Millenial Foreign Policy

I saw this at Dan Drezner's blog Monday and Conor Friedersdorf reprinted it. The time has given me a chance to consider it properly.

As I think about it, here are the Millennials' foundational foreign policy experiences:

1) An early childhood of peace and prosperity -- a.k.a., the Nineties;

2) The September 11th attacks;

3) Two Very Long Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;

4) One Financial Panic/Great Recession;

5) The ascent of China under the shadow of U.S. hegemony.

From these experiences, I would have to conclude that this generation should be anti-interventionist to the point of isolationism. Then again, I'm looking at this through my own irony-drenched Gen-X eyes.

I'm curious to hear from twentysomethings in the comments -- what are the foreign policy lessons that you can draw from your upbringing? I'm also curious what lessons twentysomethings in other countries can draw from their own formative experiences.

Being a millenial (I hate that that's our name) and interested in foreign policy, it seems only natural that I comment on this. Indeed, the peaceful nineties were a terrible bait and switch for my generation. We spent a decade of our formative years in peace and prosperity and then--BAM--George Bush.

9/11 was probably the most important event for my interest in foreign policy. Before that day, the most I knew about international conflict was Kosovo and the bombings in that region were so remote that it barely registered. 9/11 was abrupt realization that there's world out of people that were angry and determined to attack the US, the West, what-have-you, and a world of people who are unhappy with the United States, who had needs that they could not meet, who lived in dire circumstances. Then there was the world of people who were doing fine in their stable governments.

Then Iraq became the target. I didn't know much of anything about Iraq except there was a no fly zone and Saddam Hussein was bad. I supported the war at first, relying on liberal sensibilities that going into countries and toppling dictators was a great idea. And as long as Iraq was the first of the nations to be helped, I was on board. Of course, I was proven a fool. Iraq would not only be the only nation on the list of nations to help, but the United States would be really bad a doing it. And that leads me to the first lesson I've learned about American foreign policy.

• Even though foreign intervention might in some circumstances be morally defensible and logically sound, we suck at it.

That's why, as Drezner surmised, I am staunchly anti-interventionist. It doesn't stem from the conservative principle that the internal matters of a state are that state's business, although I do hold to that principle now. It stems from liberal principle that helping the suffering through government action is a good thing. However, in the case of foreign intervention, we can't help anyone. In fact, we often make things worse, because we do not understand the culture, the religion, the politics of the people we are trying to help. We simply cannot know enough to intervene in a helpful manner. This leads to the second lesson.

• Democracy isn't the be-all-end-all of governmental systems.

Is democracy morally superior? Sure. Of course, that depends on how you define democracy. Does dealing with democracies make us sleep better at night and make us feel good about ourselves? Definitely. But it forces us to think in terms that are no conducive to conducting a sane foreign policy. If Iran were a democracy (it's a counter factual question but just roll with it), would we really be as afraid of their nuclear development? If North Korea had a system of regular elections, would we really fret about the nuking of Seattle? If your answer is no, then we have some serious foreign policy problems in terms of conception. The argument is always made that if these dictators were not crazy dictators, then they wouldn't want nuclear weapons. Spare me. Nuclear technology is popular in Iran. What would be better is if we viewed Iran, North Korea, and other states without the liberal ideological lens.

A formative experience that Drezner left out of his list is the total lack of great power war. My generation is not only without the experiences of the first and second World Wars, but we never experienced the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the momentous arms negotiations and treaties--I've only read about them. I suspect this experience, or lack thereof, leads me to a different conclusion than most of my generation, but here's the next lesson.

• Nuclear weapons are good.

Yes, good. The lesson I figure most millenials take is "why do we even need nuclear weapons? Let's work towards dismantling them all." I, on the other hand, look at the peace that has existed between the great powers for more than fifty years and look for a reason. Globalization, or economic interconnectedness, is great explanation, but I find it wanting. Europe was similarly interconnected before the start of World War 1, and yet politics got the better of pocketbooks and the war happened. Nuclear weapons, mutually assured destruction, the belief that attacking another nuclear nation will result in the destruction of one's own nation, these are good things. They make leaders hesitate. And, with the rise of China, I hope that leaders on both sides hesitate before they try to check each other.

Another experience that Drezner did not mention is growing up with technology and the internet. These experience find their foreign policy relevance in cyberwarfare and drone technology. Frankly, cyberwarfare mystifies me. I'm somewhat conversant about hackers and cybersecurity, but by no means an expert. How a nation facing a threat from foreign hackers, either representing a state or not, defends against that threat or even identifies the threat's source is beyond me. Drones, on the other hand, are easier to get one's mind around and lead me to my last foreign policy lesson learned.

• Drones are the future and they're bad.

Drone technology scares me the most of any of the destructive technologies we now possess. Drones represent the dehumanization of warfare. Many cheer this as sparing the lives of soldiers. Well, what about the lives of the people we use those drones on? War will someday be meaningless to us (and you thought it already was). Imagine a conflict in which the United States secretly bombs people without our permission or knowledge. You don't need to imagine that, it's happening right now. The CIA secretly bombs people all the time. Do we really care that they're killing civilians as well as terrorists? No, because there are no boots on the ground. Congress doesn't have to approve it, the President doesn't have make a speech on the major channels, and we don't get to debate it or discuss it.

So, let's review the American foreign policy lessons I have taken from the formative experience of being a millenial:

• Even though foreign intervention might in some circumstances be morally defensible and logically sound, we suck at it.
•  Democracy isn't the be-all-end-all of governmental systems.
•  Nuclear weapons are good.
•  Drones are the future and they're bad.

The rest is just guesswork.