SWJ Small Wars Survey 2012
This one is up on the frontpage, but have at it down here in the trenches boys:D.
1. Great powers (and the US is certainly one) tend to privilege stability or order over justice or just relations. To maintain order and stability the US has supported dictators and regimes that if we had privileged justice we would not have supported. We know the argument that one does what is possible. But justice deferred becomes a festering sore and source of instability eventually. So rather than having to choose between inappropriately interfering in the life of another country or being isolationist and concentrating only on ourselves, how do we creatively engage the larger world so as to increase justice?
2. What can the United States actually do to restore order to the world without having to engage in either global policing or nation-building?
3. Are their gaps and disconnects between what the United States says and what it does, how it wants to be perceived, and how it is perceived?
4. What should be the United States military role in foreign policy?
5. Outside of the United States mlitary, what other institutions MUST be fixed in order for the United States foreign policy to be successful?
6. What reforms are needed within the United States military?
Probably repeating things said by others, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeF
1. Great powers (and the US is certainly one) tend to privilege stability or order over justice or just relations. To maintain order and stability the US has supported dictators and regimes that if we had privileged justice we would not have supported. We know the argument that one does what is possible. But justice deferred becomes a festering sore and source of instability eventually. So rather than having to choose between inappropriately interfering in the life of another country or being isolationist and concentrating only on ourselves, how do we creatively engage the larger world so as to increase justice?
I think it's a mistake to assume, as we often do, that order and stability are the same thing. A stable social system often has to allow for a certain amount oi disorder, with citizens allowed open dissent and the opportunity to press for change. Order may cover up dangerous pent-up tensions. Where these tensions have been pent up for extended periods, for example when a long-term dictatorship falls, a period of disorder may be necessary to vent that tension and restore a viable equilibrium. Trying to restore order too quickly may actually endanger long-term stability.
I'm not sure that increasing or defining "justice" anywhere outside our borders is something we should try to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeF
2. What can the United States actually do to restore order to the world without having to engage in either global policing or nation-building?
How do we restore order to a world that has never been orderly? Again, order isn't necessarily desirable in all environments. We might better ask how necessary change and disorder can be managed to minimize and contain harmful effects. This is not something we should be trying to do ourselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeF
3. Are their gaps and disconnects between what the United States says and what it does, how it wants to be perceived, and how it is perceived?
Yes. Big gaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeF
4. What should be the United States military role in foreign policy?
Among others... when no actual conflict exists, to provide honest and straightforward counsel to policymakers on what military force can and cannot reasonably be expected to accomplish accomplish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeF
5. Outside of the United States mlitary, what other institutions MUST be fixed in order for the United States foreign policy to be successful?
It's tempting to say DoS, and certainly changes there are needed... but ultimately DoS is an implementer of policy, not a maker of policy, and what most needs fixing is the process of selecting and defining policy objectives, which takes place at the executive and legislative levels. Screw that up and everything else goes wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeF
6. What reforms are needed within the United States military?
I'm not in a position to comment on that.
Cross posted from the Blog with some modifications - and one addition.
Quote:
"1. ...how do we creatively engage the larger world so as to increase justice?"
That's a dangerous and leading question. How do we American xenophobes, insulated as we are, determine or even have the right to talk about increasing justice? Moot question. Our political system will provide answers (multiple) that not every one will like...US domestic political concerns rule and the players change constantly. That is by design and it generally works acceptably if not well for us. It almost never works well for the others in the world.
...
'Justice' elsewhere as envisioned by the question posed depends thus totally on US domestic politics and there will be no constantcy. All things considered, our mixed record on this score will continue and we will probably continue to do a bit more good than harm -- hopefully recalling that when we decide to do harm, we often get carried away. We just need to develop a bit of restraint...
Quote:
"2. What can the United States actually do to restore order to the world without having to engage in either global policing or nation-building?"
Aside from the raw arrogance of the question, from the fact that it is NOT our job to 'restore' such order -- I question that it has ever existed... -- and from the naivete disclosed by the question, it serves as an exemplar of why the answer to question 1 and particularly to question 3 are resigned chuckles. Unfortunately, that naivete is shared by far too many in the domestic political arena and in the Foreign Policy establishment -- not to mention the Armed Forces. That naivete combined with overlarge egos and arrogance in those establishments are the factors that drive us to inconsistency in many things, to dumb interventions we did not need to undertake and fuel resistance to changes in the budgeting system which cause us to stay off balance much of the time.
Who defines "order?" What are the parameters; what happens if it is achieved to the satisfaction of 'A' then 'B' dies and the system tilts to unstable...
