To avoid the expense and time of leading the Western alliance, lately we've become taken with the idea of "leading from behind." That is, we'll direct the actions while our allies take the lead in fighting the action. Nice work if you can get it, as the expression goes.
Indeed, we spent much of the Cold War and post-Cold War begging our allies in NATO to build up their defense capabilities. Our government once seemed to hope that the Libya
So you'd think that Japan's decision to reverse a decade of defense spending decline and actually seek the capabilities to defend themselves would be welcome. We are pivoting to the Pacific and not away from the Persian Gulf, right? So help in the Pacific should be welcome, right?
But no. Sure, the usual suspect is all upset. But I've read that even our government is worried. Why? Because with increased military capabilities, Japan might start an armed confrontation that it cannot now, and drag us into a war with China.
Welcome to the flip side of "leading from behind."
When we want allies who can fight without us taking the lead--wait for it--we get allies who can fight without us in the lead.
So they might fight in Vietnam. Or invade Egypt.
If we're unwilling to have allies capable of fighting in their own interests, and we're unwilling to pay for our own defense capabilities that could convince our allies that they only need military capacity that complements our capabilities, what's left?
Will we wish for our foes and enemies to simply stop being threats? Or just pretend they aren't threats?
God help me, but I think I just wrote the 2016 Democratic presidential foreign policy.
