Dear Phillip,
What, indeed, is a superpower to do? I have an idea: Let’s break with tradition and not have to lose to learn our lessons.
Although we gain invaluable insights by studying history, we can’t let the desire to either relive the glory of past successes or correct the mistakes of our failures constrain our ability to think about how to win current and future wars. And we can’t let our superiority in the current paradigm blind us to true revolutions in military affairs.
Although our military today is mesmerized by the notion that its purpose is “to fight and win wars,” the true role of the military, as Carl von Clausewitz stated, is “politics by other means.” The current myopic view helps explain why lessons about culture and personal networks that we should have learned during humanitarian and peacekeeping missions in the 1990s were not digested and put to good use in the first years in Iraq. Our own cultural missteps in Somalia helped turn locals from welcoming our soldiers to cheering their deaths. Those missions were deemed “other than war”—a side job, not what we’re here for, filler until a “real” mission arises. If we return to thinking of the military as a tool for the political will, we open up a much wider range of options, including how to leverage our military to prevent wars in the first place.
Maybe part of the reason we haven’t broken out of the old paradigm of war is that we’re really enamored with it. The strategy, the competition, the drama, the suspense, the thrill of victory, the adrenaline rush of combat, the status conferred upon heroes, the ultimate sacrifice, strongly held beliefs—all are so compelling that they not only fill our history books but also much of our literature, movies, video games, and other pastimes, as well. It’s part of our heritage. The founding of our nation. Where is the heroism in winning a war fought remotely by robots? Is the strength of the commitment to our cause adequately demonstrated merely by disabling the technology in another country from a safe and comfortable seat in an aircraft or some other distant location?
As you, Phillip, and some of our readers have suggested, perhaps being the best nation we can be is another way to win wars and influence people. If we devote more of our attention to our flaws, we can offer a model that is attractive not just economically or as a form of government but in terms of values and social justice as well. The healthier we are as a society, the less willing others might be to tolerate abusive regimes or suffering in their own countries—or to support others who would do us harm. We can be quick to play up the dark side of other nations and just as quick to understate our own vices. At least we’re not as bad as they are, right? We feel proud of our own culture when we point out how men in certain other cultures treat women. But their leaders could paint a picture of America as a dangerous place for women: where depression, eating disorders, sexual assault, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and plastic surgery abound. The point isn’t about where it’s better to be a woman (I know I’ve made my choice), but that the better a society we can become, the more credibility and influence we can have in the world. Plus, we end up improving life for our own people while we’re at it.
When we do need to intervene internationally, we could certainly benefit from developing other political tools to the degree that we have developed our military. When our leaders need to engage an adversary, they already possess all sorts of military plans that have been developed and gamed by some of our nation’s most brilliant minds. The means to carry out those plans—our nation’s troops—are ready to be deployed at a moment’s notice. Have similar resources been invested in developing and modeling cultural, economic, political, or ideological strategies? And I’m not just talking about the traditional attempts at economic sanctions or summitry. The example you gave, Phil, of the power of the dollar in motivating even religious choices speaks volumes about paths not taken.
Who is in charge of the big picture? Who is taking the time to understand our technological advances, and how we can best harness them for national security and international influence? It seems to me that we are so caught up in today and so entrenched in our existing systems that we will probably have to learn from others who will take the lead in making war truly new. But I hope not.
Best,
Laura
