They'll be leaders, not lapdogs.
14
Delegate or form a committee to debate the issues and hope the crisis blows over. Where are the leaders who have guts to make unpalatable decisions that the UN and NATO mightn't like. Does the USA make foreign policy decisions or has that job been passed onto the despots that make up the United Nations or NATO.
Are any western world nations really sovereign nations - I think not since the UN was formed to lower liveable wages and flood our nations with cheap foreign labour and gut us to give continuous foreign aid to prop up billionaires in third world nations.
1
I'm really surprised. I've been reading Steven Pinker's 'The Better Angels of our Nature and see a lot more there than makes sense in this column.
Iran and Russia take the hit for Syria, but what of America? The Chinese have, I believe, a little more of an Oligarchy than a dictatorship. Yet the word 'Dictatorship' has more impact for the purposes of this column.
Iran? Do you really think a theocracy is going to have that much impact over time? Where will they be when they run out of water. And where will the Russians be if they loose their petroleum customers? Isn't their economy the size of say, Spain's? Certainly they could bomb us. But then what? Where do they get the economy to invade?
I think I have a pretty decent grasp of the realities brought to light here but they are simply too depressing. Further, I see little reason to think that these scenarios will play out in a purely negative fashion.
Want real trouble? Global warming.
6
@Peter E Schwab See endorsement of Jay Inslee above: the only candidate who is basing his run SOLELY on global warming. A sacrificial lamb, if ever there was one.
Tom, if I called at 3:00 am with a foreign policy crisis, or, for that matter, any crisis, I would hope that the person answering, first, has some sense of America’s good and enlightened character, a grounding in Western principles of humanity and doing the right thing, and a calculus based on his or her own moral compass and integrity, second, a sense of judgment founded on fairness, humanity, and reasoned thought, and, third, recognizing his or her own limitations, having the ability to call upon the advice of seasoned experts and professionals and accepting their advice and input.
11
While all the Democratic candidates seem to ignore foreign policy re Russia, China and Iran, they all seem to find one convenient target: Israel, with all of them vying to see who can pull more to the left.
Mr. Friedman seems to have missed the recent foreign policy statements of Bernie Sanders:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/foreign-policy-distinguishes-bernie-sanders-2020/583279/
While I personally find much of his proposed radical US foreign policy statements and views anathema, he is at least expressing views on foreign policy. In addition to Sanders, only Elizabeth Warren has delivered a foreign policy speech "ending the endless wars" - quite original).
As most of what the Democratic candidates have offered in general so far is fantasy and wishful thinking, it is likely that their foreign policy statements would be the same.
7
My take away from this outstanding column is: we need a President who can persuade the American people and their elected Representatives that we need to mobilize -- repeat, mobilize -- the World to manage vital resources for both weak and strong states by addressing climate change, global food and water, opportunities for creating a better life for families in a world that will be challenged by continued exponential population growth, and will experience a major change in adapting to new sustainable energy sources to power the economies of the world.
I believe we should go for establishing an international organization to develop a system of Maglev launched solar powered satellites to beam very cheap electricity to Earth for distribution on population center grids.
With cheap electricity for the world, economic development will reach a new level. It is a well-kept secret but James Powell, an American scientist and Franklin Medalist for superconducting magnetic levitation, is the principal author of a new book, "Spaceship Earth, How Long Before We Crash?" that details the engineering concepts for Maglev Launch (less than 1% of chemical rocket cost) and the Space-Based Solar Generator system. This great engineer also describes concepts for scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere and using ocean thermal energy to cheaply desalinate water.
Cheap electricity will cause prosperity to surge and also allow us to make synthetic jet fuel from air and water for travel and logistics.
9
@james jordan
#1. There is no technology to "beam electicity" to Earth from satellites.
#2. We don't have Maglev trains, let alone capability to build a Maglev space launcher.
#3. Solar on the ground is too expensive yet. Space-based solar would be eighty times worse. Also not much advantage to putting there in the first place.
#4. Electricity is already cheap, bringing it to remote villages the actual difficulty.
#5. Oddly you are correct that you could make synthetic jet fuel from air, water and electricity.
You may as well be Doc with his "Flux Capacitors".
1
@james jordan Science fiction offers nothing to solve the problem of exponential population growth on an already overcrowded planet. Only population reduction can do that and given our sex drive, the chances of it happening voluntarily and gradually are very small indeed. When the reckoning comes, it will be as devastating as any world war.
@james jordan
A solution to global warming is our #1 national security objective. If a candidate doesn't realize this they are not qualified. It is tough and won't be easy or cheap. I have been researching the formative thoughts for the Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks. This mobilization should be shared by the World economy.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00629-5
China wants to capture the Sun's energy in space and beam it back to Earth. Credit: NASA/SDO/AIA
and,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottsnowden/2019/03/12/solar-power-stations-in-space-could-supply-the-world-with-limitless-energy/
Unfortunately Trump has changed the entire discussion from foreign and domestic issues to solely how do we put America first, even if his prescriptions might be short sighted or appear to be coming straight out of the 1950s. Even if they disagree with him on just about everything, most of the Democratic candidates and any Republicans opposed to him, for the most part are still following his lead and limiting policy discussions to a few hot button domestic issues and whether they should run from or embrace being called a capitalist or not. Mr. Friedman has astutely raised the concern that those shouldn't be the only qualifications for the office. If those concerns are ignored and the debate stays limited to domestic issues, Trump will turn it into a solely domestic referendum on whether America is first as he defines it or how his near communist opponent envisions it. That reduces his chances of being defeated and at the same time ignores all the cooperation we are going to need from outside the country on a long shopping list of foreign policy issues. We know Joe Biden is a Foreign Policy expert from his time in the Senate, and I have heard thoughtful in depth discussions from Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabard that indicate there is a good deal of understanding of the external challenges the country is facing, the rest of the field not so much. It is if they walked into a French 3 class and hadn't taken French 1. This isn't a great time for someone playing catch up.
