U.S. Foreign Policy - Striking a Balance ...
By Eric Shapiro - Draft Column for Skidmore News - February 2012
The economy may be the primary focus in today’s political environment, and with domestic unemployment still unaccetably high and the the European markets on uncertain footing, it is not difficult to see why. However, this does not change the reality that even with the Iraq War winding down, there are still many crucial decisions to be made regarding the future of the U.S. military. In the months leading up to the 2011 presidential election, voters will likely be bombarded with all manner of extreme positions, calling for everything from war with Iran to global military disgengaement. The future of America’s role in the world is ultimately in the hands of its citizens.
The past decade has shown us that government is allowed some leeway in deciding the nation’s short-term military direction. That being said, the subsequent collapse in support for Iraq War in particular and the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” in particular suggests that government can only contradict the will of voters for so long before they pay the political price. Thus, America’s military over the long haul direction will depend on whether its citizens can reconcile the dual demands of shrinking the military while simultaneousl maintaining a credible detterent to rogue actors that pose a very real threat to world security.
After a decade of post-Cold War dithering, 9/11 provided the U.S. with a clear and unambiguous foreign policy direction. The attack seemed to mandate a vigorous and immediate response from the world’s only superpower; hence, the rare displays of bipartisanship from Congress that culminated in the Afghanisitan and Iraq Wars. The next decade of conflict abroad served as a long and painful wakeup call, with the U.S. forced to question its role in the world to an extent not seen since the Vietnam War. By the 2008 elections, the drawbacks of the War on Terror had grown too clear to ignore, and played in major role in the Democrats elecotral coup.
Compounding this sense of war-weariness, The economic crisis called new attention to the spiraling national debt, in part the product of unprecedented military spending on nation-building ventures that yielded little return on their enormous investment. To make matters worse, the very people America had set out to “liberate” often reacted with hostility to what they saw as the meddling of an arrogant foreign power. These disconcerting realities have given rise to a new skepticism in the U.S. regarding what role, if any, the U.S. should play in international affairs.
Alas, this sense of doubt comes at a very dangerous time, with the Middle East in a state of chaos and Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, to name only the most immediate concerns. It seems likely that the prospect of intervention in Iran and/or Syria will put foreign policy back on the political agenda in advance of the 2012 elections. If this is the case, voters will be bombarded with all manner of extreme positions in the coming months, advocating everything from isolationism to a ground war with Iran. The key will be to maintain a balanced approach to foreign policy, one that takes the nation’s dire economic situation into account will also remaining mindful of America’s security commitments abroad.
The latest military budget proposed by the Obama Administration, which would bring troop deployment abroad back to 2005 levels and cut funding from conventional weapon development, aims to do just that. Unsurprisingly, the new military budget has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. Hawks and reflexive Obama-bashers on the right have accused the president of neutering the military and speeding American decline. The Left (and Ron Paul), still bitter that many of the Bush Administration’s controversial counterterrorism policies are still in place, have accused Obama of squandering precious funds on the military that could be better-utilized to stimulate the economy at home. The eventual G.O.P. nominee will almost certainly cite Obama’s proposed military cuts as evidence that the president is leading America into decline.
However, it is important that its citizens[IS1] don’t learn history’s lesson too well and retreat behinds its borders[IS2] . There are myriad[IS3] practical reasons that this would be a bad idea. For one, U.S. economic power is inextricably tied to its military capacities. In this globalized economy, any little thing could set of a major economic chain reaction, and the U.S. is better equipped than any other state to prevent rogue regimes from disrupting the world economy. The perception that the U.S. no longer has the will to defend its interests could embolden hostile states to be more beligerent.
Suppose the Iranian regime decides to block off the Strait of Hormuz, which numerous states in Europe depend on for the shipment of oil. The best way to prevent such things from occurring is with the threat of military force. The U.N. and international institutions have time and time again proven incapable of dealing with rogue states with irrational regimes that flout world opinion. As the major world power, the U.S. is in a unique position to keep these regimes in line. There are also humanitarian benefits to the considered and well-applied application of force in international affairs. The recent intervention in Libya – nominally “led” by European states but dependent on U.S. military and logistical support – comes to mind.
