Back to School on Foreign Policy, Part 3

Further to Professor Yoo and US Foreign Policy.

Editor’s note: Herewith our third installment of this week’s beatdown on John Yoo over foreign policy. (Part 1 here; part 2 here.) Here Michael Deis, a previous contributor to this series, invokes a name that for Claremonsters is just as legendary as Angelo Codevilla—the late Patrick J. Garrity. Both Angelo and Pat were proteges of Harold Rood to some extent.

Professor Yoo (you know the mudslinging has begun when the disputants start using “professor”) promises a response, but these three devastating punches may leave him flattened on the mat.

—Steve

By Michael J. Deis, Ph.D

Professor Yoo suggested that I am among the "reinforcements" enlisted by Steve to support the argument for a foreign policy drawn on “Straussian themes.” While it is an honor to be associated with the Straussian tradition, I cannot claim that heritage. Not all Claremont graduates pursued the Straussian path; some of us studied under Dr. Rood, who offered a different perspective.

The great Harold Rood

The late Patrick J. Garrity, also of Claremont Graduate School, would have been best equipped to explain the views of Harold W. Rood on foreign policy and how they diverged from a Straussian perspective. He also understood Adams profoundly, as demonstrated by his work editing United and Independent: John Quincy Adams on American Foreign Policy with Ben Judge and authoring In Search of Monsters to Destroy? American Foreign Policy, Revolution, and Regime Change 1776-1900.

Sadly, he is not present to aid us. Instead, we must look to You Run the Show or the Show Runs You: Capturing Professor Harold W. Rood’s Strategic Thought for a New Generation which Garrity coauthored with J. D. Crouch. The authors introduce Rood’s method as follows:

Rood’s approach was distinguished by his focus on what he regarded as the most immutable aspects of international politics: human nature, the impact of geography and physical constraints, the “constitutional arrangements” through which men seek to control and govern their environment, and the inner logic of historical themes … in the sphere of politics.

Crouch and Garrity concluded:

Professor Rood was not a theorist of international relations in the classical sense. Yet in his teaching of strategy he postulated a number of basic principles related to how politics work and how they operate in the international sphere.

My previous submission is grounded in these enduring principles, rather than a specific theory of international relations or grand strategy. In this, I would contend that I differ from Professors Hayward and Arkes, who have eloquently stated their own views and those of Angelo Codevilla regarding the nature of the American regime and its significance to US foreign policy.

My analysis flowed from the theorem that presidents act from necessity and only rarely from preference and Rood’s perspective that “the strategic object in ‘peacetime,’ is to preserve and enhance one’s strategic freedom of action.” Professor Yoo provides a discerning description of the post-World War II security framework and its success with which, in its broad outlines, I concur.

NATO's first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, famously articulated the alliance's purpose as "keeping the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." This raises the question of whether NATO continues to enhance the United States' strategic flexibility. Alternatively, could a rejuvenated European defense community capable of standing against a diminished Russia offer the United States greater latitude in pursuing its strategic objectives?

The successful framework established at the Congress of Vienna stood for only 100 years, from 1815 to 1914. What prompts us to think that the security arrangements established post-World War II will forever endure? Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the President to recognize changes in the global correlation of forces and align the evolving security system with America's abiding interests. It is my contention that the Trump administration is attempting to address this foreign policy challenge.

Mr. Deis is a former Olin Public Affairs Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.