5
With Trump as president we are playing Russian Roulette. He is clueless, tactless, and mindless. We urgently need someone with experience and diplomatic skills. That narrows it down to one or two candidates for the Democrats, Biden and Sanders. To me Biden is the best choice. He has the respect of most voters and is known on the world stage. It won't be easy to douse or smother the fires Trump started so Biden will need an experienced Secretary of State. My nominee is a long shot but I think he has the smarts and knowledge to do the job. So I nominate Thom Friedman.
4
I have posed this question before and do so again:
Why are columnists demanding from Democratic candidates that which they refuse to demand of Republican candidates?
Could it be that we already know answers won't be forthcoming or forthright from the GOP? Have we become so desperate that we've pinned our hope for salvation on a Democratic candidate and expect that individual to solve the entire mess we now live with every day?
Is the nightmare so terrifying we must know, RIGHT NOW who's gonna fix it and how?
27
If there was a recently active, national-level pol that I would want in the White House to take that 3 AM call, it would be Hillary Clinton. She had experience, stamina and a circle of wise people to advise her. The people who kicked her to the curb are the same ones who wanted to "retire" Nancy Pelosi.
I hope Democrats and "progressives" have learned a lesson, even if they haven't shown much sign of having done so.
39
"The post-Cold War era had its issues — 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan, to be sure — but it was in many ways a unipolar belle epoque, in which an American hegemon stifled any serious great-power conflict."
It was a wasted opportunity. The opportunity cost seems to escape Friedman.
With total power, there was so much that could have been done, and it was wasted instead, just destroying a few middle eastern countries.
Those who see nothing missed are those who really want our future to go on as it has, more of the same, just get us back to status quo ante Trump.
Now it will be harder to do all those things, but we still need to do them. Healthy world trade, avoiding the use of force to resolve disputes, resolve the disputes anyway.
The sources of refugees must be repaired. That can't seriously be done by "reconstruction" and domination. It means reining in the World Bank and IMF and Western corporations that funnel money to corruption in order to loot cheaply the resources of those places. It means no more like Nigeria, and Haiti, and so many others.
"Moderates" won't do any of that. That is what makes them moderate. They'll just do more of what wasted all that opportunity and got us into this mess.
16
Mr. Friedman, yes you missed it. Bernie Sanders has given at least two major foreign policy speeches this year that present a left approach to reducing international tensions. His analysis differs from yours, but it is far more serious than that of any of the other candidates, and certainly more than Trump or anyone in his administration.
31
45 and his henchmen have eviscerated the State Department, firing some, with many others fleeing the chaos and corruption. We have lost the accumulated experience of decades of diplomats. Also gone are their relationships with other diplomats across the globe. As Churchill said, "There is only thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them." When we get another president, there will be so much to repair.
90
@TC
The State Department needed a good purging.
It is staffed with regime change clones that work with the CIA to destabilize countries [messing with the electric grid, for example] so the US can install puppet governments that allow the US to be top controlling dog.
I’m not sure this is fair unless it’s really meant to hopefully get them talking about foreign policy.
How is trump more qualified to be woken at 3:00am compared to Sanders or Warren? Was President Obama qualified 18 months prior to the election, yet he did a great job for two terms.
As a Democrat, I do agree the competition amongst democrats to see who can be the most progressive is getting tiresome.
12
Whom to elect for a foreign policy crisis at 3:00 am?
A.B.T. (Anyone But Trump).
If Trump hasn't proven that an absolute clueless person can be in charge of our foreign policy, what more proof is needed? And by that measure, ANY of the Dem candidates are eminently more qualified than the current occupant of the White House.
Next question.
29
It's a sign of how shallow the discussion about Presidential qualifications has become that after around four hours there are only forty-nine comments. Meanwhile, a story about a couple Hollywood people getting busted has over three thousand comments.
Naturally a President cannot know all the details involved in his or her making an informed, intelligent decision. That is why the most important qualification for any President is the ability to choose good, knowledgeable advisors. To make good executive decisions a President also needs to have substantial experience over time, something not required for Members of Congress. That is why our Founders placed in the Constitution a higher minimum age for President than for Members.
In order to make good decisions of consequence, especially under stress, a President has to have had the opportunity to make mistakes in a lesser capacity, admitted to and learned from those mistakes, and then moved on.
So far Joe Biden is the only Democrat I would consider both qualified and capable of answering the 3 a.m. foreign policy crisis phone call.
As to whether he can secure the nomination, that is truly another story. The only people who can reelect Donald Trump are the Democrats. Unfortunately, they seem to be doing just that, adept as they are at nothing so far other than producing a circular firing squad.
