dialogues
columns
- Oscars 2008
The mystery of Rebecca Miller's dress is solved!
Kim Masters
posted Feb. 25, 2008 - Oscars 2008
E-mail debates of newsworthy topics.
Troy Patterson
posted Feb. 25, 2008 - Let Us Leave Our Musical Islands
Two critics discuss the state of classical, jazz, and pop.
Ben Ratliff
posted Nov. 7, 2007 - Debating The Year of Living Biblically
Exercising the God muscle.
A.J. Jacobs
posted Oct. 18, 2007 - Debating God's Harvard
A Patrick Henry College grad weighs in.
David Kuo
posted Sept. 20, 2007 - Search for more dialogues articles
- Subscribe to the dialogues RSS feed
- View our complete dialogues archive
The 21st Century Military
Larry:
First of all, congratulations on your new and important appointment at the Council on Foreign Relations. You will do a great job. And thanks for your penetrating and thoughtful dialogue on 21st century U.S. defenses.
One of the reasons I purposely and specifically avoided suggesting the specific structure of a classic republican military for the 21st century is that such a structure--indeed, even minor adjustments to our outdated Cold War military structures--cannot be devised without a more thorough discussion of the nature of conflict in the next century, a clearer definition of U.S. national interests, and at least the outline of a 21st century foreign policy. We agree that our leadership has, so far, not provided these guideposts.
Therefore, whether the classic republican military should be 500,000 regular and 1 million reserves or 750,000 regular and 2 million reserves cannot be seriously discussed in this policy vacuum. In any case, The Minuteman is not intended to provide a blueprint for the post-Cold War military, except in these important regards: 1) Our political heritage is republican; 2) that heritage is based upon civic duty and citizen involvement; 3) classic republicanism is based in part on the suspicion of a large, permanent standing military in peacetime; and 4) the outlines of the most likely 21st century threat--low intensity urban conflict between subnational factions--strongly suggest that a smaller, differently structured regular force, backed up by a citizen reserve in a higher state of readiness, is the best military structure to deal with that threat.
A large citizen reserve will engage the families and communities of its members in exponential numbers, whether that reserve numbers 1 million, 2 million, or 3 million. It will cause its members and those extended communities to pay closer attention to affairs of the world, question national authority on engagement decisions, and generally require a higher degree of citizen involvement in the decisions that shape our 21st century destiny.
I do not "have to" argue for universal military training, but at two points in the book I do suggest that it might be both necessary (if volunteerism does not suffice) and therapeutic.
My view on the world of the 21st century, as spelled out at some length in The Minuteman, is this: Economics are integrating--spiraling upward--even as politics are disintegrating--spiraling downward; the nation state is, along the fault lines of cultures, at least, giving way to tribal, ethnic, and civilizational forces as the object of loyalty; peacemaking in the low intensity, urban conflict environment must precede peacekeeping, and it should be carried out by a new international security force in which the United States participates but does not dominate; and greater development efforts in Latin America and Africa may help alleviate some of the migration pressures from the South to the North that threaten instability.
The classic republican military I advocate (the one that was our pattern until 1948) will participate in increasingly collective international peacemaking and peacekeeping efforts and intervene unilaterally only where direct and immediate threats to our security exist, e.g., hostage-taking, terrorist threats against our possessions, interruption of international routes of commerce, threats by hostile interests against any ally that cannot defend itself.
We can reduce a number of these threats by, for example, restoration of an energy independence policy that makes us less dependent on unstable energy supplies, democracy-building and much greater engagement of Russia into the West, and development of a genuine international peacemaking force.
It has been a great pleasure--and challenge--to have been engaged with you in this dialogue. My only regret is that it is not occurring in the White House, Congress, the media, and throughout our country.
All best personal regards,
Gary Hart
feedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- Historical Archives: To Be Sold - Rather Large Buttons
Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:00:00 -0400 - Historical Archives: Ship's Log
Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:00:00 -0400 - Historical Archives: Secret Society Of Free-Bakers Has Fail'd To Gain Influence
Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:00:00 -0400 - » More from the Onion
Over the LineHarold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
- Robinson: A Little Worried About the Meltdown
- Khaled Hosseini: Sen. McCain, Am I a Pariah?
- Ombudsman: A Puff Piece About the Obamas?
- King: The Anatomy of an Assault
- Today's Headlines
- Can Pakistan Stay Afloat?
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:20:52 GMT - Florida: Will Palin Cost the GOP Jewish Voters?
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:07:56 GMT - Review: le Carre Novel Is Missing the Old Sparkle
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:41:29 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- An Obama-Palin Ticket
Thu, 9 October 2008 18:16:56 GMT - Love the Player, Hate the GM
Thu, 9 October 2008 21:10:07 GMT - Schooling McCain on the Man Code
Thu, 9 October 2008 20:03:04 GMT - » More from The Root

dialogues













