How
To Remain the World's Real Leader
Colonel
Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.)
September
20, 2002
In
Joseph Heller's Catch 22, an old Italian man laughingly
taunts an American: "Rome was destroyed, Greece was destroyed,
Persia was destroyed, Spain was destroyed. All great countries
are destroyed. Why not yours?"
Congress
currently is debating a resolution that would commit the United
States to regime change in Iraq through unilateral military
action if necessary. Undoubtedly, given the vast disparity in
military power between Iraq and the U.S., U.S. armed forces
would prevail in the short-term. But what of the long-term,
to which Heller's question pertains?
Without
question, the U.S. is the pre-eminent military and economic
power in the world. But this fact -- and its continuation --
is not inevitable. That we are so dominant is largely the result
of three accidents of history: an isolated, fertile topography
and temperate climate; our comparatively short history (and
opportunities to exploit natural resources) that coincided with
the explosion of scientific knowledge and technology; and the
economic and military exhaustion of the Old World by wars, genocide,
and famine.
Moreover,
despite the rhetoric of American exceptionalism that has permeated
U.S. politics and letters since John Winthrop's "city on the
hill" image, there is no inherent moral reason for U.S. dominance.
It is circular logic to assert that simply because the U.S.
is dominant now that it somehow deserves to be. Such a conclusion
is as faulty as assuming, as did the early Puritans, that the
well-to-do are somehow morally superior to the less affluent.
Similarly,
much as our politicians might wish, there is no basis to believe
that this dominance, in any of its manifestations, is forever.
That would imply, to borrow Francis Fukuyama's phrase, the "end
of history."
For
example, economically the U.S. champions the free market, but
there is no guarantee that the unfolding of market forces will
always favor U.S. interests. In fact, a real "free market" has
no built-in bias; it tends to seek the lowest input costs (e.g.,
labor and materials) and maximum output (sustainable profit).
Militarily,
the U.S. is technologically more powerful than any other country.
The money and human capital being invested in new weapons that
are seen as changing the nature of war itself will extend this
technological advantage. But technology does not guarantee security.
Witness the events of September 11, 2001, and the continuing
global hunt al Qaeda terror cells and Osama bin Laden.
There
is another reason that U.S. military preponderance is not eternal.
Unlike previous empires that occupied conquered lands, the U.S.
system of "forward deployment" rests on a series of international
alliances under which U.S. forces are guests in foreign lands.
With no serious rivals and only weak opponents, one might well
question the need to continue this web of bases and its associated
costs -- especially when the Pentagon touts its ability to "reach
out and touch anyone" from the U.S. itself. Moreover, military
alliances can be abruptly revoked (as happened in the Philippines
in the early 1990s) with lingering resentments that hinder non-military
relationships. Worse, opposing alliances, informal or formal,
can arise and increase the chances for conflict, a common occurrence
that contributed to the demise of earlier powers. And if such
opposition, which need not be military at first, becomes organized
enough, the U.S. may find its military power and eventually
its world leadership challenged by a "near peer."
What
are some lessons in all this?
First,
don't create opposition where none exists. Needlessly challenging
others rather than working together cooperatively for common
goals is counter-intuitive. Many in the U.S. government today
see China as a future, long-term challenger. Others fear a resurgent
Russia. Still others see the emerging European Union, whose
combined Gross Domestic Product is on a par with the U.S., as
a more likely source of alternative (and therefore competitive)
leadership. Recently, confrontational U.S. policies have been
fueling tensions, especially with the European Union and China,
on a wide range of issues, from Iraq, to arms control, to international
security, to the Kyoto Protocols, to the International Criminal
Court, to agricultural subsidies, to trade. This is a path to
isolation.
Second,
think and act multilaterally first, unilaterally last. While
not all disagreements will be overcome, the demonstration of
serious efforts to work together on most issues will mitigate
lingering resentment on those occasions where the U.S. feels
it must act on its own.
Third,
security for one is an oxymoron. If there were any doubt about
this, one need only reflect on September. 11, 2001, when a group
of extremists climbed up to and attacked what many thought was
the inviolable "city on the hill." As UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan said, "international security is not a zero-sum game....the
more peace, security and freedom any one State has, the more
its neighbors are likely to have."
In
the end, countries that work together to solve global issues
discover mutual trust, develop respect for each other's values,
and can evolve common standards of international law that reflect
shared interests. Thus the agenda of even today's most powerful
country is furthered because national interests are transformed
into global interests that others are willing to defend. Can
there be a more stable approach to continued U.S. leadership
in the future?
Daniel
Smith, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran, is Senior
Fellow on Military Affairs at the Friends Committee on National
Legislation.
Reviewed:
09/06/2005
More
on Iraq
|
