Wielding A Big Stick

War, as has been said before, is hell. It is that realization that prevents most sane leaders from engaging in war activities unless they have been left no other option. But when war does become unavoidable, it is the duty of every leader to make sure that war is as short as possible, as precise as practical, and as forthright as it can be. The people in leadership positions must be made to realize that war is not an opportunity to reward their contributors with lucrative contracts, nor is war a game played on a playground. War is brutal. People die. Cities get destroyed. Nations get ravaged.

American’s understand that the use of military power is an awesome choice to make. As such, the public hesitates to get behind any military action that is not necessary for the defense of the homeland. Unfortunately, the politicians recognize this reluctance all too well, and, along with their corporate conglomerate contributors, connect all military actions to our own national security and paint a picture of imminent doom without the use of force. Sadly, most of the time, these representations are not accurate. Occasionally, these representations are downright dishonest.

American’s can discern the difference between a war for security, a war for freedom, and a war for profit. We will all fight to protect ourselves. Many will fight for the freedom of others. Few will fight merely for profit. History will show us that the wars America has fought to preserve her own freedom have been more successful than the wars that we’ve fought to supposedly assist others in gaining theirs. World War II, and to a lesser degree, World War I were successful for the U.S. because American’s understood that their very way of life was in danger if they failed to act. America was in full support of those efforts, and the policies of the government and the actions of the people expressed that support. Korea, Vietnam, and many of the other skirmishes from the 60’s to the 90’s were unsuccessful (or at best, less successful) because the American public was not in direct danger, the administrations of the time could not realistically defend their positions to the public, and the public did not rally around their stated cause.

There is little dispute that the United States has the most comprehensive and powerful military in the world. We have the capability to deploy our forces anywhere in the world pretty quickly and we have the might to destroy almost any enemy on the battlefield. We also have an arsenal that guarantees destruction to any organized country that would try to attack us. Our technology is incredibly sophisticated, so much so that other nations are clamoring to get some of it for themselves. And our troops are educated both in running that technology effectively and winning military victories. In short, we carry a very big stick and everybody knows it.

Because we carry such a big stick, we rely on the benefits of that power to further our national security policies. American military policy is an offensive policy, and has been since the end of World War II. In recognizing that our security at home depended on a stable geopolitical atmosphere, the United States placed our military forces in strategic locations across the globe to rebuff any nation from becoming too aggressive and developed terrible weapons to ensure devastation to anyone who would consider attacking the homeland. That America has gone 60 years without being attacked by a foreign aggressor nation is a testament to that policy, and if it had stopped there, we might have been okay. Instead, through the years, successive administrations of both political parties have squandered the reputation of the Benevolent American Military and have given it the reputation of Imperialist American Military. Rather than just sticking to the mission of promoting peace through strength and preventing discord through presence, our leaders also embarked on a course of active intervention to achieve their goals.

The decision of when to use military force can be a complicated issue. Without question, any attack on our homeland can be retaliated against with our military. In this one instance, the choice is pretty clear. We get attacked, we find who attacked us and we attack them back. This is a basic “law of the jungle” situation that is pretty much accepted by most people. The goal of this kind of action may be simple retaliation, or it may go much deeper to include the destruction of an aggressive government to prevent future attacks. Once we move beyond this kind of situation though, the use of the military to achieve foreign relations or national security objectives becomes a bit trickier. Do we attack a country because we just don’t like their government? Do we attack a country because we want easier access to their resources? Do we attack a country in order to establish a democracy for their people? Who we attack, when we attack, and how we attack are vital questions for any military action. Perhaps most vital though, is why we attack.

The U.S. military machine is a formidable part of our national security apparatus. However, it is imperative that we adhere to some set of standard operating procedure whenever we call out the fighting forces. Because we carry the biggest stick, we are always going to be scrutinized and judged when we wield our might. Different people, depending upon which side of the stick the see, will interpret our conduct on the battlefield in different ways, and for that reason, we must be extra cautious in our objectives and our planning. We must have clearly defined reasons for using our power, we must have clearly defined goals for our forces, and we must have clearly established plans for ending any conflict. We must be prepared to be decisive and use all of our means to achieve a quick, clear victory to reduce the costs (both human and financial) of war, and we must attempt to avoid the devastation of civilian infrastructure to reduce the costs of reconstruction. Without these elements, any military action taken by the U.S. will always create argument in the world body and at home.

Our government must also learn to recognize the difference between fighting a war for our own protection and fighting a war on behalf of others. Fighting to support the freedom of others requires a different mindset than fighting a war of self-preservation. I’m not talking so much about the mechanics of the war, but rather the attitudes of the warriors. If we send our military to support a popular uprising against a brutal government, or even if we initiate the uprising for some reason, we must recognize our place as secondary in the conflict, and not demand to drive the battles towards our own goals. We must recognize that other cultures may strive to get out from under the thumbs of despots, but need only our military might to support them. If we decide to help them, we should be upfront regarding what we expect in return for our assistance, namely the establishment of a more secure and democratic government. But we must also remember that any resolution resulting in a freer society leaves us victorious and safer anyhow. Sometimes, it is enough to just be the tool of freedom that another wields, for in the end, we gain an ally and lose a foe in one fell swoop.

