IP: The Limits of Military Action

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "Fred Bothwell" <fredboth () texas net>
> To: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
>
>
> Input from a member of the West Point Class of '89 - Maj. John Burgess, a 
> student at Leavenworth -commenting on an article in the current Atlantic 
> Monthly about the U.S. Army in Bosnia.
> See 
> <http://forum.theatlantic.com/WebX?.ee7154d>http://forum.theatlantic.com/WebX?.ee7154d
>
> Global Stability... the War on Terrorism
>
> As a soldier (and I am not speaking as a representative of the Army), I 
> see the author's most telling remark concerning these peace keeping and 
> other Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW) in his simple statement: 
> "as long as the United States remains a great power with an interest in 
> global stability, the military will continue to get similar jobs."
>
> If recent events haven't crystallized the fact that global stability is a 
> national interest for the United States... then I don't know what will. 
> History is rife with examples of radical extremist leaders who gained 
> support and power in places that were plagued with instability. Hitler 
> took advantage of a "punished" and "isolated" Germany after WW I, and 
> Osama bin Laden has done the same in a decimated Afghanistan after a 
> decade of destruction in their war against Soviet aggression. These people 
> cannot operate openly and successfully in stable societies where people 
> have moved up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
>
> Where we often fail is in assuming that the military alone can restore 
> stability to these places. We can certainly restore a certain amount of 
> order and security through the use or threat of military force and 
> violence, but that is only one of three critical conditions necessary for 
> building real, lasting stability. It takes a far greater effort in the use 
> of other instruments of power to build true stability in these places.
>
> The other two conditions required to build real and sustainable stability 
> are:
>
> (1) Popular Will. Once a certain amount of forced security and order are 
> restored, the people or population must have the desire and discipline to 
> build a lasting stability. They must buy into the concept that further 
> violence and conflict will only lead to more instability. They must be 
> willing to work to build a productive society.
>
> (2) Resources. This is more than food and money; it includes education, 
> infrastructure, government, and everything that makes a society productive 
> and stable. If you provide this without the other two requirements 
> (security and popular will), you may as well just throw it away.
>
> Some of the common mistakes we have made in trying to bring about 
> stability throughout history are...
>
> - Providing resources without restoring security and order.
>
> - Attempting to restore security and order without the popular will of the 
> people.
>
> - Restoring security and order, gaining popular will, but then leaving 
> without providing the resources.
>
> Ultimately, success in restoring stability to these places is a function 
> of how well we blend and synchronize those three elements... security, 
> popular will and resources; and it doesn't happen overnight. Sometimes it 
> takes years to get the popular will where it needs to be, before the 
> resources can be effectively applied. It is more difficult to establish 
> security and order without some amount of popular will. All of this can be 
> quite costly in terms of our national instruments of power - diplomatic, 
> economic, military and informational.
>
> You may ask... what's the use or benefit when what happens in these places 
> has little impact on life here in the United States? I would argue that it 
> does have an impact... most recently on the World Trade Center and the 
> Pentagon and the thousands of lives affected by those incidents. The 
> United States cannot be challenged in conventional terms... we are too 
> big, too strong and have no peers right now. The result is that we will be 
> attacked in unconventional ways. We must be able to secure and defend out 
> national interests against both threats. Creating and building global 
> stability is the best strategy to fight these unconventional threats - 
> ultimately, it removes environments where these radical extremist leaders 
> (terrorists) can exist and operate effectively.



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/