By Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, April 06, 2017
The most dangerous moments in foreign affairs often come
after a major power seeks to reassert its lost deterrence.
The United States may be entering just such a perilous
transitional period.
Rightly or wrongly, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and
Middle East-based terrorists concluded after 2009 that the U.S. saw itself in
decline and preferred a recession from world affairs.
In that void, rival states were emboldened, assuming that
America thought it could not — or should not — any longer exercise the sort of
political and military leadership it had demonstrated in the past.
Enemies thought the U.S. was more focused on climate
change, United Nations initiatives, resets, goodwill gestures to enemies such as
Iran and Cuba, and soft-power race, class, and gender agendas than on
protecting and upholding longtime U.S. alliances and global rules.
In reaction, North Korea increased its missile launches
and loudly promised nuclear destruction of the West and its allies.
Russia violated its obligations under the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and absorbed borderlands of former
Soviet republics.
Iran harassed American ships in the Persian Gulf and
issued serial threats against the U.S.
China built artificial island bases in the South China
Sea to send a message about its imminent management of Asian commerce.
In Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State killed thousands in
medieval fashion and sponsored terrorist attacks inside Western countries.
Amid such growing chaos, a return to former (and normal)
U.S. deterrence would inflame such aggressors and be considered provocative by
provocateurs.
Accordingly, we should remember a few old rules for these
scary new crises on the horizon.
1. Avoid making verbal threats that are not serious and
backed up by force. After eight years of pseudo-red lines, step-over lines,
deadlines, and “game changers,” American ultimatums without consequences have
no currency and will only invite further aggression.
2. The unlikely is not impossible. Weaker powers can and
do start wars. Japan in December 1941 attacked the world’s two largest navies
based on the false impression that great powers which sought to avoid war did
so because they were weak. That current American military power is overwhelming
does not mean delusional nations will always agree that it is so — or that it
will be used.
3. Big wars can start from small beginnings. No one
thought an obscure Austrian archduke’s assassination in 1914 would lead to some
18 million dead by 1918. Consider any possible military engagement a precursor
to far more. Have a backup plan — and another backup plan for the backup plan.
4. Do not confuse tactics with strategy. Successfully
shooting down a rogue airplane, blowing up an incoming speedboat, or taking an
ISIS-held Syrian city is not the same as finding a way to win and end a war.
Strategic victory is time-consuming and usually involves drawing on economic,
political, and cultural superiority as well as military success to ensure that
a defeated opponent stays defeated — and agrees that further aggression is
counterproductive.
5. Human nature is unchanging — and not always admirable.
Like it or not, neutrals more often flock to crude strength than to elegant and
humane weakness.
6. Majestic pronouncements and utopian speechifying
impress global elites and the international media, but they mean nothing to
rogue nations. Such states instead count up fleets, divisions, and squadrons —
and remember whether a power helps its friends and punishes its enemies.
Standing by a flawed ally is always preferable to abandoning one because it can
sometimes be bothersome.
7. Public support for military action hinges mostly on
perceived success. Tragically, people will support a dubious but successful
intervention more than a noble but bogged-down one. The most fervent prewar
supporters of war are often the most likely to bail during the first setback.
Never calibrate the wisdom of retaliating or intervening based on initial loud
public enthusiasm for it.
8. War is a harsh distillery of talent. Good leaders and
generals in peace are not necessarily skilled in conflict. They can perform as
badly in war as good wartime generals do in peace. Assume that the commanders
who start a war won’t be there to finish it.
9. War is rarely started by accident and far more often
by mistaken calibrations of relative power. Flawed prewar assessments of
comparative weakness and strength are tragically corrected by war — the final,
ugly arbiter of who really was strong and who was weak. Visible expressions of
military potential, serious and steady leadership, national cohesion, and
economic robustness remind rivals of the futility of war. Loud talk of
disarmament and a preference for international policing can encourage foolish
risk-takers to miscalculate that war is a good gamble.
10. Deterrence that prevents war is usually smeared as
war-mongering. Appeasement, isolationism, and collaboration that avoid
immediate crises but guarantee eventual conflict are usually praised as
civilized outreach and humane engagement.
Finally, it is always better to be safe and ridiculed
than vulnerable and praised.
No comments:
Post a Comment