And what of our perpetually imperiled allies? Numerous states (Taiwan, South Korea, Georgia, Israel) that provide valuable strategic and ideological footholds in otherwise unfriendly regions of the world depend on the U.S. for economic and military assistence. [IS4] Send the impression that we are no longer unconditionally devoted to their security and we risk not only damaging our credibility, but putting countless lives at risk. Without the threat of U.S. military retaliation, who can seriously doubt that North Korea would immediately overrun its Southern neighbor and spread its brutal totalitarian regime as far as its enormous military allows? What incentive will competitors like Russia and China have to restrain their territorial ambitions if they get the impression that the U.S. is no longer willing to defend its allies?
None of this is to say that the status quo is acceptable; on the contrary, there are ways for the U.S. to cut back on military expenditures without sacrificing its own and the world’s [IS5] economic and security interests. Long, drawn out wars and “nation building” ventures of the kind undertaken in Iraq are both costly and impractical. They bear a great deal of responsibility for the crippling national debt, and it remains to be seen whether Iraq and Afghanistan will be better of[IS6] in the long run thanks to our efforts.
In addition, the military industrial complex is very real and as devoted as ever to lining the greedy pockets of military contractors by cranking out endless lines of expensive new aircraft and missile defense systems. This is in spite of the fact that many experts are saying that conventional military forces are becoming less relevant (although still essential) in the post-Cold War world.
The key is for the U.S. to strike an appropriate balance that will allow it to maintain its military supremacy while simultaneously cutting back on unnecessary expenditures. It has become increasingly clear over the past few years that the Obama Administration is devoted to this goal;[IS7] Moral implications aside, the use of drones has proven to be an effective and relatively inexpensive way of hunting down and killing our enemies. And it was not an army, but an elite squad of Navy SEALs that took out Bin Laden. It is reasonable to expect that these kinds of small-scale specialized operations will become progressively more effective and hence, more common.
Unfortunately, such methods of warfare are no substitute for conventional forces when it comes to averting calaminity in certain situtions. It would be foolish to assume, for instence, that complete disengagement from the Middle East will convince terrorists and their state sponsors to shake our hands and lay down their arms. Genocides such as those in Rwanda and Bosnia (not to mention the massacre of its very own citizens on 9/11) show why the U.S. cannot afford to forget the essential role its military plays in ensuring world security. Hopefully, it will not take similar tragedies in Syria and other states to awaken U.S. citizens to the reality that there are a great man costs and very few benefits to isolationism.
The economy may be the primary focus in today’s political environment, and with domestic unemployment still unaccetably high and the the European markets on uncertain footing, it is not difficult to see why. However, this does not change the reality that even with the Iraq War winding down, there are still many crucial decisions to be made regarding the future of the U.S. military. In the months leading up to the 2011 presidential election, voters will likely be bombarded with all manner of extreme positions, calling for everything from war with Iran to global military disgengaement. The future of America’s role in the world is ultimately in the hands of its citizens.
The past decade has shown us that government is allowed some leeway in deciding the nation’s short-term military direction. That being said, the subsequent collapse in support for Iraq War in particular and the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” in particular suggests that government can only contradict the will of voters for so long before they pay the political price. Thus, America’s military over the long haul direction will depend on whether its citizens can reconcile the dual demands of shrinking the military while simultaneousl maintaining a credible detterent to rogue actors that pose a very real threat to world security.
After a decade of post-Cold War dithering, 9/11 provided the U.S. with a clear and unambiguous foreign policy direction. The attack seemed to mandate a vigorous and immediate response from the world’s only superpower; hence, the rare displays of bipartisanship from Congress that culminated in the Afghanisitan and Iraq Wars. The next decade of conflict abroad served as a long and painful wakeup call, with the U.S. forced to question its role in the world to an extent not seen since the Vietnam War. By the 2008 elections, the drawbacks of the War on Terror had grown too clear to ignore, and played in major role in the Democrats elecotral coup.
Compounding this sense of war-weariness, The economic crisis called new attention to the spiraling national debt, in part the product of unprecedented military spending on nation-building ventures that yielded little return on their enormous investment. To make matters worse, the very people America had set out to “liberate” often reacted with hostility to what they saw as the meddling of an arrogant foreign power. These disconcerting realities have given rise to a new skepticism in the U.S. regarding what role, if any, the U.S. should play in international affairs.
