National Security Part III

US National Defense Policy Opportunities

By Craig S. Byrnes

Amongst the strengths and weaknesses of US national defense policy are opportunities for growth and improvement on the global stage. According to the National Defense Strategy of the US, the end of the Cold War brought about the opportunity to establish a new “peaceful state system” in the world. Supreme economic development within the US has spurred the growth of the American system to countries as diverse as red China, India, Pakistan and Libya.

Ying Ma—an NRI Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute—in a February 2007 issue of Policy Review, completed an article entitled “China’s Stubborn Anti-Democracy” which said, “The fundamental underpinning of American policy toward China today—and US democracy promotion in China—is economic engagement.” Efforts to promote American democracy within the country are not going well though according to Ma, due mostly to the humanitarian issues facing the Chinese government.

“China’s Communist Party continues to rely on repression and brutality to maintain its rule,” said Ma. The opportunity for democratization of the communist country, according to Ma, will begin to be more effective once Americans can learn the secret to “authoritarianism’s resilience.” Significant economic growth coupled with “stringent restriction of what democracy theorists called ‘coordination goods’,” continue to stall the transition to a democratic China, but on the plus side the country will be hosting the 2008 Olympic Games, leaving them on their best behavior during the interim providing occasions where the promotion of democracy would be received more seriously to achieve more stable growth—especially after tasting the economic benefits of the Olympics.

US defense policy toward the Middle East is of utmost importance in terms of vital national interests. Peace in a region basically floating on an ocean of oil would be favorable to the entire international community; therefore all efforts must be made to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to sustain and increase US power and trustworthiness in the region. Following the troop surges in the region there is much debate within the US domestic political environment on whether or not power-drunk democrats are willing to vote in favor of cutting spending for the troops, in an effort to control the president’s war policy.

This extended oversight would normally damage any effort to operate effectively in combat situations or on patrols deep inside hot zones, but in actuality provides an opportunity to increase the use of defense contractors who participate in combat actions. These contractors—such as Black Water USA and Halliburton—can provide highly trained teams of special operations soldiers who are not currently subject to international laws regulating their conduct in combat situations. This above the law force can undertake missions the US would like to execute, but for one reason or another are prevented from doing so. Much of the intense political pressure exerted on the Bush Administration can be avoided by using a mercenary force, and in addition to deployment to Iraq, humanitarian efforts and peace keeping services are in extreme demand in the Horn of Africa and diplomatic security in theatre is increasingly required to maintain continuity of American leadership responsible for coordinating troops and more or less propping up the young Iraqi democracy, but according to James D. Fearon, in a March 2007 Foreign Policy article entitled “Iraq’s Civil War”, since the Bush Administration remains committed to stabilizing the Shiite dominated government within Iraq, “a position that is morally dubious and probably not in the interest of either the United States or long-term regional peace and stability,” no progress will occur within the region due to “limited leverage” with all of the applicable actors who can possibly help to quell the situation.

Widespread economic success enjoyed by the US and other countries that prioritized acceptance of the American model is beginning to lure new international partners into seeking integration into our system, thus providing a greater geopolitical network to support the coalition of the willing, while allowing for greater influence over the affairs of our newest friends. In addition to the in flow of new international partners there seems to be a desire by current allies of the US to “deepen our security relations with them,” according to the National Defense Strategy of the US. Strengthening of geopolitical bonds will be detrimental in obtaining and maintaining an ample fighting force for the GWOT capable of taking pre-emptive action—if necessary—against nations that break the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—North Korea and Iran—and either make or acquire an atomic bomb.