A better question is 'What can the United States actually do to adapt to and mesh with the world without engaging in either global policing or nation-building?'
We can best adapt to the world if we get ourselves squared away -- for a variety of reasons, we need some changes in a good many respects and areas of endeavor. We can improve our capabilities and our image if we do that. We are perceived as hypocritical because we advocate sweetness and light and yet launch assaults here and there. We can do better. we can stop trying -- and trying is appropriate -- we do not do nation building or global policing, we do selective things along those lines that suit us and those not well...
We are big, we are powerful and we are truly our own worst enemy.Those are two things we do not do at all well, do not need to do and with which we continue to play even though both are proven inimical to our interests almost always. Again, that naivete and the budget process are along with egos the culprits.
Quote:
"3. Are their (sic) gaps and disconnects between what the United States says and what it does, how it wants to be perceived, and how it is perceived?"
Fuchs and Dayuhan have it right. We're a joke in the eyes of many...
...
That said, as noted in the comment on question 1, above, our political system is inimical to world norms today. I would not change it so I believe we have to accept we will always be perceived as reactionary, slow off the mark, prone to indecision and, as reality does not accord with the soaring rhetoric of our Politicians who tailor their speeches to the domestic audience and forget -- or ignore -- the potential misunderstanding of foreign audiences. I might add that I've had a number of foreign acquaintances over the years comment that our domestic media and entertainment industry are part of the problem. The portrayals and the media do not sit well with many and tend to make us look like a collection of clowns. There's a lot of misperception due to all those things and there's little we can do to fix it -- short of draconian political fixes and those are not going to happen.
We'll just have to keep plugging along and try to more good than harm -- most in the world will grudgingly admit we do that...
Quote:
"4. What should be the United States military role in foreign policy?"
To advise the NCA and DoS (and it incumbent upon those folks to listen to that advice. As an aside, they might be more prone to do so if we'd slow down our rotation of key personnel a bit).
Get the CoComs out of the arena. They are overly involved in foreign policy because Goldwater-Nichols gave them the ability to do that and our totally dysfunctional budgeting system so beloved of Congress to buy votes force feeds them more money than they need and it is to their advantage to enhance that flow. There's a bit of hyperbole in that but just a tiny bit.
Quote:
"5. Outside of the United States mlitary (sic), what other institutions MUST be fixed in order for the United States foreign policy to be successful?
The US electorate.
Quote:
6. What reforms are needed within the United States military?
That they can control: More selectivity in accessions for fewer but better quality people; Improve initial entry training, Officer and Enlisted, all services; work with Congress to improve the personnel system, reduce grade creep, refine pay, stop allowances, vest retirement earlier, encourage active and reserve crossover service, slow the rotation cycles; reduce the stifling bureaucracy; relearn how to trust and delegate -- we seem to have forgotten how to do those things...
The Armed Forces of the US basically know everything I just wrote. The question should be why aren't they doing something to correct the wrongs of which they are generally aware...
ADDED for this post on the Council:
I strongly disagree with American Pride's responses to questions 5/6. National Service is a terrible idea. Aside from the questions of involuntary servitude and 'addressing problems' that are generally transitory, the complexity and cost of administering such a program in peacetime and with lack of an existential threat is monumental. The Armed Forces need to be smaller, not larger...
How timely a comic is today's Dilbert.
http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000...7745.strip.gif
As others have noted, the underlying assumptions of the survey exemplify overweening pride, aka hubris. Dilbert's pointy-haired boss has a lot in common with what seems to undergird the subject survey's questions.
I'd also like to remark on the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
National service is a part of the American tradition; from the original colonies into the 20th century. It should not be the right or obligation of a tiny minority to contribute to this nation's defense and prosperity.
The idea of national service as a duty of citizenship is fundamentally at odds with the principles that led to the formation of America, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That document identified rights as fundamental, not duties. If the nation's principle value set is based on rights, which logically implies that one is free (not obliged), then obligatory national service is fundamentally unfair and unjust. I make this last assertion because 1. an obligation limits one's rights to life, liberty, and pursuing happiness, and 2. justice and fairness define each other.
Fortunately for the US of A, enough of its residents seem to believe and act on the the concept that "freedom isn't free," that sometimes obligations are more important than permissions. I fear that the pool of folks who hold this belief may be shrinking too quickly, fueled by the rise in entitlements that started with the spoils system of Andrew Jackson's administration, built up a massive head of steam with the New Deal, and has continued to mushroom since the Kennedy administration.