Preparations may soon be under way for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq. But don’t be looking for a peace dividend any time soon.
The military in fact is gearing up for a big buildup. It plans to remain engaged in a “long war,” according to the Pentagon’s national security strategy. The Obama administration has endorsed a major expansion of ground forces, and a surge in military capabilities to conduct “irregular” warfare against non-state actors. A key component of this strategy is the U.S. military’s competency to help rebuild failed states and to train those countries’ armies so they can fight their own insurgencies and keep terrorists at bay.
By accomplishing these ambitious goals, the military in theory would shape the world so as to prevent future Iraq-like fiascos or another 9/11.
Critics are questioning, however, whether the interventionist worldview embraced by President Barack Obama and his top advisors ignores the lessons that should have been learned in recent years. They contend that this approach to foreign policy perpetuates the notion that the military can be a jack of all trades and overlooks the fact that armed forces have a limited capability to influence events.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that much when he advocated last year for a “diplomacy surge” and asked Congress to pour money into the State Department so it can help the military with nation-building duties. Gates also has decried the over-militarization of U.S. foreign policy. But that is exactly what the nation’s defense strategy continues to embrace.
Retired Air Force Col. Chet Richards, a military analyst at the Center for Defense Information, says the incoming administration is falling into the same traps that have gotten the United States in trouble in the past: namely, the use of military force to attempt to solve problems that are inherently social, economic or political. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan, initial successes against third-rate military opponents dragged on into separate occupations that have no end in sight.
As the United States prepares to escalate its military presence in Afghanistan, both uniformed and civilian officials readily have admitted that this is a war that cannot be won by force alone. Just last month, one of the U.S. commanders there, Col. Jeffrey M. Haynes, struck a pessimistic chord when he said that the U.S. strategy was too focused on chasing bad guys, while what’s really needed is to rebuild the nation so that the Afghans have “a way of life to fight for.” The key to winning Afghanistan, Haynes said, is “prosperity, safety and the rule of law.”
And those are three things the military is not equipped to provide. In countries such as Afghanistan, what is required is establishing legitimate governments and functioning economies, Richards said. “Unfortunately … these are the very things we don’t know how to do.”
There is also a larger question about whether rebuilding failed states is really a mission for military forces at all. “Stability operations and peacekeeping do not require much of the traditional military skills of defeating capable opponents in combat,” he said. “Instead, they require different competencies, more akin to law enforcement or engineering.” This creates the risk that the military will be less prepared to fight a conventional war if the United States or its allies were attacked. “History suggests that militaries that engage in stability and peacekeeping activities lose the ability to be effective combat forces,” said Richards. “Israel was given a rude reminder of this in the 2006 war with the non-state group Hezbollah.”
The goals of stability and peacekeeping are undoubtedly worthy, he added, “but it is not at all clear that military forces as traditionally defined should be performing them.”
There is also an emerging consensus, even among military leaders, that the implosion of the global economy has exposed the limits of military power. At a Pentagon news conference, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Michael Mullen pointed to the economic downturn worldwide as a catalyst for a “security crisis.” In Iraq or Afghanistan, he said, “what we need is a stable economy [to] create the kind of positive cycle that gets you away from the violence.” He also predicted rising instability as a result of soaring food prices. These are not problems that can be solved by military means.
The administration has to eventually be able to answer the question: When should military forces be used for missions other than the immediate defense of the United States? Budget analysts also wonder when the administration will come to grips with the notion that the nation simply cannot afford an interventionist foreign policy. There will never be enough troops or money to fulfill that vision, Richards said.
In these times of economic upheaval, it make some sense for the incoming president to support a large military not just because we do live in a dangerous world but also because it is a huge source of jobs both in the public and private sectors. But ultimately someone has to settle on a prudent course that strengthens the nation’s security but also avoids repeating past failures.