Shoot First, Think Later
Militarism is the idea that a nation should maintain a strong military which should be used aggressively to protect that nation's interests. Historically, the United States has been a perfect example of a militaristic nation, with an average defense spending of 13 percent of its annual federal budget or roughly $820 billion. Compare this to the country with the second highest budget, Saudi Arabia at $75 billion, and it becomes clear that the U.S highly is a dominant global power when it comes to military strength.
While an unparalleled military might seem like an efficient and successful way to resolve conflict, the U.S’s militaristic approach to foreign affairs suffers several shortcomings. No where are these shortcomings better demonstrated than in the U.S intervention in Somalia in 1992, and the Gulf War in 1990. These two operations, while fundamentally different, illustrate the two major flaws in a militaristic approach to foreign policy.
In 1992, President George Bush Sr sent U.S troops to Somalia to aid the United Nations in an ongoing humanitarian crisis. Clan warfare between rival warlords in the region had resulted in the destruction of the Somali agricultural system and an estimated 4.5 million civilians were on the brink of starvation. The UN negotiated a ceasefire to allow them to supply food, however not all the militants adhered to it leading the U.S to send troops to protect the UN aid convoys (Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Somalia Intervention").
Upon entering, U.S progress was slow. The complex tribal politics combined with difficult guerilla fighting amongst civilians made it impossible to wage a conventional war. None of this was made easier by the fact that the U.S did not have a clear goal in Somalia. Their objective of bringing peace to the region which, while admirable, was not situationally constructive and extremely hard to quantify. This lack of clear objectives when entering a foreign country has been a common theme for the U.S and is one of the main drawbacks of its militaristic foreign policy approach.
This combination of an unclear objective and a poor understanding of the local political climate left the U.S military, arguably the strongest fighting force in the world, unprepared entering and somewhat ineffective. This reflects another flaw in U.S foreign policy: American arrogance. The U.S likes to view itself as completely indispensable and always right. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once stated that “We are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future” (Carpenter). Similarly this sentiment is apparent in U.S policy decisions. The U.S made plans to air strike nuclear targets in North Korea without consulting South Korea. This arrogance was present when the U.S entered Somalia. Not only did they neglect to properly assess the political climate but also conducted operations without consulting their allies. Before the infamous Battle of Mogadishu, the Americans neglected to tell their Pakistani Allies that they were entering the city resulting in the deaths of 18 American soldiers (Carpenter). This “indifference to the wishes of allies regarding high-stakes issues has typified Washington’s behavior over the decades” (Carpenter).
This idea of American unpreparedness ties into another fundamental flaw in military intervention. While it can be extremely effective in the short term, it often creates much larger long term issues. Following Germany's defeat in the second world war, the Allied powers drew up extensive post war plans in order to regulate Germany and prevent another war. To an extent these long term plans were successful, with Germany and the rest of western Europe thriving currently. However, We don't see these kinds of long term post war plans in more recent U.S military interventions.
In 1990, in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the U.S led an international coalition with the aim of pushing the Iraqis out. From a military standpoint, the operation was a massive success with the U.S pushing Iraq out in a four day land war code named operation Desert Storm. The Gulf War is remembered by most Americans as a “good war”, but while it may have been a decisive military victory, it left disaster in its wake (Brands and Feaver). The invasion into Iraq destroyed massive amounts of Iraqi infrastructure, leading to a humanitarian crisis in the region. This was exacerbated by U.S imposed economic sanctions aimed at limiting Iraq power. In addition, the regional instability allowed for uprisings fueled by U.S rhetoric from the Kurish people in the north and the Sunnis in the south. These uprisings were brutally crushed by the Sadaam Hussien and the Iraqis committed atrocities against their own people (Brands and Feaver). The reason for this unmitigated disaster and the second fundamental flaw with military intervention was that the U.S failed to draw up effective post war plans for the region. Upon a successful invasion, they withdrew without much consideration for the aftermath of said invasion.
However these are all general American issues, not specific to militarism. After all, peaceful foreign policy initiatives would be plagued by these same problems. But all these issues are exacerbated by the added military factor. While peace talks for example, could fall apart due to a lack of specificity, the consequences are much more extreme when the military is involved. When combined with the military, the U.S seems to adopt this “shoot first, think later approach” which has much deadlier effects than a non military strategy. This is one of the main faults with military intervention, which is that while it can be effective, it can be just as harmful. We see this effect consistently in the numerous U.S interventions in Iraq. Arguably unnecessary invasions, such as Bush's hunt for WMDs, left Iraq crippled, ushering in a humanitarian crisis and fostering extremism. “The Gulf War had caused much more damage to Iraqi infrastructure than American officials had anticipated or acknowledged” (Brands and Feaver). It's impossible to predict with certainty the outcome of a foreign intervention and therefore it is better to air on the side of caution, especially when using the military. The consequences of a botched diplomatic negotiation would not have been as devastating as the military was.
In short, military intervention, especially from the United States, can aptly be described as potent. It can be extremely efficient and decisive but at the same time, highly volatile and unforgiving. Unlike the U.S in Somalia, the flaw in the Gulf War was not that the military was initially unprepared or ineffective but rather, like a toddler trampling through a lego set, unmitigated. It is worth noting that the flaws outlined above are not unique to military intervention. It is entirely conceivable that a militaristic approach to foreign affairs could be extremely effective and we should ask ourselves, would a better outcome have been achieved through diplomacy or by doing nothing rather than by sending in the military? However, it's also very easy to sit at a computer in a prosperous and peaceful country and advocate the necessity of war. So while peaceful diplomatic approaches can be ineffective, at least they aren't destructive and ineffective.
Work Cited:
Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Editors of. "Somalia Intervention." *Encyclopaedia Britannica*, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/event/Somalia-intervention. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
Ted Galen Carpenter, "Arrogant Narcissism: The Essence of U.S. Foreign Policy." *Cato Institute*, 8 Sept. 2024, https://www.cato.org/commentary/arrogant-narcissism-essence-us-foreign-policy. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
Brands, Hal, and Peter D. Feaver. “The Gulf War’s Afterlife: Dilemmas, Missed Opportunities, and the Post-Cold War Order Undone.” Texas National Security Review, 16 Feb. 2021, https://tnsr.org/2021/02/the-gulf-wars-afterlife-dilemmas-missed-opportunities-and-the-post-cold-war-order-undone/. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
