Peace through Strength

Peace through Strength

© 2014 Rick Adamson

By Rick Adamson 8.16.14

I would like to believe, as the current Administration does, that the World would be better off if we would simply shrink our foot print on the World (relinquish our Superpower status) and not interfere in matters that do not directly affect our domestic tranquility, such as it is, and that we cause more harm than good by interfering and trying to influence matters around the World; that we can make friends of enemies who hate us by being nice and publicly apologizing for actions taken many years ago.  

However, I have come to believe that this simply is not the case.

I believe that when the U.S.A. withdraws its presence/influence in an area, a vacuum is created and the bad guys quickly fill that void. Think of Iraq today, Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine today. Look out, Afghanistan may be next!  The bad guys seem to stay at bay when we are strong economically and militarily.  

Even our southern border is being attacked by the drug terrorists who perceive us as weak at the moment.  I know, we are all hearing about the children and that has to be dealt with, but the ones perpetuating the rumors, that these kids can stay if they only can get here, are the cartels. Drawing our attention to the kids allows these bad guys to smuggle more dope and other terrorists. 

It seems that the world is filled with all kinds of bad characters just waiting for the opportunity to cause havoc and abuse other human beings and that a strong U.S.A. keeps them from acting on their impulses.

As September 11, 2001 demonstrated, many non-state actors are hostile to peace and security. The world needs a powerful leader to unify the global effort against terrorism and provide better security for all people.

I do not advocate putting boots on the ground in most instances. In fact, some of the most troubling problems in recent history have been solved without boots, e.g., the Cuban missile crisis and the implosion of the Soviet Union.

The world needs a peacekeeper, it has always had one and it seems that it always will. Although the U.S.A. has made mistakes in foreign policy matters we are benevolent in nature and not colonistic conquerors. 

The world is also far safer (during the first half of the twentieth century, when having a number of strong military powers, e.g. Germany, Britain, France, Japan, Russia, resulted in two world wars and many smaller conflicts). History shows that the world is much better off dominated by a single democracy.

If you believe, or even suspect, that a superpower is required to keep peace in the world would you rather have it be Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China or the U.S.A?

What about the many Countries who rely on our strength and promises of support such as the NATO countries, South American countries, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and many others. Yes, it is a burden but without such a stabilizing force these Countries would be forced into less desirable alliances or to militarize their Countries. Either or both of these choices would produce less stability in the World.

What do you think Europe, South Korea, Hong Kong, Cuba, and the list goes on, would look like today were it not for the U.S.A.  In short, they would look like Iraq or worse. Can you imagine what the U.S.A. would be like if we had not stepped up to the table in WWI and WWII and saved the world from tyrants?

I believe in what has become an old saying first spoken by Theodore Roosevelt “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far”. From a business perspective this is sometimes referred to as having an 'executive presence' which means being nice and friendly but avoiding being pulled down into the 'drama' of the moment; always prepared to take swift decisive action if required. This is someone you don't want to screw around with.

When, and if, it is determined that we must go to war we should keep the politics out of it, presumably diplomacy had been tried and failed, and we should severely, mercilessly and summarily, I mean overwhelmingly, kick the enemies butt.  The idea is that if we have determined that the effort is worth risking one American life (because there is simply no other option) then just get it DONE.  We should not risk one American life for the sake of politics. Furthermore, our military personnel are not nation builders; leave that to the United Nations (UN) or some other organization.

Using my approach, all of our wars and conflicts since WWII would have been handled a little differently. We should limit our activities to matters of vital interest to the U.S.A. with consideration to views of the other parties involved. We should use more diplomacy/coercion to get things done.  For example, events in North Korea are far more significant to China and Russia than they are to the U.S.  We should pressure those Nations to handle such situations so that we do not have to take the lead role.

Consider the five major conflicts in which we have involved ourselves since WWII: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I , Afghanistan and Iraq II.

According to James Baker, former Secretary of State, the only one that has worked out according to plan (objectives) was Iraq I.  This is because our objectives for Iraq I were accomplished (the liberation of Kuwait) and we then came home. Mr. Baker said that the Bush I administration was criticized at the time for not taking out Saddam Hussein to which he stated “the administration did not overturn Hussein during Iraq I because it feared a quagmire (like we now have in Iraq) would result”.

The other conflicts have been or are about to be failures (in terms of our objectives) due to politics, mission creep and lack of follow through.

Politics entered into all of the conflicts in terms of restricting our forces from winning (at all cost) and restrictive rules of engagement. For example, in Afghanistan our solders are not allowed to fire upon an unarmed enemy even after the solder saw that enemy fire at him and then drop his weapon.  The enemy is allowed to walk off as if he had committed no aggression.  Bull.  I would shoot the low life and, in all likelihood be prosecuted.

Mission creep resulted in vast expansion in all but Iraq I war.  Mission creep results from the lack of clear objectives at the outset and politics.  For example, in Viet Nam, we were initially only to be “advisors” but that escalated into a full scale war and continues to be an example for military and policy makers committed to avoiding future foreign military "quagmires." The strategy of "incremental escalation" emerged as the military's black beast (or not to do).

The lack of follow through resulted in the current mess in Iraq. We won the war but left the country in the hands of incompetents and sectarian bigots (the Nouri al-Maliki government-Shia) who (with the help of Iran-Shia) totally screwed up their chance to govern their own country.  President George W. Bush once called Mr. Maliki a son-of-a-bitch but said that we had to deal with him. We should have left a force there in order to protect out investment (4,500 lives, many more wounded and trillions of dollars) and to help influence the government to represent all of its citizens (most of which are Sunni).