Foreign Relations Roulette

The average American citizen has little or no interest in foreign affairs. Aside from what they read in the newspaper or see on TV, the comings and goings of other countries and their governments go unnoticed in the lives of most of us. And why not? After all, the federal government handles all of our international relations, as prescribed by the Constitution. Unless America gets attacked (again) or our economy starts to tank, we assume that the government is presenting and protecting America’s interests abroad. We’ve been brought up to believe that as the worlds leader of democracy, other nations will bend to our will and seek to emulate us because we are righteous and pure in our desire to spread freedom.

But what we are told and what really happens are often two different things. A brief look at this nations foreign policy illustrates a constantly changing attitude regarding the proper role of America among the world’s countries. Running the gamut from isolationism to pro-active aggression, American foreign policy has had as many facelifts as an aging beauty queen. In some aspects, this is probably as it should be, especially when comparing the goals of a fledgling country to that of a world superpower. But at the heart of American foreign policy has always been the belief that America’s interests were best reflected and represented by the promotion of personal freedom, democratic government, and economic growth.

The trick then becomes how to promote those ideals around the world. America has experimented with many ways to achieve these means, from the Monroe Doctrine and its protectionist attitude towards the western hemisphere to Teddy Roosevelt’s policy of direct intervention as a regional policeman to Wilson’s 14 Points of Light which led eventually to the United Nations. Each of these, and many other policies, sought to impress American ideals onto other cultures for our benefit, without looking at the cost or benefit for the nations we purported to help. In many cases, our might became our right, and once our objectives were achieved, we either picked up and went home or sucked the land and the people dry. In either case, our stated ideals of promoting personal freedom, democratic government, and economic growth fell short of the mark and the people took notice.

World War II solidified America’s place in the world order and our foreign policies reflected our newfound status. Having saved the world from the Nazi’s and the Japanese, we figured that the world owed us and it was time to get our due. Sure, we would still advance our concept of freedom in our rhetoric, but from a practical standpoint, it was time for the world to pay up or be put out. Communist expansion allowed for a new common threat to freedom, and in our fight to stem its tide, we began to apply new methods to our foreign policy. Adopting a “containment” theory allowed the U.S. to install military bases around the world, and our “roll-back” actions provided support for any would-be government that opposed the code of communism, regardless of their commitment to the ideals of freedom.

Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have stood up to the Soviet Union and it’s perverted adaptation of a communistic idea. Communism, as it has been practiced, is the exact opposite of our system of government and our core of ideals. But our single-minded goal of stopping Communist expansion blinded us to all other aspects of what a good foreign relations policy should entail. And instead of making real friends in the world community, we ended up creating relationships that were based on the weakest of bonds and the basest of values. We adopted the theory of “the lesser of two evils” and so turned a blind eye to what our “allies” were doing at home while we publicly denounced these same actions by the “enemy.” This hypocrisy was not lost on the citizens of the world and has led us to the point where we are today.

So then how do we go forward from the mess we are in? As the worlds last remaining military superpower, we have the might to force our way on many issues. But this attitude only further increases enmity from the people we would hope to embrace. America is not always looked at as a bringer of hope. To many, we are viewed as a pillager of prosperity and a culture of greed. If we ever hope to increase our security through the promotion of freedom, we have to find ways to advance these ideals through means beyond the bomb. We can’t continue to do one thing while saying the other and we have to recognize that to have good friends, one needs to be a good friend.

To begin with, we should have a real heart to heart talk with our “allies.” We need to make clear, in no uncertain terms, that our goal is to help create a world that guarantees people the rights of freedom, the rights to have a representative government of their making, and a chance at prosperity as they define it. We, along with our other allies, should offer them all the technical, practical, educational, and financial assistance to help bring them up to developed standards. We should listen to their methods and ideas regarding “social growth” and incorporate them when practical. We need to be willing to share life-changing advances with other governments and ensure that they use this knowledge for their people. In exchange, we need to make clear what we expect from them in return: a quick transition towards a stable, elected representative government that provides for its people’s needs as defined by the people and an atmosphere of personal freedom and responsibility. And then, perhaps most importantly, we must lead by example. We must show our sincerity by including these countries and their people in the changes rather than just throwing money to American companies with a mandate to “fix the place.” We must clean up our act here at home and we must embrace actions that show the world that we are committed to world peace above capitalist profit.

By changing the way we deal with our friends, our foes would have less political ammunition to use against us and their people would see the advantages of being our friend had actual results. And instead of creating temporary alliances for only our benefit, we would forge friendships that improved the lives of our fellow man and increased our own security by reducing the economic disparities that breed resentment.

Our world today is unstable and our military will still play a great role in foreign relations for some time. But military actions should be options of last resort. Diplomacy with a willingness to give, honoring our agreements, and demanding that our allies honor theirs should always get the first crack. But strength has its place too, and my next essay will talk about that. As with any relationship, consistency is the key. I know not every nation has raw materials we need or sits at an advantageous geographical position for us, but in creating world stability, these things should not be the primary litmus test for determining whom we reach out to. Our ideals of personal freedom are not conditional for us; they belong to all people of the world. This is what we believe. This is what we profess. This is what we should offer. The question to ask isn’t “Why should we?” The question is, “Why aren’t we?”