I was discussing the current Middle East conflict with a close friend this morning and the subject of a past CenterlineRight post came up. I went back and reread the post. Sometimes when I do this, I am amazed at how foolish my posts sound in hindsight. But in this instance, I have to wonder if we would not be in a better place today if a policy of this nature had been pursued some time ago. The original date of the post was November of 2019. Here it is, FWIW....
Pax America in Today’s World
Has the American military and diplomatic approach to global conflicts and our cooperation with global allies become so outdated as to be dysfunctional? Do the endless wars that we have become embroiled in over the last three decades indicate that our foreign policy has not kept pace with the evolution of the geopolitical dynamic? In a strictly non-partisan context, have our Presidents and Legislative Branches assumed an outdated posture of operating in a reactive, rather than proactive, manner that consistently has their plans and schemes outpaced by reality? I believe the answers to these questions are yes.
In an effort to balance global support for human dignity and freedom with global military assessments with national security issues and with domestic political upheaval, our past several Presidents have seemed to be constantly off-balance and disconcerted in the responses that have been implemented against the very real and violent threats posed by foreign nations and entities against our country and our way of life. Terrorism, nationalistic military adventures all across the planet, political discord and uncertainty in the governments of both our enemies and our allies, the potential (and perhaps active) militarization of space, and the virtual shrinking of the communal world ushered in by technological advances….all of this has contributed to a global environment of chaos, uncertainty, and conflict. How can we as a nation, one whose very existence is built on the premise of freedom, dignity and human rights for all people, continue to remain a stabilizing and positive force in the future for the whole of nations?
What we cannot do is continue to put out flash fires as they crop up in every little nook and cranny across the international landscape. While we certainly can, and should, fulfill our obligation to serve as a beacon of light, hope, and support for all people who seek personal freedoms; the harsh reality is that the United States simply no longer has the brute military force and diplomatic influence necessary to serve as the world’s policeman in every incident of global unrest. At some point, sooner rather than later, it will become apparent that the money we spend in the defense of world peace and contentment is depriving us of important resources sorely needed to insure the well-being of our own citizens. But far more importantly, we should by now realize that we can no longer pursue U.S. military involvement in foreign skirmishes that costs us dearly in human life and monetary loss while essentially casting us in the unappreciated role of military interloper and global bully.
How can we, as a nation seeking to find our proper role in a changing world, continue to be a reliable pillar of peace for those seeking civil existence while simultaneously finding an alternative to a fragmented, knee-jerk foreign policy that spreads our marvelous military and diplomatic capabilities thinly across the face of the planet? These resources, incredible as they might be, simply cannot withstand the continued challenges that are increasingly being thrust upon them. What path can we possibly travel to achieve the balance necessary to continue our desired role in the geopolitical and military development of this world? While acknowledging, as I have done many times before, the utter foolishness and hubris of a layman like me spouting foreign policy ideals; I will nonetheless put forth a vision for the future role of America in the world. I will call it Pax America Light.
Pax Americana (Latin for American Peace) is a term applied to the concept of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere and later the world as a result of the preponderance of power enjoyed by the United States beginning around the middle of the 20th century and continuing to this day. Although the term finds its primary utility in the latter half of the 20th century, it has been used with different meanings and eras, such as the post-Civil War era in North America, and regionally in the Americas at the start of the 20th century. Pax Americana is primarily used in its modern connotations to refer to the peace among great powers established after the end of World War II in 1945, also called the Long Peace. In this modern sense, it has come to indicate the military and economic position of the United States in relation to other nations. For example, the Marshall Plan, which spent $13 billion to rebuild the economy of Western Europe, has been seen as the launching of Pax Americana.
The ever-evolving dynamic of foreign powers and governments makes it impossible to ascertain precisely who is in charge at any particular time and place. Ruling strongmen or entities come and go, often changing through violent overthrow or political disruption. I must imagine that the rest of the world looks at America with the same concern. Obama’s foreign policy was largely an advancement and natural evolution of Bush’s foreign policy; while Trump’s foreign policy initiatives have been dramatic departures from both of his predecessor’s philosophies.
What we do know for certain is the extent of our military abilities. And through our intelligence establishment, we have a pretty good idea of what we do not know. In other words, as we look to the future, we can map out the world in regions that can be defined based on their stability, volatility, risk to global peace, threat to U.S. national security, and long-term implications to world peace. Once these regions are established and based on strategic concerns, the United States could establish regional super-bases; autonomous sites equipped with modern technology attributes and sufficient military capabilities to enforce American interests in their area. We can harden them and make them as impenetrable as is humanly possible.