Alas, this sense of doubt comes at a very dangerous time, with the Middle East in a state of chaos and Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, to name only the most immediate concerns. It seems likely that the prospect of intervention in Iran and/or Syria will put foreign policy back on the political agenda in advance of the 2012 elections. If this is the case, voters will be bombarded with all manner of extreme positions in the coming months, advocating everything from isolationism to a ground war with Iran. The key will be to maintain a balanced approach to foreign policy, one that takes the nation’s dire economic situation into account will also remaining mindful of America’s security commitments abroad.
The latest military budget proposed by the Obama Administration, which would bring troop deployment abroad back to 2005 levels and cut funding from conventional weapon development, aims to do just that. Unsurprisingly, the new military budget has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. Hawks and reflexive Obama-bashers on the right have accused the president of neutering the military and speeding American decline. The Left (and Ron Paul), still bitter that many of the Bush Administration’s controversial counterterrorism policies are still in place, have accused Obama of squandering precious funds on the military that could be better-utilized to stimulate the economy at home. The eventual G.O.P. nominee will almost certainly cite Obama’s proposed military cuts as evidence that the president is leading America into decline.
However, it is important that its citizens[IS1] don’t learn history’s lesson too well and retreat behinds its borders[IS2] . There are myriad[IS3] practical reasons that this would be a bad idea. For one, U.S. economic power is inextricably tied to its military capacities. In this globalized economy, any little thing could set of a major economic chain reaction, and the U.S. is better equipped than any other state to prevent rogue regimes from disrupting the world economy. The perception that the U.S. no longer has the will to defend its interests could embolden hostile states to be more beligerent.
Suppose the Iranian regime decides to block off the Strait of Hormuz, which numerous states in Europe depend on for the shipment of oil. The best way to prevent such things from occurring is with the threat of military force. The U.N. and international institutions have time and time again proven incapable of dealing with rogue states with irrational regimes that flout world opinion. As the major world power, the U.S. is in a unique position to keep these regimes in line. There are also humanitarian benefits to the considered and well-applied application of force in international affairs. The recent intervention in Libya – nominally “led” by European states but dependent on U.S. military and logistical support – comes to mind.
And what of our perpetually imperiled allies? Numerous states (Taiwan, South Korea, Georgia, Israel) that provide valuable strategic and ideological footholds in otherwise unfriendly regions of the world depend on the U.S. for economic and military assistence. [IS4] Send the impression that we are no longer unconditionally devoted to their security and we risk not only damaging our credibility, but putting countless lives at risk. Without the threat of U.S. military retaliation, who can seriously doubt that North Korea would immediately overrun its Southern neighbor and spread its brutal totalitarian regime as far as its enormous military allows? What incentive will competitors like Russia and China have to restrain their territorial ambitions if they get the impression that the U.S. is no longer willing to defend its allies?
None of this is to say that the status quo is acceptable; on the contrary, there are ways for the U.S. to cut back on military expenditures without sacrificing its own and the world’s [IS5] economic and security interests. Long, drawn out wars and “nation building” ventures of the kind undertaken in Iraq are both costly and impractical. They bear a great deal of responsibility for the crippling national debt, and it remains to be seen whether Iraq and Afghanistan will be better of[IS6] in the long run thanks to our efforts.
In addition, the military industrial complex is very real and as devoted as ever to lining the greedy pockets of military contractors by cranking out endless lines of expensive new aircraft and missile defense systems. This is in spite of the fact that many experts are saying that conventional military forces are becoming less relevant (although still essential) in the post-Cold War world.
The key is for the U.S. to strike an appropriate balance that will allow it to maintain its military supremacy while simultaneously cutting back on unnecessary expenditures. It has become increasingly clear over the past few years that the Obama Administration is devoted to this goal;[IS7] Moral implications aside, the use of drones has proven to be an effective and relatively inexpensive way of hunting down and killing our enemies. And it was not an army, but an elite squad of Navy SEALs that took out Bin Laden. It is reasonable to expect that these kinds of small-scale specialized operations will become progressively more effective and hence, more common.
Unfortunately, such methods of warfare are no substitute for conventional forces when it comes to averting calaminity in certain situtions. It would be foolish to assume, for instence, that complete disengagement from the Middle East will convince terrorists and their state sponsors to shake our hands and lay down their arms. Genocides such as those in Rwanda and Bosnia (not to mention the massacre of its very own citizens on 9/11) show why the U.S. cannot afford to forget the essential role its military plays in ensuring world security. Hopefully, it will not take similar tragedies in Syria and other states to awaken U.S. citizens to the reality that there are a great man costs and very few benefits to isolationism.