Consistent Foreign Policy

America’s foreign policy has been confusing to parties abroad as well as our fellow citizens here in Florida. There are no clear standards by which we judge what we are doing overseas, why, and what we intend to achieve.

America has reached the point where it needs a new foreign policy doctrine that is easy to understand, simple to comply with, and clear to communicate. I believe that U.S. foreign policy needs a new doctrine to be more impactful and able to address challenges posed by problematic regimes around the world unambiguously. The doctrine I advocate is called the Three Trinity doctrine.

The objective of the Three Trinity Doctrine doctrine is neither aggressive, unilateral, reactive, or overtly interventional. It is proactive and does not reward appeasement. This doctrine is determined, mission-driven, and designed to protect the interests of the United States, its citizens, and its allies at the point of challenge.

I propose three distinct levels of engagement that are based on the three specific broad threat levels that exist as determined by U.S. foreign policy experts.

These are what I will call level-one threats.

• A direct threat exists where a “clear and present danger” to the United States of America has been identified.

• An allied threat exists where one of America’s formal allies’ interests are measurably in jeopardy.

• A case threat exists when a nation’s state interests are challenged in a manner that the United States believes will be detrimental to its interests in the long term.

Level two threats exist where specific regional or nation-state foreign policy challenges must be addressed as expeditiously as possible from the United States perspective.

Examples of level two threats:

• Radical Islamic extremists in the Middle East and North Africa have made progress in capturing territory in Syria and Iraq, not to mention the continued threat posed by Al-Qaeda and ISIL.

• Russia and its expansionist tendencies in Ukraine and elsewhere.

• China and its push for economic dominance and opposition to multilateral peacekeeping initiatives.

And then, there are level three threats. These require programmatic responses that the United States and its allies have available to promote through targeted change through foreign policy initiatives.

• The first is a military response that might reinforce right when economic and diplomatic measures have failed or are deemed failing.

• Then, there is an economic response, where sanctions, restrictions, and other financial tools can foster greater collaboration and cooperation from challenging regimes.

• Finally, there is a diplomatic response in which United States foreign policy officers believe that negotiation can accomplish desired outcomes or that progress is being made in that direction where disagreement or competing objectives exist.

This is a much better way to manage the world from a U.S. and Florida perspective, in my opinion.