Obviously, these sites would require the clear and unquestioned support of the nations in which they were located. It is altogether conceivable that ironclad, long-term agreements could be consummated with American allies to establish these bases on property that is considered to be essentially sovereign America. Although that reality would be extremely challenging, it should be achievable given America’s military strength and diplomatic prowess. By noting American military strength, I do not propose the acquisition of this property by force. I am simply saying that given the principles upon which our nation stands and our obvious military prowess, this type of facility should be a welcome addition for any country that shares those aspirations. What better defense could their nation have in place?
No doubt, a network similar to what I am suggesting already exists to some degree. America surely has some very impressive military bases here and there across the globe. And it is certain that these bases are part of a deliberate and strategic pattern regarding capabilities and locations. The system I envision is one built upon the assets we already have in place and supplemented by additional bases; while some bases might be closed. If an existing base is already in the right place internationally and is not limited by extraneous factors regarding its enhancement, then that reality can simply move the effort down the road that much quicker. Aside from elevating any physical capabilities that we may now possess, this new effort would also feature a very public acknowledgment of our new approach and intent. There would be no stealth or secrecy in the establishment of these bases. A prominent element of their deterrence value would be their very visible presence. Our existing military alliances (i.e. NATO) and cooperative efforts will remain intact and should actually be facilitated by this type of operation.
It is clear that these bases would provide open and inviting targets for America’s enemies; those being political, military, and terrorist-related. But would a defined base of operations, protected by all the resources and technology we have at hand, be any more at risk than our globally-scattered boots on the ground military equipment and personnel? I don’t think so. Aside from the very real physical threats that would have to be taken into account; there would likely be considerable political and diplomatic resentment to America’s open expansion of its authority and presence. Once again, if we are secure and resolute in our cause, we should be able to convince our potential allies of the wisdom in this approach.
Don’t miss the next post!
Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.
From these bases, we should be able to address strategic threats as they occur. Our intelligence can identify and evaluate necessary responses and actions. Our defensive capabilities should provide us with adequate long-range, or if necessary, short range special operations strikes that fit into our strategies for world peace and stability. Having a single, defensible footprint in these regions, as opposed to having our assets sprinkled across deserts and jungles from north to south and west to east, should increase our efficiency and effectiveness in the pursuit of America’s role in global, human development. Rather than dealing with the necessity of assimilating our defensive presence into the natural habitat and population; we would have the autonomy to basically restrict our normal operations to the base itself. There would be times when skirmishes might swirl about in proximity of these bases; but every local conflict would not require American intervention. I do not propose a monolithic icon of an imposing and ominous death star castle. To the greatest extent possible, the principle of self-determination should remain in play.
Americans will still integrate themselves into the cultures and societies of foreign nations; it will simply be in a non-uniformed fashion. And if it should ever become necessary, the intelligent and geographic locating of these bases would place American forces in a prime position to protect indispensable natural resources that are vital to our nation and the free world. My preference would be that while the U.S. continues its alliances and leadership in NATO; this would be an effort of our nation alone. Any efforts to dilute it with globalist aspirations would, in my opinion, compromise its very nature and intent.
In a broad sense, this strategy would allow the United States to embrace its role as a stalwart force for freedom in the world; while freeing us from the complex and arbitrary diplomatic strings attached to many foreign relations concerns. It is perhaps bizarre to some to push a vision of American military forces serving as the Watchmen for the World. But here is the deal: If the task is going to inevitably fall to us anyway…if we are the only nation equipped to perform such a function…if no one else will step forward and assume that role in the future of mankind…then why not do it on our own terms? America’s failure to put its total resources and efforts into military foreign policy initiatives, both military and diplomatic, has resulted in past tragic failures. The wages of those partial efforts are spent lives, broken reputations, untold consequences of lost opportunities, and billions of dollars wasted on lofty political structuring with poor foundations.
Voltaire first said…with great power comes great responsibility. Whether we like it or not, the United States is the preeminent power in the world. Such a system of militarily-imposing bases would constitute an awesome power in the hands of American leaders. The challenge to use that power judiciously would be great indeed. But is that obligation any greater than the one our leaders face today? Is it not the case that the present military advantage and arsenal that America possesses is at the discretionary disposal and behest of our elected and appointed officials? In a very real sense, the only thing that would change is how America implements its role in the league of nations; not how we approach that role. Having a better system in place will not make us any wiser; it will simply make us more powerful and effective.
Once again, I endorse the direction President Trump seems to be taking American foreign policy. Aggressively pursuing an interventionist policy in foreign conflicts has accomplished very little for the United States and has accumulated a tragic price-tag over the terms of several presidents; both Republican and Democrat. We cannot, and should not, foist upon foreign governments the Constitution of the United States. We can, however, internationally support and uphold the principles contained in that document. How we implement that support is the key question in this entire debate. It strikes me that a transparent and strategic application of our military strength in a fashion as I have set forth would be a very logical way to begin that process. To apply some context to this subject, a very good read follows: http://carolineglick.com/al-baghdadi-and-trumps-syrian-chessboard/ . American foreign policy is truly onion layer-level complex.
