The Hindu : American strategic thinking

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Apr 03, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

American strategic thinking

By Gulshan Dietl

The voices of moderates and peaceniks in the United States are muted and marginalised at present. These are the days of the foreign policy hawks.

ACCORDING TO Thucydides, power can either be hegemonia (legitimated leadership) or it can be arkhe (control). In the sphere of foreign policy, the two can be neatly summed up in the modern jargon of "they like to do what we want them to do" and "do what we say, and not what we do" respectively. Soft power and hard power, in short. The voices of moderates and peaceniks in the United States are muted and marginalised at present. These are the days of the foreign policy hawks. Today, there is a virtual cacophony of American strategic voices — loud, clear and screaming to be heard. Most of them could easily be called the arkheist; some have still not lost faith in the hegemonia of American power. As the Americans are pounding Iraq, the debate over the larger context of the undertaking acquires salience.

The undisputed guru of the arkhe convictions is Richard Perle, Honorary Chairman of the Defence Policy Board. In 1996, he wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm''. It was a position paper written for and presented to the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was visiting the U.S. Mr. Netanyahu used it in his speech to the joint session of American Congress. The paper identified the toppling of the Iraq President, Saddam Hussein, as the prime foreign policy goal of Israel. It was bound to have a domino effect as Syria would be weakened thereby and its support for the non-state forces attacking Israel eliminated. The co-authors of the paper were Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and others. The paper was sponsored by Richard Cheney (now U.S. Vice-President) and Donald Rumsfeld (now Secretary of Defence). A virtual catalogue of the arkhe wielders.

Mr. Perle's tirade against less-than-compliant friends, allies and international institutions has been unceasing since then. Anyone or anything that would seek to rein in the unbridled American power is the enemy, according to him. As the French and the Germans refused to go along with an attack on Iraq, his insults became intensely personal. France lost its "moral fibre'' and Germany was headed by "a discredited chancellor'', he said. And he compared the United Nations to a sausage factory; anyone who sees the sausage factory from the inside will not be able to eat the sausage for the rest of his life — it is so revolting. The American experience with the U.N. would have similar consequences, he warned.

The arkhe believers prescribe pre-emptive wars with shock and awe strategy in the company of ad-hoc allies to strike at threats and potential threats. The shock and awe strategy was articulated by Harlan K. Ullaman and James Wade. In a Pentagon publication in 1996, they called for the use of more than decisive force in order to prevail quickly. The strategy imposes the non-nuclear equivalent of the impact of the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have yet to see the shock and awe against Iraq, but Mr. Ullaman is up front and centre claiming credit for his contribution to the war.

Shock and awe is approved of and incorporated in the official policy pronouncements, in the meanwhile. Planned and perfected by the Stratcom in Omaha since the days of Jimmy Carter, it was unveiled last September as the National Security Strategy. "Deterrence is dead," it declared; "pre-emption" was the new mantra. America would use "unquestioned military preponderance" to stop any other state from acquiring military power "surpassing or equalling the power" of the U.S. The strategy makes no pretence at harnessing that power to a lofty and noble ideal.

Anthony Zinni, the former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Central Command, used to boast that he had become a descendant of the warrior-statesmen pro-consuls, who ruled the Roman Empire's outlying areas. Based in Tampa, Florida, with a staff of more than a thousand and an annual budget of $150 million, Zinni ruled over a vast empire stretching from Central Asia to West Asia and the Gulf. The votaries of arkhe would not be averse to appointing some more pro-consuls to cover the globe. Alternatively, they might settle for local proxies. A light touch is not their preferred method. "Oderint dum metuant," that is, let them hate us as long as they fear us. It was a favourite phrase of the Roman Emperor, Caligula.

The hegemonists are no less assertive of the American might. They would, however, play the game with the rest of the world. According to the rules of the game, when convenient. Breaking the rules, when necessary. But swearing by them nonetheless. And quick to point out the others' lapses. What then are the rules of the game in the international system? It is the entire edifice of international and multilateral institutions. The United Nations, the World Bank, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and so on — in the American context. Plus, the habits of mind, the belief system and the world-view, i.e., human rights, the Geneva Conventions, international law. The Americans accorded the U.N. the role of the moral centre of world politics — at least initially. Resolution 1441 was their victory; it was also the triumph of the world public opinion. They tried for a second resolution to authorise them to attack Iraq. As the going got tough, they strove for a nine-vote "moral majority" to legitimise the impending war. Only to give it the go-by, when it did not play along. And once the bull has wreaked havoc in the china-shop, they plan to bring in the U.N. to tidy up the place. As the Iraqis capture the prisoners of war, the Americans insist that they be treated according to the Geneva Conventions. And when the Iraqi Republican Guards lure them into ambushes by dressing as civilians, they protest over the violation of the laws of war. So, the international institutions and international norms do exist — especially for the others. And for the Americans as well, when they so choose.

Brent Beers, till recently, was in charge of the war against terrorism at the National Security Council. He has resigned; not because he has fundamental differences over the war against Iraq but on the ground that a universal mission was being dissipated as the focus was shifted to a specific target — Saddam Hussein. In the process, the Americans were losing the global mandate. Fareed Zakaria's has been the latest voice of hegemony from the epicentre of American establishment. He laments that to support America today in much of the world is politically dangerous; calls for enlightened self-interest that takes into account the interests of others; and concludes that America's role is based on a "global faith that this power is legitimate."

These are not normal times in America. The virtues of hegemony are a luxury, when the Americans are focused on the Mesopotamian adventure. The world beyond is a world of protest-marchers, slogan-shouters and effigy-burners. When the normal times return, the Americans may want to rediscover the world and seek to rebuild the bridges to it. And why not? After all, it is the only world there is; and America has the most powerful and privileged position in it.

(The writer is Professor, School of International Studies, JNU.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Fear of flu

GDP gloom

American strategic thinking

War and the media

The future of the United Nations