31
@Steve Fankuchen
Please give the media their fair share of "credit" for the circular firing squad. Despite long-standing complaints about liberal media, journalists hold Democrats to a much higher standard than Republicans.
And Mr. Friedman seems to have adopted our current "president's" way of thinking about foreign policy: that it's conducted on the spur of the moment according to the POTUS's gut feelings, without benefit of experienced advisors or intelligence briefings.
9
@Steve Fankuchen
Joe Biden as a nominee, would definitely elect Trump.
1
Why ?
1
The most destabilizing international crisis was been caused by th USA & its Dubya Disaster.
Just as Reagan planted the seeds of mass-migration from Central America with his Death Squads & dictators, so Dubya caused the European Migrant Crisis with his disastrous war in Iraq.
Republicans under Trump are as bad as the Neocons themselves, from ultra-war-hawk Bolton to Dispensationalist biblical end-times ideologue Pompeo ('God' told Dubya to invade Iraq, do we really need more fundamentalists driving policy according to Pastor Robert Jeffres in our decidedly Secular government?).
Trump himself & his son-in-law have some allegiance to the Saudis that sustained the largest humanitarian disaster on the globe in war-ravaged Yemen.
Yes the world needs worldly wisdom & experience in the US superpower-seat, but Biden, who voted for the Iraq War & co-piloted the horrific drone-war & rise of ISIS may not be the best option.
Luckily there's Bernie, who did NOT vote for the Iraq war & who has seen it all by now in his decades of government service.
Bernie was the only one running as a Democrat who understood deeply the predicament of the working class which Trump so deftly took advantage of.
By now many agree that Bernie was the candidate who could have beaten Trump, & may likely still be the best option.
It is not the job of the USA to run the often disastrous 'Pax Americana' through unimaginable military might, if anything it's the job of the USA to demilitarize our world.
10
The most destabilizing ongoing international crisis was caused by the USA & its Dubya Disaster.
Just as Reagan planted the seeds of mass-migration from Central America with his Death Squads & dictators, so Dubya caused the European Migrant Crisis with his disastrous war in Iraq.
Republicans under Trump are as bad as the Neocons themselves, from ultra-war-hawk Bolton to Dispensationalist biblical end-times ideologue Pompeo ('God' told Dubya to invade Iraq, do we really need more fundamentalists driving policy according to Pastor Robert Jeffres in our decidedly Secular government?).
Trump himself & his son-in-law have some allegiance to the Saudis that sustained the largest humanitarian disaster on the globe in war-ravaged Yemen.
Yes the world needs worldly wisdom & experience in the US superpower-seat, but Biden, who voted for the Iraq War & co-piloted the horrific drone-war & rise of ISIS may not be the best option.
Luckily there's Bernie, who did NOT vote for the Iraq war & who has seen it all by now in his decades of government service.
Bernie was the only one running as a Democrat who understood deeply the predicament of the working class which Trump so deftly took advantage of.
By now many agree that Bernie was the candidate who could have beaten Trump, & may likely still be the best option.
It is not the job of the USA to run the often disastrous 'Pax Americana' through unimaginable military might, if anything it's the job of the USA to demilitarize our world.
4
The American electorate has consistently demonstrated its ignorance of, and lack of concern for, international affairs by successively electing presidents with little or no relevant expertise for over 25 years - culminating in the election of someone with less than no knowledge. Why should we expect 2020 to be any different.
20
It's not a post-post-Cold War. It's a multi-lateral, multi-dimensional Cold War. The original Cold War was Russia vs. the U.S., and it was largely viewed in largely military terms, although the war was won economically. U.S. prosperity in the post-WWII era provided us 2 key advantages: 1) an economy and society which was the envy of most of the people of the world, and 2) the ability to outspend Russia militarily while not bankrupting ourselves. This led to the U.S. being the last superpower, military and economic.
The 21st Century Cold war is multi-lateral: It's us vs. Russia, China, Iran, and terrorist groups.
It's also multi-dimensional. It's military, but it's more about economics, trade, and the resulting political influence. Trump has proven to be completely inept at diplomacy, clearly distinguishing enemies from allies. His America-first economic and trade policy are pulling us out of alliances when we need them more than ever.
The next president needs to be someone who understands this bigger picture, as the issues arrive not just at 3AM, but throughout every White House day.
17
@Ken L
The US is nearly bankrupt financially, and morally, as indicated by your us vs them
Any of them would do better than Donald Trump. The best foreign policy is domestic policy that restores America to a place of honor as the strongest democracy with the most prosperity for the most people and equal justice for all. Make us a leader in clean energy, higher education, infrastructure, and research. Make us safe in our own streets, workplaces and schools. And join the rest of the civilized world by guaranteeing healthcare to all our citizens. American power in the world will only diminish is we do not get our own house in order.
10
Who could possibly be worse to get the 3 am phone call than Trump? We're living that reality right now.
8
Presidents have people. The last Bush did not do foreign policy, Cheney did. Alright, not a great example but the point is that the next President does not need to excel at every aspect, she needs to lead an administration which does.
So, yes, the problems are growing unchecked by Trump - and the solution lies in a return to government by meritocracy rather than by whim.
12
Agreed - foreign policy is notably absent from issues highlighted in the 2020 campaigns of presidential hopefuls.
