We have seen recently what multiateralist, humanitarian foreign policy looks like. And in ‘Puter’s opinion, it looks like failure.

Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Morning Joe put it well when he referred to the Obama Administration’s foreign policy as treating the United States as the “military wing of the Red Cross.”

‘Puter’s been thinking, without the drinking since it’s Lent, about what his preferred foreign policy would look like. It would likely look a lot more like China’s foreign policy. ‘Puter’s foreign policy, like China’s, would be narrowly tailored to advance clear national interests, considering consequences only insofar as they affect American interests.

Broadly speaking, an administration’s definition of “national interest” will determine its foreign policy. National interest is a vague term, bandied about by the press and by various government officials as if it has an agreed-upon definition. It doesn’t. The definition of national interest changes based on the wold view of each reporter and each individual official. ‘Puter figured it best for him to start his survey by defining national interest.

To ‘Puter, for a proposal to be in the national interest (in the foreign policy sense) means that it advances the nation’s objectives. So, to define national interest, we have to decide on our national objectives. ‘Puter thinks national objectives are our “must haves,” the things we cannot live without. On ‘Puter’s short list are: national security (borders, citizens, economy, etc.), free trade (including food, energy and raw materials, as well as finished products), defense of allies and confounding of enemies. ‘Puter honestly can’t think of many more necessary foreign policy objectives. If a proposed course of action is not in line with these objectives, it would not be part of ‘Puter’s foreign policy. In defining our national objectives, we have thus defined national interest. Our national interest is in advancing our national objectives. Nothing more.

How does foreign policy fit into ‘Puter’s mix? Foreign policy is the tool we use to advance our national interest. There are many foreign policy methods used to advance our national interest, most non violent. Among such tools are: negotiations, treaties, compacts, alliances, purchase agreements, etc. The ultimate foreign policy tool is war, when the national interest can only be accomplished through force. Currently, we are employing this ne plus ultra of foreign policy devices in no fewer that three locations, which to ‘Puter reeks of a failure of imagination.

War is a bell that can’t be unrung. A nation either wins a war or loses a war. Despite assertions to the contrary, there is no in between. And ‘Puter thinks there should be no in between in fighting wars, which, oddly enough, may lead to fewer American wars and more creative foreign policy initiatives.

What does ‘Puter mean by that? Aren’t those ideas in conflict? Not necessarily. A President ‘Puter would not commit American troops to any situation without having first set rules of engagement. ‘Puter’s rules of engagement would be simple: win by any means necessary, short of deploying nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. If at any point you think we need to deploy NBC weapons to win, get back to me. A war worth fighting must be won, and winning is brutal and ugly. Civilians (including small children and old people) die. Cities are flattened. Economies ruined. People displaced. Starvation ensues. In fact, war in ‘Puter’s sense (and in humanity’s traditional sense) is so horrible that America hasn’t fought one that way since World War II.

So, using ‘Puter’s foreign policy principles, what would the world look like today?

1. Afghanistan. ‘Puter agreed with toppling the Taliban government. We shouldn’t care, in the national interest sense, what kind of government a country has so long as it is not hostile to us, or harboring others who are. If the Afghans put in another hostile government harboring terrorists, time to topple them. And leave. Historically, we should have realized that we had no hope of building a friendly government in Kabul, where thousands of years of tribal history conspire against creating anything resembling a Western democracy. To think otherwise was hubris. And attacking the poppy crop, the sole cash crop for many Afghan farmers, was disastrously shortsighted.

2. Iraq. ‘Puter thinks based on the information available, that Sadaam Hussein had WMD, ‘Puter would have invaded as well. However, ‘Puter would have likely had troops destroy most of the country in the process, forcing an abject and unconditional surrender of all forces, whether Baathists, Sunni terrorists or Shiite terrorists. It would have been a short war, with horrible, grisly consequences for innocent Iraqis, as well as the not-so-innocent. Once victory was achieved, we could have left, retaining air bases, a naval port and protecting the oil fields, perhaps jointly with the Russians and Chinese.

3. Libya. ‘Puter would not have gotten involved at all in Libya. There is no national interest there. Khadaffi was not (overtly) an American enemy. He had unilaterally given up his WMD program during the Bush years. He was not a current, immediate threat to Americans anywhere, despite being bat-sh!t crazy. America gets a tiny fraction of its oil from Libya, none of which Khadaffi was threatening. He was slaughtering his people, which is horrible, but only in a moral and humanitarian sense. And, as you may have noted from ‘Puter’s list of national objectives above, supplying humanitarian relief in and of itself is not a national objective. It may be coupled with national objectives (see, e.g., Marshall Plan), but it is not an objective alone.

The Obama Administration has no foreign policy whatsoever. It deploys troops and strategies on an almost whimsical ad hoc basis, with no apparent forethought whatsoever. And such a dereliction of duty encourages our enemies and disheartens our allies. It is an invaluable advantage for an enemy to know where the boundaries are. We want our enemies to run the mental calculus “If I do x, America is going to destroy half my country and hunt me down until they find and kill me. Perhaps y is a better solution.” Now, no one knows what’s next from President Obama’s administration.

‘Puter’s exhausted now. Suffice it to say, we have to do better on foreign policy.

'Puter

Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.

’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.

The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.

His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.

He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.

Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.

‘Puter suggests the Czar suck it.