Alternative Courses to Quadruple Dual Containment: President Obama’s West Point Speech and Pathways Beyond

Carter W. Page unpicks President Obama’s West Point Speech and looks to the future of US foreign policy.

"This above all: to your own self be true." - William Shakespeare

Speak Loudly and Use All the Sticks in Our Arsenal

The 26th U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt was known for a foreign policy founded upon one of his favorite proverbs, "Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Trying an alternative approach, President Barack Obama’s aides offered a sneak preview of his May 28 commencement address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point: "You will hear the president discuss how the United States will use all the tools in our arsenal without over-reaching.” While a full-volume defense may seem like a logical shield against extensive recent political attacks by adversaries in and out of government, it risks leaving aside some of his greatest strengths and current potential opportunities in the international arena.

A vivid demonstration of his initial instincts and the continued challenges which have emerged were seen early in the first year of his administration. A few days after a speech to the Turkish parliament in Ankara regarding his commitment to “mutual respect" in the Muslim world, he faced harsh criticism over purportedly bowing to the Saudi king. Despite preliminary accomplishments at the start of his administration, these April 2009 denunciations concerning the Middle East arose as an early harbinger of future encouragement toward more aggressive tactics. Russia stands as the most obvious divergence of his personal leadership style from the direction he’s been nudged by aides and critics alike.

Slipping back into Pre-Cold War thinking

President Obama warned in an August 2013 conversation with Jay Leno regarding Russia that, “there have been times where they slip back into Cold War thinking and a Cold War mentality”. In the months since, prominent public figures from both sides of the Atlantic have taken steps even further backwards into the past with limited attention to the details of their historic analogies.

Prince Charles compared Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler in Halifax, Nova Scotia on Tuesday, May 20. Currently viewed by many to be the potential de facto heir apparent in the United States, Hillary Clinton made a similar comparison in March.

While Prince Charles, Hillary Clinton and other Western leaders were making derogatory yet toothless statements, Russian president Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping were busy advancing toward and eventually signing a 30-year deal on Wednesday, May 21. At an estimated value of approximately $400 billion and 38 billion cubic meters of gas per year (roughly half the total annual consumption of the U.K.), it is undeniably one of the largest natural gas agreements in history. An Economist article on the decline of U.S. deterrence pointed out how Barack Obama is frequently asked how exactly he plans to wield American power. Leveraging the U.S.’s technological advantages in the energy sector could offer an obvious answer to this question and one that might positively impact Russia, China and countless other would-be allies while simultaneously addressing environmental concerns.

Clearly there are obstacles that must be overcome before such a scenario would be achieved – some recent and some long-standing. Foreshadowing the Cold War that he would help to play a key role in kicking off a few years later and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland’s “F*** the EU” comments more recently, then Senator Harry S. Truman in 1941 overlooked the potential of partnership when he said:

"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances."

In contrast and in practice, a more thoughtful history was eventually written in this earlier instance which led to Hitler’s defeat. According to the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Public Affairs, “The U.S.-Soviet alliance of 1941–1945 was marked by a great degree of cooperation and was essential to securing the defeat of Nazi Germany. Without the remarkable efforts of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, the United States and Great Britain would have been hard pressed to score a decisive military victory over Nazi Germany.” In his recent book Roosevelt's Lost Alliances: How Personal Politics Helped Start the Cold War, Frank Costigliola demonstrates how Stalin’s contrasting relationships with these respective U.S. leaders helped to instigate the costly standoff that continued for nearly a half-century. While Obama grouped together “leaders like Roosevelt and Truman” at West Point, closer attention to these nuances and tactical distinctions could offer a pathway out of today’s morass.

Perhaps in fear of highlighting the severe mismanagement seen in recent U.S.-Russian relations, the historic cooperation during the Second World War has apparently been forgotten by the long list of critics who have joined Charles Mountbatten-Windsor and Hillary Rodham Clinton in their incorrect Hitler analogy. Following in Truman’s footsteps while China made strides toward building a better relationship, “The Obama administration dissuaded many chief executives of American companies” from attending the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum this month as reported by the New York Times.