One reason for that void might be the now proven possibility, if not likelihood, of election interference emanating from any or all of the three superpowers on which Tom Friedman and Professor Mandelbaum focus their analyses. Any candidate expressing harsh criticism, or promising to stand up to one or more of those three aggressive and oppressive regimes without question risks primary election failure at the hands of any or all of them.
Democrats are already handicapped in that regard, at least insofar as Trump's romance with Putin goes.
Secondly, Americans are notoriously ignorant of the impact American foreign policy actually has on their daily lives, including on their safety and security.
Until voters themselves understand that important bigger picture, there just won't be the appetite for or interest in any candidate's thoughts on foreign policy, It's just not an efficient topic in terms of attracting votes.
4
@Sachi G
The US is the most aggressive regime.
And it is rather oppressive when you consider that the US incarcerates more people per hundred thousand than any other country.
1
Trump has created an artificial humanitarian crisis at the border by understaffing immigration judges to hear the cases of asylum seekers. They are forced to wait inordinate amounts of time to have their cases heard, they are cruelly detained in "ice boxes" (abnormally cold holding areas), and they are separated from their children. The Trump administration should be taken before the The Hague and prosecuted for human rights abuse. Unfortunately, the International Court of Justice is an arm of the United Nations, which is controlled by the United States, so that will never happen. And refugees should be seeking asylum in the first country they encounter (not the US for those arriving from Central America). Still, they are required to be treated with humanity under the spirit of international treaty and federal law.
The Atomic Scientists have the Doomsday Clock set at two minutes to midnight due to the existential threat of climate change and the collateral risk of nuclear war. Trump's policies (e.g., withdrawing from the Paris Accord, eviscerating fuel standards, and generally denouncing climate-change science) exacerbate climate change. We withdraw from the INF Treaty with Russia, tear up the Iran deal, toy with North Korea, and exchange nuclear technology with the Saudis. We play a very, very dangerous game.
Trump has created a world where it is now 3 a.m. around the clock. And our Doomsday Clock continues to tick, every minute that Trump remains in office.
15
A reality that most of us turn our eyes away from is that, since 9-11, an American President kills people nearly every day, by giving orders and delegating various command authorities. Hopefully, most of them are enemies of America or its allies and there's justification for killing them under rules of engagement. Some of those killed will be innocent bystanders. And some of the orders will result in the deaths of American military personnel and, sometimes, American civilians -- and flag-draped coffins in military cargo aircraft. Mourning families here, and mourning families elsewhere in places like Somalia who surely feel just as badly.
Done in our names, for our protection.
Who should have that responsibility?
Better think about it.
3
There is only one crisis - climate change. Iran, for example, is having water problems; the war in Syria was instigated, in part, by water shortages, and who knows what's really going on in Russia or China? Climate change is also driving some of those seeking to cross our borders as chronic water shortages destroy coffee plantations.
Also, why would any sane head of state trust the US ever again? Any agreement we make can be nullified by the next president; the Senate won't sign any treaties. We refuse to participate in international agreements, and single-handedly sabotaged talks on climate change in the 80s and in George W's reign. Congress refuses to take on its responsibilities and govern.
19
Not only will we need the next president to develop a coherent foreign policy, but we must also have one who is able to repair the four years (hopefully not more) of damage Trump has caused, at Putin's behest.
These are two separate considerations. We must of course return to the community of civilized nations, nations with whom we have had decades-long alliances before Trump took office. And we must return to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, renew our commitment to NATO, and once again be a leader that respects the rule of law. We will not be that country for at least another two years.
But we must also turn away from dictators who Trump has kowtowed to at every turn. Most importantly, we must make sure that Vladimir Putin understands that while he has controlled our nation by giving orders to his lap dog Trump, he will have no such power over us anymore, with the next president. We will no longer agree to be a Russian vassal state.
Now, Mr. Friedman's column, and all of these considerations make a huge assumption - that we will in fact have an election for president in 2020. Trump understands that staying in office is his only way to avoid criminal indictment. From his prior statements, it is clear that he will not go quietly. Thus, it might be more prudent of us to consider these legitimate international policy concerns only after he leaves office. Before then, we're simply playing parlor games while this nation tries to survive its first dictator.
23
The most important column this year to date.
None, repeat. none of the announced Democratic candidates has even a mote of national security leadership experience -- except for Joe Biden, whose judgment is questionable.
It may be time to look at someone like Bill McRaven.
3
And the GOP contender 2016 had what relevant experience?
After careful thought, and immense time spent studying the present candidate pool for the Democratic Primaries, I find it hard to choose between MAJ Gabbard, and Bernie Sanders. I believe both candidates have the qualifications to answer the phone at 3am, and not produce an international incident. They both have significant experience to deal effectively with foreign affairs, and the ability to bring our country back to the point were the world can trust us... They are the solution, unlike Biden who most people believe is a Republican, and based on his past decisions, so do I.
3
"Among President Trump’s greatest foreign policy weaknesses is his inability to build and maintain alliances."
It's also his greatest domestic policy weakness. He makes unilateral decisions and thinks he has to be in control of everything.
I once heard a top CEO say that he always tries to hire people that are smarter than himself. He was a team leader and very articulate. Those are the only essential skills our POTUS needs.