So between Maliki’s incompetence and Obama’s total withdrawal from Iraq and failure to arm Syrian moderates years ago (which we are now doing) we have ISIL (IS or ISIS or whatever you want to call them).

We need to learn that when we commit our troops to a conflict we should have very clear objectives and we should accomplish those objectives (at all cost-simply put this means kick ass big time) and come home.  If we allow mission creep and politics to expand our goals we OWN the conflict which means we must protect our investment by committing forces for an extended period of time.  

I recommend the Iraq I (the first one) approach for future conflicts.  Establish clear objectives and using overwhelming force accomplish those objectives and come home.  If we would do this our enemies would be reluctant to cause problems that might involve the U.S. because they would know that we would kick their ass in a very serious way and that they have no chance of succeeding, i.e., they would die!

For more discussion of our conflicts see this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/force/

Our vital interests should be chosen very carefully. In my view, they would probably not have included Iraq (under Saddam Hussein), Libya, Egypt or any other place that does not represent an imminent threat to the homeland.  We should aid and assist our allies but they should have to carry their load.

Although we should promote democratic ideals we should not go to war in promotion thereof. Consider this:

We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

What we should not do is impose our will and values on Countries who have not developed to the point we have or which simply have a different take on things.  Take for example, the current war between Gaza and Israel.  The Egyptians put forth a plan to stop the fighting about a week after it started.  That plan was supported by most members of the Arab League and Israel. Rather than back that agreement John Kerry preceded to Paris in order to negotiate with Hamas for an agreement which was far more to the liking of Hamas.  Of course, that agreement fell apart but not before Kerry outraged the Arab League members and Israel.  We should not assume that we have all of the answers.

See Charles Krauthammer’s article: Clueless in Gaza: Kerry has legitimized Hamas' criminality

And a related article: Netanyahu to Kerry: Seriously, Stop Second Guessing Me on Hamas

Such activities are why people do not like us and do not trust us.

And we should not get in bed with tyrants like Russia.  We have backed ourselves into a corner with respect to our space program by partnering with Russia.  We now have no way to go to the international space station, which we paid for, except through Russia. Additionally, no other country builds engines for the rockets needed to go into space. How stupid is that?

I have asked myself why we should take on this peacekeeper role.  Why?  Well, I think the answer is that if we don’t someone else will!  Is that what we want? 

Keep in mind that we receive many benefits for providing this role:

1. We have the World reserve currency  (the entire World uses the U.S. dollar)
2. We have the largest economy in the World
3. We have one of the most prosperous populations in the World
4. The world is also far safer, history shows that the world is much better off dominated by a single democracy.
5. The existence of a single democratic superpower promotes the spread of democracy and stability which allows us to prosper
6. America is not perfect, but it still acts as a powerful role model for other states, encouraging the spread of democratic values and individual freedoms, and promoting the most effective system of wealth creation that has yet been found.

Such a role is not without costs. American willingness to guarantee collective security has allowed many western nations to neglect their own defense (and spend their money on social experiments), allowing themselves to believe that their superpower ally will pay the economic and human costs of security on their behalf.  Those Countries should be pressured to step up and bear their fair share or subject themselves to reduced U.S. assistance.

Our most significant threat at this time is based on potential religious wars.  Our opponents who hate us and want to destroy us based on religious grounds are very willing to die for their cause and, therefore, represent formidably enemies.

Conflicts over land and other processions can, in many cases, be resolved diplomatically, but not religious wars. Our most serious enemy at the present time is radical Islamist jihadists such as Iran, Al-Qaeda‎ and its affiliates and the up-in-coming ISIS group (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

To better understand how they think see this Megyn Kelly’s interview of the son of the co-founder of Hamas: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-kelly-file/index.html#/v/3708958549001

These folks do not understand anything but power and force.  Nothing will deter them except a strong forceful opponent. No Country in the World can provide that except the U.S.A with the help of its allies.

Another current threat is Russia. Many governments in the World remind me of what we think of in our Country as mafia.  Their leaders get a cut of everything that happens in their Country.  For example, Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin’s net worth is estimated to be $70 Billion. ([1])  For a man that has never worked for anyone except the Government of Russia I’d say he has done pretty well.  He obviously gets a cut of every dollar Russia produces.  He is a tyrant and an evil man.

Putin is on the loose and he would like nothing more than to reestablish the U.S.S.R as a world power. However, we often overestimate Russia.  Russia has a gross national product that is about equal to our State of California which means that Russia has only a fraction of the economic power of the U.S.A. So there are limits to what Russia can do in the World although Putin is an aggravation.

Some have argued that Putin is feeling his oats because the U.S.A. is reducing its footprint (influence) in the world and reducing the size of our military.  However, if we maintain a strong economy and military, Russia will be helpless to create much more havoc.

On the other hand, there are reports of something called Putinism that is developing in certain parts of the world. See Fareed Zakaria’s article on the subject The rise of Putinism.  Again, if we maintain a strong economy and military, that movement will go no where.

See this article http://www.epictimes.com/2014/07/the-peace-through-strength-doctrine-of-jfk-and-reagan-could-solve-todays-problems/

GOD Bless America

---

[1] http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/vladimir-putin-net-worth/