by Robert Field
U. S. foreign policy with special attention to Syria was the subject of discussion over dinner in a Georgetown restaurant yesterday evening among the publisher, law school student son Benjamin, and friend, a former State Department department head and author who has long been retired.
The friend agrees with many Republicans that President Barack Obama should have interceded forcefully in Syria at the outset of the civil war. He opined that with the rapid withdrawal of U. S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and hesitancy to act in Syria that a power vacuum was created which led to the emergence of ISIS.
Robert neither agreed or disagreed, but expressed the view that Iraq and Afghanistan had been so bungled by the “W” administration that it would take another eight years, a loss of over a quarter of century, to repair the damage and then it would be a matter of catching up.
He went on to say that even if the friend is correct that President Barack had not anticipated evolving events in Syria, what is essential is that we have withdrawn our troops and are in the process of making our military battle ready again and this is essential for protecting the West from aggression by both Russia and China.
The friend warned against ISIS attacks in the future in the U. S. if they are not defeated or at least contained. The point was made by another that Muslim fundamentalists terrorists tend to only attack nations who are involved in their home country.
Also very concerned about the potential for further aggression by nuclear armed Russia, the friend felt that Vladimir Putin would rationally weigh the current circumstances of severe reversal of the Russian economy, in large part due to the sharply reduced oil revenue, and be passive for a while. The friend had more confidence in the capacity of NATO to respond to Russian invasion than did Robert, who called for two highly trained NATO divisions on forty eight hour alert, not a battalion of 2500, hardly more than can fill a good size concert hall.
The friend also observed that Putin is personally extremely insecure and gave examples of indications of this.
When asked which of the many U. S. President with who he had served under would best handle our current foreign affairs and restricting evaluation to that subject, he said George H. W. Bush and Richard Nixon. He opined that the latter was also very insecure and would well understand Putin.
China was perceived as a long term challenge that needs to be skillfully contained, but not a likely threat by force or disposition, at least for some time to come.
It was a very pleasant dinner and an informative exchange. People can converse without discussing sports.