I saw an article pondering which supreme court justices Democrats would choose. I think we need to consider which cabinet members a candidate would choose and how a whole team would manage as a unit.
Forget about the president for now. Imagine our dream team first. VP, Attorney General, Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of Defense, of the Interior, of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security.
Ideally, it would be somewhat bipartisan. The absolute best person for the job. There are a ton of other jobs to fill in addition to those. Imagine a stable team that has low turnover because they fit so well in their position. And they like their job.
Then imagine who would be the best at managing that core team. A leader and an uniter. They should be very articulate, have a lot of compassion and hopefully a terrific sense of humor.
Team 2020. Bernie, Health and Human Services, Warren, Treasury, etc. etc.
10
@Anne ... and Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, or any number of competent Democrats for Secretary of State. Ok , those are not all realistic choices, but there is no lack of experienced candidates. Yes, the Cabinet would normally function as a Team of highly competent individuals with a President who is the best communicator and has the best judgement at its head. The point person in a Foreign policy crisis would normally be the Secretary of State. Let's get back to Normal.
4
@Anne
"I once heard a top CEO say that he always tries to hire people that are smarter than himself."
Do you suppose that may be one of the reasons he was a top CEO? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question.)
We need a president who thinks that way. Furthermore, we should not stop with the president; every Cabinet member needs not only experience and intelligence of her/his own, but the ability -- and willingness -- to hire proven experts in their fields who are "smarter than himself."
This, while not an easy task, is doable. Once it has been accomplished, a follow-on is absolutely necessary -- listen to them.
". . . hopefully a terrific sense of humor."
"A man who cannot laugh at himself can never see the humor in anyone or anything else, and that is a tragic flaw, no matter who or what it may involve. For in the lack of humor lie all the seeds of evil and destruction. People who see themselves as worthy of admiration, and who cannot conceive of themselves as ever being a cause for laughter, are too serious for their own good, and even worse, they generally believe they have a calling to impress the acceptance of their beliefs on others. God save all from humorless men, for they are also merciless and implacable."
Clothar of Camulod, in The Eagle, by Jack Whyte.
Avoid them whenever possible
1
@Yojimbo
You have an affinity for regime changers who wreck countries, killing hundreds of thousands, creating refugees that have destabilized Europe, have added some six trillion to the debt and made the US less safe and the wold more unstable.
Please, God forbid, don't let Biden, Kerry, Hillary or Susan Rice anywhere near the State Department or any other area of government.
A replete diagnosis of the problems our next president will have to face if elected, but I'd still add some of our domestic issues since our nation's finances are not limitless.
Will we need to cut social security, Medicare and Medicaid? Raise taxes on the rich and possibly the middle class?
There exist states and other local governments in deep financial trouble. If we don't support them or continue heading towards negative interest rates, will that lead to instability at home?
Do we really have any qualified candidates?
7
If this is the criteria for a president, Trump may be (I can't believe I am saying this) well suited. First, Trump has marginalized the United States to the point where we are much less likely to be involved in a foreign policy crisis that was not self-inflicted. Simply put, Trump himself embodies the biggest US foreign policy crisis we are likely to face. That notwithstanding, chances are he will be impossible to wake up at such an hour, or he is with some concubine and gave strict orders that he not be disturbed. If the baton is passed to clueless Mike, he will punt the matter around all night until Trump wakes up for his morning tweet, and then dismiss the crisis as fake news. The point here is that sometimes the best action is no action at all, and we can pretty much count on no-clue Trump and pensive Pence to sidestep a crisis completely, or they are directly responsible for causing one without realizing it.
16
It is customary in these times for columnists to criticize Don Trump. Repeatedly. But there is another angle to take to the subject of this column: describe the qualifications--or lack thereof--of a few of the many, many Democratic candidates for the Presidency. Yep, Don Trump ain't so competent at foreign policy. But are any of the Democratic candidates? Not really. Only Joe Biden.
2
@Gordon Wiggerhaus Why do you Republicans keep bringing up Joe Biden?
Tom you speak as if the American electorate can even understand these issues. Remember that George W Bush first took a lead in the Republican presidential primaries because many thought his father was running again. Voters don't even understand that "science" is just an objective framework to evaluate outcomes, nothing more. They have not the faintest idea where Afghanistan and Crimea are on world maps. They gravitate to sound bites and sensationalism, and they cannot tell real news from fake news because they cannot synthesize multiple news sources while weighting each for quality and placing their consensus output in historical context. Our education is failing our democracy, while its funding is getting cut in order to reward rich companies and individuals. Solution? For a start, we need more frequent NYT columns from you!
178
@Will Hogan
I know it is a mathematical non-sequitur, but it appears that more than half the population is below average.
24
@Pat Roberts
If the US invested money in quality early childhood education, free/affordable child care, quality K-12, and tuition free higher education/skills training... but the US prefers military spending and wrecking small countries
22
@Will Hogan
Will-
I feel that you unfairly group all Americans into this know-nothing group. Yes, you make good points that many Americans take what Fox and Sinclair (aka state-run media) feed them at face value without venturing out to other news sources, so they believe everything he says (I saw it on tv so it must be true!); they represent his base. And the base has not topped 50% of the populace. Give us a good Democrat that progressives and independents can trust and our country may yet survive. And vote Mitch the obstructionist out of office.
