SWJ Small Wars Survey 2012

[Dayuhan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

6. What reforms are needed within the United States military?

I'm not in a position to comment on that.