Our military is relatively small in terms of soldiers, seapersons, and pilots compared to the qualitative levels of sophisticated high-tech weaponry. As we constantly improve our stealth, drone, missile, and tank technology we perpetually create a situation where the weapons we tout for deterrence are in practice un-tested. To prop up the deterrent effect of these systems we are logically forced to test them in real life (death) battle field conditions in order to assure any potential adversaries that they really work, and work so well that it would be suicide to tempt fate and oppose our fundamental or even tangential geopolitical interests. This is one reason, and I think its a major reason, why after WWII we've been involved almost continuously in localized regional wars – only a few of which was it plausibly true that we used force as a last resort.
Presently if we were able to refrain
from any military operations for say the next 30 years – until 2042
– we would somewhat paradoxically be in a situation where we would
have good reason to doubt the efficacy (lethality) of our war
technology a circumstance that could easily lead to big mess ups,
higher casualties, and lower morale. From this point of view,
refraining from military violence would make us rusty, unsure, and
nervous about the reliability of our troops and weaponry – exactly
the conditions unhelpful to fighting wars that are decisive and quick
and which are therefore on the low side of both military and civilian
casualties.
If you spot the trap, then you are
asking with me – how the hell can we risk peace and still be sure
we have the ability and skills to actually deter madmen and
aggressors and defend (hopefully) our most legitimate interests?
1. Acknowledging the dilemma is itself helpful since we can then perceive any rush or push to make war as resulting from considerations utterly removed from and independent of the arguments given for and against our involvement. The presence or non-presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will look less and less relevant – regardless of the true state of the facts – when we understand the Generals and the Fighter pilots, and the ship manufacturers are all anxious to practice under real war conditions.
2. We can advocate and resist the military's drive to develop and deploy increasingly sophisticated weaponry, that once deployed will necessarily need to be demonstrated and tested for the system to properly scare/deter potential adversaries. We will favor building a few more of the type of fighter planes we already have, the type of cruise missiles whose reliability we can already trust.
3. The dilemma makes it singularly
critical to support actions and initiatives which have the result of
quelling and/or resolving localized and regional conflict – thus
denying the military the existence of real life situations where
“practice” would in fact be
helpful in assessing the efficacy and reliability of our troop and
weapon doctrines.
4. The dilemma as I've described it provides one more potent argument
for any effort to disrupt and undermine global arms sales by leading
military nations. This week the President approved an enormous sale
of fighter planes to Saudi Arabia. Billions of dollars and thousands
of U.S. Jobs were and are at stake in the deal. The biggest
rationalization for the deal? If American companies didn't build and
sell the planes certainly China or France would have come forward to
provide whatever armaments the Saudis could pay for. Now we know that
“disarmament” doesn't just mean cutting back on nuclear,
chemical, and biological stock piles, but must be about multilateral
reductions in arms sales by the major military powers.
5. We can never use Costa Rica as a site to bring our military forces to bear, we wouldn't get a lot of practicing and effectiveness-testing accomplished, because Costa Rica doesn't have a military. As consumers and advocates we can make a good case that nations we trade with should take a close look at reducing, minimizing, and even abolishing their military. As long as there is no credible threat of attack by a regional power or a hostile neighbor, very few countries need a military for national defense as opposed to say ensuring the continuation of an illiberal dictatorship or other corrupt regime. I mean, the ostensibly Buddhist military fascists who control Myanmar (formerly Burma) are not in genuine fear of an invasion by Laos, Bangladesh, Thailand or China. Well maybe they fear China a little bit, which is why if they weren't so afraid of their people, collective and global security might appeal to them more than it currently does.
6. Theocratic, Monarchist, Militarist, and Autocratic regimes around the world need armies and advanced weaponry. They need tanks and artillery and shock troops to maintain their overawing authority over their subjects. We can now see how adoption of more thorough-going democratic regimes which can thrive not just survive in the presence of freedom of speech and press and of serious non-violent dissent, are a feature that could help reduce the global demand for ever-more-advanced weapons systems. How many aircraft carriers and F-16s does New Zealand really need? Compared to Saudi Arabia?
7. Creating the conditions where the United states can go 30 or 40 years at a clip without being draw into a war will not be easy. Teaching peace won't be our ultimate ticket – a lot of people are already for Peace. By bringing pressure on nations to actually adopt freedom of speech/press and embrace a culture where dissent isn't just tolerated buy proves useful, and by advocating for vastly superior diplomatic conflict-resolution efforts, and by bringing pressure to include the arms sales industry within the concept of arms control, I believe will create a small break in the chain of logic I've described which allows wars to be in our interest whether they are worth winning or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment