The Limits of American Military Might
07/16/14
Michael R. Matheny
Military Strategy, United States
"Our optimism has often led us to overestimate the utility of American power to shape and influence local institutions and political outcomes."
As
the most powerful nation on earth after more than a decade of lashing
about the world with our military force, one might well ask: What good
is it? What have we achieved?
Why haven’t we achieved more? From Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, to the
Ukraine, regional or global stability seems in short supply and fraught
with human tragedy and strategic peril. Are we in the grip of some
sweeping historical trend as the Middle East sorts out its religious and
political destiny? Are we fighting for a fading status quo, which will
inevitably result in the retreat of American power and influence or just recognition of its limitations?
In 2005, British general Rupert Smith wrote a book called, The Utility of Force.
Reflecting on his experience in the Balkans and elsewhere, he asserted
that military power no longer seeks to achieve hard political
objectives, but conditions in which favorable political outcomes may be
reached. Rupert saw a future in which warfare is mostly confined to
state versus nonstate actors—the endless, messy wars at the low end of
the range of conflict. He rather overlooked the fact that most nonstate
actors are actually fighting to become state actors. For state actors,
the strategic utility of force can be summed up in four words: assure,
deter, coerce, compel.
Read full articlehttp://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-limits-american-military-might-10884
No comments:
Post a Comment