Recently I posted something (above) a bit irresponsible. Trump’s expansionist rhetoric led me to criticize him for putting America into “the crosshairs of every other industrialized nation.” And while I believe it does and that it puts America “first” only in terms of risk, it’s an incomplete and naive point of view. It doesn’t contain an…
Recently I posted something (above) a bit irresponsible. Trump’s expansionist rhetoric led me to criticize him for putting America into “the crosshairs of every other industrialized nation.” And while I believe it does and that it puts America “first” only in terms of risk, it’s an incomplete and naive point of view. It doesn’t contain an alternative in a geopolitical landscape where Russia claims Ukraine as China does Taiwan. The former, of course, happening as we speak in the form of bloody conflict.
My flippancy reveals little more than my general dislike of Donald Trump and my mistrust of his limited intellect as a military strategist in the most complicated foreign policy era in human history. I’m also not discarding my post.
If you were to walk into the Pentagon today and asked “ What’s up, folks?” the answers would be fast and furious.
“The on-going siege of Ukraine by Putin puts the U.S. in a proxy war with Russia. Allowing Putin imperialist expansion comes at too great a risk with NATO alliances but providing support to Ukraine depletes American resources and challenges Tehran and Beijing who form a loose alliance in a mutual disdain for American power.
The Middle East remains explosive and mirrors the same geopolitical risks from Iran, China and Russia, all of whom possess nuclear capabilities. Iran does not have a nuclear arsenal yet but escalation of conflict leading to any opportunity to destroy American expansion and they certainly will.
Taiwan hangs in the balance between sovereignty and a situation similar to Ukraine where a super power claims it as their own. The United States pledges support of Taiwan but has to weigh another proxy war with a massive nuclear army and even though its less than a blood oath with Russia it is still a shared desire to be the world dominating power over the United States.
Oh, and North Korea. Giant army, nuclear capabilities, ballistic missiles and hatred of American imperialism. And, lest we forget, an off-center narcissist at the levers.
American interests include oil, trade revenue, and strategic positioning around the globe. And all are at risk.
Other than that the toilets are down the hall and make sure to stop by our gift shop on your way out.”
Foreign policy and the military strategy to go with it has always been the operating system of America since our founding. Changing from and vacillating between George Washington’s isolationist policy which focused on protecting our independence and avoiding costly wars, to Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations and then FDR’s internationalism.
Avoiding costs as Washington desired has become an annual cost of well over half a trillion dollars and will grow to nearly a trillion by 2030. This is the center of our economic, environmental and quality of life (which includes living in peace) equation.
History (and we have lots of historical data) shows that military victory has never stopped war in the past, and attempting to achieve peace through military victory can lead to more violence. Our national narrative recites that the two great wars led to peace, but clearly in reality they did not. We may not have had a third world war but we are on its precipice and we may be in the throes of a proxy world war that sees a multitude of destabilizing conflicts happening all at once.
There is a technological war on many fronts. Artificial intelligence, automation, advanced drones and hypersonics can make weapons more accurate, destructive, and also more deadly. Technology can’t be contained by tanks or boots on the ground and America stands at increasing risk especially from antagonistic foreign alliances, including smaller powers.
The world is comprised of three superpowers, each with an agenda to be the dominant power in the continuation of the ancient Roman concept of “Peace through strength.” What has happened is that military dominance leads to a redistribution of power and capability, which, in turn, reshapes international relations and leads to more conflict. Or as historian Andrew Bacevich noted: “Belief in the efficacy of military power almost inevitably breeds the temptation to put that power to work. ‘Peace through strength’ easily enough becomes ‘peace through war.'”
Trade agreements, energy contracts, and military and economic alliances always create untenable circumstances and inevitably conflicts of interests.
Therein lies the great paradox of peace-
Treaties, trade, contracts, and alliances are the tools for peace, so how does the United States, or any nation (it’s only logical to assume that no nation wants the world to end) work toward the goal of peaceful co-existence?
The answer may be too idealistic.
To achieve lasting peace, the world needs to use the tools of diplomacy, conflict prevention, mediation, and peacekeeping.
And it is idealistic because the “world” isn’t going to arrive at that same understanding at the same time; there is no back room for us all to join, pass the pipe, binge watch “Succession” and agree to de-escalate. Real answers require a military checkmate scenario. The United States cannot be the third power giving way to Russian or Chinese imperialism.
Our military must have the ethos, the funding and advanced warfare power to deter any invasion to our sovereignty. We also have to be realistic and realize that two other nations (at present) will be in the same pissing contest and escalation will always lead to an imbalanced economy that will not resolve until there is peace.
A conundrum. But…don’t run out of the room for this!…there is….disarmament….
Even President Reagan put into motion a nuclear disarmament treaty. His early opposition to U.S.-Soviet arms control negotiations gave way to his growing concern about the threat of mutual-assured destruction.
I don’t sing Reagan’s economic praises (trickle down theory) or for his social conservatism, but Reagan had overcome the reluctance of his advisers to engage with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev. That partnership, combined with strong public pressure for nuclear restraint, led to some of the most sweeping arms control proposals in history. Only Kennedy’s Nuclear Test Ban Treaty stands on such ground, and both forged the foundation for a possible peace.
Only “possible” because nationalist fervor from all sides has since reshaped that diplomacy with bully-politics (think ANY world leader with nuclear capabilities). Trump stands shoulder to shoulder…well, shoulder to top of head, with Putin and Jong-Un with his jingoist rhetoric.
Only with a reconstituted plan that recognizes that our great deterrent, the use of nuclear arms, is also what escalates and increases the risk of a world destroying war from their deployment, will the tools for peace: conflict prevention, mediation and diplomacy, have any value or effect.
A paradox to be sure, but is there any other way?
(At least we can be in agreement that my use of pot vernacular makes it clear that I don’t smoke)
