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.
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:
- We
have the World reserve currency
(the entire World uses the U.S. dollar)
- We
have the largest economy in the World
- We
have one of the most prosperous populations in the World
- The
world is also far safer, history shows that the world is much better off dominated by a
single democracy.
- The
existence of a single democratic superpower promotes the spread of
democracy and stability which allows us
to prosper
- 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).
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. () 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.
GOD Bless America
