Introduction

The United States
has been the world’s only superpower since the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991.  In some ways
it is more difficult to manage foreign policy without concentrating on one big
rival.

The United States
is vastly stronger in military strength than any possible coalition of enemy
forces.  But since 9/11 we are feeling
less secure despite huge military and domestic security expenditures.  Our military and national security
expenditures of around $1.1 trillion are greater than the military expenditures
of next ten countries combined (and most are allies).  This is a consequence of a professional
military, a result of eliminating conscription after the Vietnam War, and the
highly technical (capital intensive) nature of American military forces and strategy. 

There is almost no national debate on U.S.
military interventions in other countries. 
One reason is that most Americans have no direct involvement; they see
the professional military differently than if we still had the draft and a conscript army.

There has been little public debate on national security
strategy since 1991.  Congress has all
but abdicated its role in foreign policy to the president. We should be asking:

Is it the wrong strategy for a rapidly changing world?

Do we rely on military force at the expense of using other
means? 

Did America
change its political and military strategy enough after disintegration of Soviet
Union? 

We focused on terrorism after 9/11.  But are we fighting global terrorism with the
same strategy we used during the Cold War? 

There have been a number of successes from the U.S.
point of view.  But they are not directly
due to America’s
military might or even an active American foreign policy.

Eastern European countries join
NATO and the European Union after the collapse of the Soviet empire.  This is a historical moment – a chance to
peacefully unite Western and Central Europe.

The spread of democracy to
countries without a democratic tradition or experience, especially in Latin
America and East Asia.  In some cases, democratic groups were able to
overthrow authoritarian or military regimes that enjoyed American support.

The shift in control of most economic
resources from public to private control. 
Except for some raw materials, almost all of global economic resources are
now in private hands, especially those of large multinational corporations.  Private companies develop new technology.  A globally integrated economy, I would argue,
is in America’s
national interests.

I would like to discuss four aspects of American foreign
policy:

Reliance on massive firepower and technological solutions.

Lack of knowledgeable leadership in the United
States.

Lack of support for democratic, liberal groups in
authoritarian states.

Lack of awareness that domestic and foreign policies are
intertwined.

Reliance on massive
firepower and technological solutions.

It is difficult for American leaders not to think first of a
military solution to a foreign political problem when we have such a
magnificent tool as the U.S.
military. But military interventions have not been politically successful in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan or Iraq.  American presidents have
learned that it is easy to invade and conquer but hard to occupy.  Also, as in Iraq
and Afghanistan,
lengthy occupations tend to create and strengthen the very political groups we
seek to destroy. The Taliban is the strongest political group in Afghanistan; the inept occupation of Iraq led to Iran now dominating Iraqi politics and officers of the disbanded Iraqi army joining ISIS.   

The use of military force without thinking through the
long-run consequences and how it fits into 

America’s
strategic objectives can be futile and expensive.

Lack of awareness that
domestic and foreign policies are intertwined.

For a superpower there is no distinction between domestic
and foreign policy. Since 9/11, the United States has become a domestic security state; new surveillance powers and technology threaten civil liberties and individual rights to privacy. 

Domestic economic and social policies have
consequences for foreign policy and American power.  A few examples:

Fiscal Policy. 
After eliminating the self-funding parts of Social Security and
Medicare, about 40% of the federal budget is currently financed through
borrowing.  The current deficit is about
$1 trillion a year.  This is
approximately equal to total national security costs.  So the high costs of being a superpower is
being financed through debt. Higher tax revenue because of economic growth will reduce but not eliminate the yearly
deficit and increase the national debt. The recent combination of a tax cut and increased military spending makes the fiscal situation worse. At some point, American leaders may have to look at the cost of
national defense and seriously consider major cutbacks.  This will impact America’s
ability to project force and influence anywhere in the world.

If large fiscal deficits continue they will eventually
jeopardize the dollar as the international currency.  Much of international trade is denominated in
dollars.  This is a source of America’s
global influence.

Energy policy. 
Importing crude oil and natural gas finances, directly and indirectly, America’s
actual and potential enemies.  In the
past, oil exports supported corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Libya
and Iraq.  Oil exports benefit Russia,
Iran and Venezuela.  Oil revenues help finance Muslim terrorist
groups. Because of the dramatic increase in domestic production of oil, the U.S. now imports virtual no oil from the Middle East. It is ironic that the United States became militarily engaged in the Middle East just as we no longer needed oil from that region.

Trade Deficit. 
The U.S.
continues to run a large trade and current account deficit.  The reasons are complicated although net
energy imports are a part of it. 
We can run this trade deficit as long as foreign holders of dollars are
willing to invest in and lend to the United
States. In the long run, this could have
serious economic consequences.  Changes
in domestic energy and economic policies could reduce the trade deficit and
finance more of it from domestic savings. 
  

