IP: The peace of the strong

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 23:43:46 -0800
> To: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
> From: Einar Stefferud <stef () nma com>
> Subject: The peace of the strong
>
> An interesting view of a possible reality...\Stef
>
> Jewish World Review - Dec. 28 , 2001
>
> The peace of the strong   -   by Marvin C. Ott
>
>
>      "We are now concerned with the peace of the entire world.
>      And the peace can only be maintained by the strong."
>                                                 -   George Catlett Marshall
>
> The holiday season is upon us and a year is drawing to a close - reason
> enough for the columnist to take a broad, and hopefully upbeat, view. Our
> subject is no less than America's place in the world and in history.
>
> Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gave currency to a phrase, "the
> indispensable nation," that captures the essence of what this country means
> to the world. It points to the extraordinary position of the US - one that
> has been ironically magnified by the brutal demonstration of America's
> vulnerability on September 11. With those wounds still fresh, it may be
> useful to take inventory of what we have achieved and what it means.
>
> The Pentagon likes to talk in terms of "missions." If we apply the concept
> to America's role in the world, two stand out.
>
>
> Defend Freedom.
> *****************
> Americans, particularly as public officials and politicians, talk a lot
> about freedom and sometimes it's hard to tell if all the rhetoric has much
> substance. But if you think about the history of the last century it all
> becomes quite real. Authoritarian empires - Imperial Germany, Imperial
> Japan, Nazism, and Communism - attacked the free nations of the West and
> sought to destroy them. Without the US, it is virtually certain than one or
> more of these assaults would have succeeded. Czech President Vaclav Havel in
> an address to a joint session of the Congress a few years ago observed that
> twice Europe was on the brink of being enslaved only to be rescued by the
> US. Today another totalitarian system - militant Islam -- aspires to impose
> its will upon the world. Once again it is the US that is conducting the
> military campaign in defense of freedom.
>
>
> Foster Democracy.
> *******************
> The companion mission to defeating totalitarianism is to build democracy and
> pluralism in its place. If America had done nothing more than transform
> Germany and Japan from autocracy to democracy, its historical impact would
> have been huge. But the US has played a key role in a similar transformation
> in post-communist central Europe and to a somewhat lesser degree in Russia.
> A few days ago Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister in Afghanistan, used
> language similar to Hovel's while noting that twice the US had saved
> Afghanistan from authoritarian occupation. He pledged to build a democratic
> Afghanistan that could take its place among the world's free nations. In
> short, US military power has set in motion profound political/societal
> transformations in a wide range of countries.
>
>
> Recent events associated with the war on international terrorism have begun
> to clarify another American mission with a large military component. It is
> nothing less than the maintenance of global order and stability. In a
> post-Cold War world we have become only too aware of the multiple sources of
> instability and conflict out there - ethnic vendettas, religious holy wars,
> societal breakdown, oppression of all sorts, economic failure - not to
> mention looming resource shortages (notably fresh water).
>
> The existence of a conflict does not make it relevant to US security policy.
> Most of the bloodletting of the last decade, whether in the Congo, Eritrea
> or Chechnya, has taken place without a direct US involvement. But the advent
> of globalization and weapons of mass destruction, have steadily increased
> the danger such instability poses to the US and its friends.
>
> The emergence of Al Qaeda out of the cauldron of political hostilities in
> the Middle East is a case in point. Osama bin Laden begins with an abiding
> hatred of the Saudi Arabian regime, which is transmuted into a hatred of the
> US as the protector of that regime. Hatred becomes a plan of action that
> produces 9/11 and also focuses on acquiring nuclear, biological or chemical
> weapons.
>
> Not since Imperial Rome has one country's power so dominated the world, as
> does America's today.  During the centuries of Roman rule the legions
> defended the empire and preserved peace and stability - the Pax Romana. The
> US is the first "empire" in over 1500 years to have a comparable vocation.
> But unlike Rome, the US is not defending a territorial domain. America's
> paramountcy is not imperial in the classic sense; it is something new for
> which there is no name. It seeks to maintain a minimal global order because
> large-scale disorder and conflict have become too dangerous to tolerate. It
> does so with a combination of unparalleled military capability (on display
> in Afghanistan) and a network of allies, partners and institutions that
> voluntarily assist. They do so because America's objectives -- peace,
> stability, democracy, and freedom - are their objectives too.
>
> None of this is easy as the ongoing war against Al Qaeda demonstrates. The
> pitfalls are many. The most basic is the natural resentment of others faced
> with the sheer power and prominence of the US. That resentment shows up in
> every survey of international opinion including the most recent published by
> the Pew Research Center.
>
> The continued overwhelming superiority of American arms is a given. The real
> challenge facing Washington in the creation and maintenance of (dare we call
> it?) a Pax Americana, is political and diplomatic. Can the US demonstrate
> sufficient sensitivity to the opinion of allies, partners and others to
> maintain their cooperation and support? Most basic of all, can Washington
> defy Lord Acton's law - that all power corrupts? The overriding reason that
> the answer may be yes resides in you and me. The genius of the American
> system is that it provides countless means for self-criticism and
> correction.
>
> That's your job and mine - and it's never been more important.
>
> Marvin C. Ott is a professor of national security policy at National War
> College. The views expressed are his own.
>
> © 2001, Marvin C. Ott
> http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com/1201/ott.html

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