1
I agree. A President who's bad on the economy can do damage. Doing major damage will likely take a while, and much of it can be reversed. But a President who makes a foreign policy mistake at 3 A.M. can do vastly more damage that cannot be reversed.
6
Mr Friedman
Our real problem is right here at home. We are no longer a Meritocracy . Recent scandals in college admission is one example. There is institutionalized lack of meritocracy as was seen in the Harvard admission case which received very little media coverage.
The above are examples of where people were caught. In almost all the top companies in the US outside of Technology(jobs) almost all hiring is based on who you know not what you know. People never caught in this scenario.
If at America falls behind in the future it will be because it hollowed due to lack of Meritocracy
Thanks
5
Young Mr. Butigeg...did I spell that right. Yes, young, but the only person with boots on the ground, getting shot at experience. When he speaks, he has thoughtful, reasoned nuanced responses. Don't sell him short. Seems to bring the same sense of reason to various domestic issues too. We need to hear more from, and about this man. Certainly more experienced all around than the guy we have now.
121
@J Man, do I agree. I wish he could garner more press coverage. Watch him at the South Southwest conference--after which he got lots of donations.
7
Mayor Pete would be a great VP, but Elizabeth Warren sits on the Armed Services Committee and would make a great President on so many levels including foreign policy. Funny no one, including the article mentions this.
12
Right, this is the character that wants to pack the courts. No thanks.
The public does not respond to foreign policy ideas. I think that is it in a nutshell. No one talks about it because no on listens.
28
@nora m
The people election after election say they want to bring the troops home... But the governing establishment and the military industrial complex have no intention of ever "bringing the troops home".
That is why political types never talk about foreign policy, they don't want the people to think about it.
5
There is only one candidate or about to be candidate that has the experience and street cred to deal with our foreign policy issues left in tatters by the Trump Effect:
Joe Biden
I'd like to see Kamala Harris as his running mate as I think she has what it takes to engage the base and also deal with our foreign policy in the future.
42
@Mary I prefer Klobuchar. as VP. Extremely smart and capable. Another one I like is Sheldon Whitehouse.
4
@Mary
I'm an early Kamala supporter, but I'm starting to think this is the ideal ticket: because of his age, Biden needs to be a one-term president. Meanwhile, Harris is filling in any gaps of experience and expertise.
I also have enthusiasm for the leadership roles that can be played by Pete Buttigieg, Stacey Abrams, and Julián Castro. If they aren't in elective office they need to have Cabinet or other important posts. And we want Warren wherever she can most effectively fight for us on the domestic front. It's just that our status in the world has so declined that in this election foreign policy is urgent, so as TF writes, visionaries of domestic policy only are just not enough.
7
@C Wolfe Biden is the only Democrat who is electable in most of the country. All the others are too far left to stand a chance in flyover country. We are doomed to another four years of Trump unless the Dems figure out that the Electoral College lives in the 3000 miles separating New York from San Francisco.
7
Biden is the only one who clears this hurdle. Moreover he's probably the only Democrat who can beat Trump. Trump is positioned to hold on in Florida and Arizona where he won handily in 2016. That means it all comes down to Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Virginia. If Trump wins any one of them, he wins the election. Biden can connect with the factory workers and retirees of the industrial heartland. He is the only Democrat the Republicans are concerned about. He also is trhe only one with foreign policy chops.
30
@minter Stop with Joe Biden. He is not the person for the job. Yes, he is likable and has a good resume but his time is over. Just imagining Trump and Biden on the debate stage trying to prove who is the bigger man just turns my stomach.
There is so much time between now and the election we can't play the game of what states are going for what candidate. We need to chose the best candidate - not just to beat Trump - but to be the one to lead us into a better future.
Articles like these are good to have at this time because they point out the actual job of the President and not just how Trump is completely out of his league and that his ignorance and demeanor is making matters worse. Foreign policy does not win elections and the candidates aren't focusing on that but what some are trying to convey is their general thoughts and feelings about how they wish to govern and what they would like to achieve. In these speeches one can glean a strategy and perspective which guide them in their decision making, what is important to them, where their priorities lie.
An awareness of long term ramifications of actions is needed and honestly Joe hasn't shown that in past choices. There are a few candidates that have touched on this and though they may have not had time and space to devote to their foreign policy agenda, how they represent themselves and their ideas can tell volumes.
5
@minter, Biden will make an excellent Secretary of State.
1
Who do I trust to have the temperament, balance and experience to both nurture our alliances and keep our enemies off balance?
Joe Biden.
18
If anyone calls the White House crisis line at 3 am in the next 679 days they probably HAVE misdialed.
Can you imagine any foreign leader wasting time in a crisis to speak to Trump? Even the members of his administration would likely spend hours arguing over who gets to explain a geopolitical crisis to our Very Stable Genius before Fox & Friends tells him what to think. "No. I'm not going to call him. YOU call him. I didn't even vote for him".
Few Presidents had enough foreign policy experience to have been truly ready on day one. Few presidential candidates do either. And no one seems to care much when they do -- you can ask the last Democractic nominee about that -- though I'm sure Biden will tout his.
What is needed in absence of a direct experience is character, intelligence, and a coherent world-view.