Drug policy.  Current
domestic drug policy creates huge profits for drug gangs around the world.  Profits from the drug trade help to finance
terrorist groups and the states that support them.  Drug gangs destabilize Latin American and
Asian governments and divert resources needed for economic development.

An important part of American influence in the world is foreign
perception of America
as an example to be emulated.  America
represents both a set of political and social ideals, and a related model to
achieve economic growth and opportunity.  American influence is jeopardized if the rest
of the world sees a society with increasing concentration of wealth and income,
less social mobility, low economic growth, and a political system that appears
to be intolerant, lacks compassion for the poor, and seems incapable of solving
domestic problems.

Lack of support for
democratic, liberal groups in authoritarian states.

The United States
continued to support authoritarian regimes even after the fall of the Soviet
Union.  There was no
long-run policy to support democratic groups in authoritarian states after 1991
or even after 2001.  Potential democratic
opposition in these states continued to be outlawed, weakened or
destroyed.  In many countries, the only
organized opposition was religious fundamentalist groups. Egypt
is the latest example.

The United States
should concentrate on supporting organizations and individuals who organize and
expand the civil society of countries. 
The point is that a democratic state can only survive and prosper if it
has a social, economic and ideological foundation.

The U.S.
should support democratic groups in the same way we supported Solidarity in Poland.
The American people have a role to play by contributing to NGOs that can affect
change through supporting and advising civic organizations in other countries.

One area of opportunity where the U.S.
and Americans should support democratic groups and civil organizations is sub-Saharan
Africa. This is important since after 2050 all of the world’s population growth will occur in sub-Saharan Africa.

Part of any strategy is to play for the long run.  It was naïve to expect that Russia
would overnight transform from a Communist to an American-style democratic
society, or that long term Russian strategic interests would somehow disappear.  It is possible that Islamic
fundamentalist political parties will dominate politics in many Islamic states
in the foreseeable future.  But, as in Iran,
they will create an internal opposition. 
They can not keep out information, ideas and images from other
societies.  For the U.S.,
giving the opposition moral and material support should be a vital part of a
long-run strategy.

Lack of knowledgeable
leadership in the United States.

The quality of leadership counts.  For a superpower, the ignorance and lack of
foreign policy experience of every president and presidential candidate after George
Bush is appalling.  It is ironic that
almost all of the domestic and foreign policies of George Bush were reversed or
ignored by his son when he became president.  

The American people should think about electing national
leaders who know something about the rest of the world.  The recent presidential debates were
embarrassing.  Congressional leaders are
even worse. 

Questions

What are America’s
strategic objectives?

How are they being met by using overwhelming military force?

What are
the limits to our military superiority in a world of “asymmetric warfare,” non-state terrorist groups, and Internet-based propaganda?

            What are
the tactical alternatives?

Can we continue to spend $1 trillion a year on national
security while running large budget and trade deficits?

Cautionary Tales

Historical
analogies must be used with extreme care but they can be suggestive cautionary examples.  I wish that America’s
political leaders had read Thucydides, especially his detailed analysis of Athens’
large expedition to subdue Syracuse,
before committing substantial American military forces to Vietnam. Or how come the most powerful military country of its day could not defeat American rebels. 

The examples of the imperial democracy of Athens
and the Roman republic might be relevant to the U.S.
after the collapse of the Soviet empire. After defeating serious threats from rival powers (Persia
and Carthage, respectively), both
city-states rapidly expanded power and influence.  Both became the dominant powers in their main theaters of operation (Greece for Athens and the Mediterranean for Rome). Athenian and Roman political institutions could not adjust to remaining democratic and managing an empire.  Thucydides gives Pericles,
the architect of imperial Athens, a
speech justifying Athens’ foreign
policies that sounds eerily like the “American exceptionalism” speeches of the
last 20 years. In both cases, foreign power and imperial policies put severe strains on
domestic politics and society. Athenian democracy was destroyed by a war of attrition with Sparta and then both were conquered first by the Macedonians and then the Romans. The Roman republic expanded rapidly in the last 100 years of the republic but collapsed from internal pressure to become the Roman empire.

Conclusion

All of this suggests that there are less expensive
alternatives than relying primarily on military superiority – U.S.
image, different domestic policies, changing security and economic alliances, support for foreign civil society
organizations, becoming more economically
competitive in the global economy, strategic vision and better leadership.  Since it is possible that military and national
security spending will decrease sometime in the future because of fiscal constraints, it is time to
concentrate on alternatives.