The Narcissistic Loony Tune School of Foreign Policy

An underlying cultural phenomenon that has served as a foundation for the counterproductive narrative in Russia and beyond may be observed in a domestic context. In discussions with her best friend Diane Blair, Hillary Clinton previously defended her husband by referring to his mistress, former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, as a “Narcissistic loony tune”. This personal example demonstrates a fundamental problem at the core of U.S. foreign policy that has been seen across party lines since well before her husband’s administration: the inclination to blame weaker parties for problems without examination of the decisions of top leaders that initiated these mistakes in the first place.

An example of the narcissistic loony tune school of foreign policy may be observed in a recent interview regarding the crisis in Ukraine with John Herbst, the former U.S. ambassador in Kiev. Mr. Herbst was asked, “How would you describe the U.S. response to the crisis?” Rather than acknowledge the U.S.’s role in instigating today’s problems by helping to overthrow the popularly elected government in Kiev, he simply responded that, “We have done a credible job, but not a great job. The Obama administration understands that this is blatant aggression—a challenge to the postwar order.”

Elegant terms like the “informal economy” have stood as one of the most frequent equivalents of labelling Russia as a narcissistic loony tune by painting the country in an overly negative light. As seen in one particularly condescending example, authors have even gone so far as to suggest that such simplistic, slanderous and misleading caricatures cut to the core of “How Russia Really Works”. Consistent with these long-standing proclivities, President Obama referred to these concepts at West Point when he noted that, “The cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies, and enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares.” It followed Victoria Nuland’s comments a day earlier that more directly diagnosed the former Soviet region in particular with this cancer, alongside other maladies that she labelled Russia with.

Quadruple dual containment

President Bill Clinton attempted to establish a policy of "dual containment" in the Persian Gulf. A warning sign of conflicts to come, his administration focused on the perceived threats of Iraq and Iran. Although the policy raised fears of overextension at the time, such concerns were modest compared to the policy of quadruple dual containment that has emerged today.

First, the original epicenter of dual containment within the Middle East has the risk of further metastasizing into adjacent countries, particularly the Syrian swamp.

Second, the pivot to Asia has sought to contain not only China but also neighboring regional powers. As per the review of former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Asia Kurt Campbell who was instrumental in establishing this policy, “Relations have gone from being generally positive at the strategic level among the great powers to extremely difficult.”

Third, persisting onwards from the initial regional focus of U.S. containment during the Cold War, Russia and the states of the former Soviet Union remain countries of attention as initial attempts toward influence in Ukraine have taken a turn for the worse.

Finally, efforts to contain climate change remain particularly dependent upon international cooperation. The essential roles that China and Russia can play in addressing this issue underscores the strategic challenge created by efforts to denigrate these powers through attempts to rebrand them as narcissistic loony tunes. The U.S. has dramatically increased exports of higher-emission coal to Asia in recent years, with China leading the pack. In contrast, natural gas plants have been found to have significantly lower emissions making the recent deal between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping a positive framework for improvements. At West Point, Barack Obama noted that, “We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if so many of our political leaders deny that it is taking place.” In fact, a lack of effective leadership in the energy sector including through public-private partnerships stands as the primary obstacle to international cooperation rather than U.S. climate change deniers.

The four pillars of quadruple dual containment actually understate the reach of the new strategy. As President Obama noted at West Point, “I believe we have a real stake – an abiding self-interest – in making sure our children grow up in a world where school-girls are not kidnapped; where individuals aren’t slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political beliefs.” But the echoes of a possible retreat towards past tendencies of over-extension were heard when he also mentioned that, “The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it.”

As Shakespeare once suggested, there is often value in staying true to one’s own core principles. By looking to resolve the inconsistencies and conflicts of quadruple dual containment while avoiding future military interventions, President Obama could set the groundwork for a similar policy stance that extends beyond the West Point speech to his own fundamental judgments. Given the disproportionately deep economic hit for Europe by recent short-sighted policies, Germany, the U.K. and other allies can help to add balance by advocating these advantages beginning next week in meetings during President Obama’s trip to Europe.

Toward a New Approach

Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson have spoken eloquently of the advantages of a spirit of compromise in a U.S. domestic context as a means of avoiding gridlock in governance. A more cooperative approach which places effective international relations policies at the center of foreign affairs could offer similar upside.

Carter W. Page is Founder and Managing Partner of Global Energy Capital LLC, an Adjunct Associate Professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs and Energy Fellow at the Center for National Policy in Washington.