The Democratic field has a lot of the first two attributes. I'm sure they will all speak about the third one as the race goes on, all of which will promptly be ignored by the media in lieu of gossip and gotchas.
You can ask the last Democractic nominee about that one too.
171
@LT To " character, intelligence, and a coherent world-view" I would add "an administration and agencies fully staffed with competent professionals". Donny has hollowed out the State Dept and the WH staff by failing to nominate people for vital positions and by installing key players distinguished only for extreme ideology and Trump sycophancy.
10
@LT
The last Democratic nominee had horrible judgment.
Senator Bernie Sanders has judgment, character, intelligence and a sane, decent, wise and coherent world view.
2
@LT
I am amazed that some rogue group hasn’t taken this opportunity to make a move.
1
I'm betting whomever emerges as the Democratic nominee will be plenty ready and imminently more capable to address Foreign Policy than their Republican counterpart. And we can also bet whomever they select, if elected, will be qualified to carry-out the charter of office, unlike Republicans who hand out cabinet positions like party favors. I think Democrats are correct in focusing on the troubling and obvious problems inflicting the country that elected Trump. Foreign Policy...is dessert.
18
What frightens me is that Trump would take a call from Macron or Merkel but then conference in Putin and put him on mute.
72
While Russia, China and Iran remain threats, none are easy problems to solve. The real solution involves starving the beasts, but Europe is too dependent on Russian oil and gas and we are too dependent on cheap Chinese goods.
That said, even if we were inclined to tackle these foreign policy problems, it's probably not a rat hole the Dems want to go down. Trump has already proven that Nationalism sells. Dems focus on this issue at their own peril. Yes, foreign policy and issues like refugees are totally interconnected, but good luck explaining that to the American electorate. To them, it's as simple as US first and US only. If Dems want to win on 2020, they unfortunately have to focus on the same nationalistic messaging that (regrettably) Trump used so successfully.
1
"Russia and Iran took the lead in devastating Syria, producing a flood of refugees that has, among other things, destabilized Europe. "
THANK YOU, President Obama for having gratuitously invited Russia to the party.
3
Ok let's take them one at a time. In Russia's case Obama put such crippling sanctions (with the help of allies) on Putin's regime the Ruble crumbled, Oil could no longer bail them out and Putin became a major donor to the Republican party. China was a co-signer of the TPP an Obama led trade agreement that included several barriers to China's ability to manipulate markets by using slave labor and unfair tariffs. Pulling out of that agreement did nothing to increase our negotiating power and will have negative impacts for all those who see China and, indeed all, Asia -Pacific markets as sales opportunities. The agreement was made stronger by the other seven countries who co-signed the agreement. Obama's sanctions on the Iranian government (with the help of our allies) finally brought them to the table to discuss their nascent nuclear program in return for the lifting of those sanctions. A seventeen country agreement that was so solid the Iranians have kept up their side of the bargain even after Trump (alone again naturally) reneged on the agreement. We've lost respect, influence and allies. It would appear that we need someone who can hit the ground running, who knows the names, the histories and the consequences. All signs point to Joe Biden. I know he up there in age but the gravity of the moment demands experience, intelligence and sophistication. I trust him to answer the call at 3 AM, as long as he's in bed by 9.
235
@Rick Gage
China was not a co-signer of the TPP. The TPP excluded China.
28
@Rick Gage I'd like to add a common denominator into your analysis; John Kerry.
Mr. Kerry serves as a reminder of just how long the GOP/RW media have been playing their destructive game.
6
@Rick Gage Good comment Rick. And Biden is the only one who has been there for those calls. I like the candidate, except for one, and believe they need Biden as the anchor POTUS until they have been thru the drill themselves as second banana.
8
Mr Friedman appears to think very little of any of those Democrats campaigning (or thinking of campaigning) for the presidency. I suppose he will have to go with the tried and - well, I'm not sure if 'true" is the word, but apparently the devil Friedman knows is better than the devils he doesn't.
2
Biden would be the best candidate for that call. Warren could back him up for the domestic issues and there in case of a tragedy.
Biden/Warren 2020
37
@Michael Roberts
@Michael Roberts
I have no intention of voting for Biden. But i'm afraid that you're probably right. I'm also afraid that we've moved on from the rote solutions too, and Biden wouldn't realize that. I hate to say it, but bring John Kerry on board in there somewhere. Unless you can think of better negotiator.
but yeah, Warren as VP would edge me a whole lot closer to that vote.
25
@rtj Warren is the only one I would have confidence in. Does she have much foreign policy experience? No, she doesn't. But she is whip smart, willing to put in the work to make hard decisions and knows how to tap into others' expertise.
10
@KayVing
Agreed. And she sits on the Armed Services Committee so she has the bona fides to take that 3am call.
2
Nice try on the new Axis of Evil. But Iran is only a threat to Israel, which can take care of itself, and Russia's bark is much worse than its bite. And China is an ally as well as a competitor. Yes, technology advances every day, but in fact, the current international environment is very benign. Otherwise, I don't think Trump would have been elected.
20
Tom: Don't hold your breath expecting a vibrant debate among the candidates on the issue of foreign policy. Unless there is an active shooting war involving lots of American troops (e.g., Vietnam and to a lesser extent Korea) or some unique crisis (the Iranian embassy hostages), the American electorate never has paid much attention to foreign policy matters. The issues you raise in the opening paragraphs of this column are way over the heads of the vast majority of Americans. "It's the economy, stupid," is still -- and always will be -- the guiding principle of our electoral politics. George H.W. Bush performed an incredible job in putting together a world-wide alliance and then defeating Saddam in short order and fairly bloodlessly -- yet he was thrown out of office because of the poor economy at that time (which was the hangover from the Reagan partying years). Trump's favorability rating is as high as it is only because of the economy. If it starts to falter by election time in 2020, he will be crushed by any Democrat, irrespective of foreign policy considerations. Yes, like you, I too would like to see a sane discussion of foreign policy issues (apart from immigration) by the candidates, but it ain't gonna' happen.
19
Just weeks ago, Joe Biden was a clear contrast to the arrogant Trump administration, when he reassured our European allies that 'we will be back.' Frankly, an experienced leader who would restore diplomacy and stop alienating our partners sounds pretty good. My vote will be for someone who will bring the United States back to where we were under President Obama.
57
Who to Elect for a Foreign Policy Crisis at 3 A.M.?
Easy choice: Jed Bartlet !
9
We've let a lot of things go wrong in recent years. I am of the belief that the problems of the world will be lessened by a combination of a great Secretary of State, a great Secretary of Defense, but above all, a great Council of Economic Advisors.
We need to rewrite the rules of Globalization, and this includes a completely new set of rules governing global capital flows and global trade. If we get these rules right, the rest will follow.
Many die-hard capitalists never realized that when they talk of capitalism, they're really talking about US/British/German domination of the world. Many a country has turned 'socialist' in response to Western domination of their means of production for our purposes.
The powers in both China and Russia know all of this. Perhaps Iran does also, but I'm not sure of that.
The rules are not all that hard to create. One new rule would be called the 'Inverse Generalized Labor Tariff'. It is a bottom-up distribution of wealth that could achieve even greater efficiency from global trade than exists now, while increasing the wages of workers world wide.
Another rule would create throttles for all international capital flows based upon the quality of investment for the nations to which the capital flows.
We've just been doing some very simple things wrong for a long time. These set of rules are something that all nations could potentially agree upon, because all nations would become more peaceful as a result.
I'm optimistic.
2
@DudeNumber42
Just to be clear, I believe the US has always been and always will be a combination of capitalism and socialism. I was just trying to emphasize the lack of empathy in many 'die hard' capitalist's minds. They know not of what they speak. To have a system of world capital domination without recognizing the effects in satellite nations, which often takes the form of totalitarian socialism, is to place oneself on a false pedistal.
Localized capitalism has always been good, while globalized capitalism has always been bad. We believe that each nation's capitalistic powers must be checked by democratic laws. The system is not transferrable to global affairs. Global affairs must be governed by other economic rules determined within democratic nations.
Most of us don't believe that Bernie Sanders is actually a 'socialist'. We've seen no evidence that he's anything other than an American who believes that we need to selectively socialize certain ideas, such as medical insurance. The entire medical industry would not be socialized under a single-payer system, rather only the role of insurance provider would be socialized. The rest would remain a free-market system.
7
I would much more trust any of the Democratic candidates to handle a middle of the night phone call than trust Trump with writing a middle of the night tweet.
97
The last few years have shown that democracies are vulnerable and need to be continually defended against authoritarian power grabbers and demagogues. Assuming the US democracy will survive the Trump years without permanent damage, the mutual trust among our allies will have to restored and a common purpose must be reaffirmed, because the US cannot stand up for the free world without strong and committed allies who share its values.
Crises will happen, and we can only hope that they will be handled by a more thoughtful and informed president than our current one. You are correct to point out this important aspect of leadership.
17
Naturally the President cannot know all the details involved in his or her making an informed intelligent decision. That is why the most important qualification for any President is the ability to choose good, knowledgeable advisors. To make good executive decisions a President also needs to have substantial experience over time in a way not required for Members of Congress. That is why our Founders placed in the Constitution a higher minimum age for President than for Members.
In order to make good decisions of consequence, especially under stress, a President has to have had the opportunity to make mistakes in a lesser capacity, admitted to and learned from those mistakes, and then moved on.
So far Joe Biden is the only Democrat I would consider both qualified and capable of answering that 3 a.m. phone call.
51
@Steve Fankuchen
Biden's judgement is the issue. He supported the Iraq war. I think he opposed the Lybia intervention, Argued for action to manage Syria's chemical weapons not the deal with russia. He argued for the effective breakup of Iraq into federal; Kurd, Sunni and Shitie regions with a weak central state..... Obama smartly rejected all of these bad ideas. IMO... Obama/Clinton/Kerry were correct. I think he is a bit too shallow and reactionary to navigate the post trump landscape.
15
@Steve Fankuchen
Yes. It's the advisers and competent officials that carry an administration. In the run-up to the 2016 election, the Journal of Foreign Policy broke with tradition and endorsed a candidate for the very first time--Hillary Clinton, with her Secretary of State experience. We need Very experienced ones peopling the next administration--
12
@Cori Sherman North
So, you think Mike Pompeo should be President?
2016 is ancient history. Hillary Clinton is never going to be President. Ever. How about we start looking to the next election. It is going to be here sooner than we think.
FORWARD!