Roles of the Military in Modern Society - Assignment Example

Roles of the Military in Modern Society During my eights years of military service, I was based overseas in Asia and in the United States. While in the service and since that time, I have spent a great deal of time reflecting on what specific role the most powerful military in the history of the world should play in the U.S. government’s foreign political pursuits. In modern times, the military has been used, not for defense but to advance civilian policies in places such as Vietnam and Iraq. It has been postulated by many that America gained its wealth through its subjugation and exploitation of ‘weaker’ groups by the stronger and thus more dominant white male establishment, not because of its economic opportunities and freedoms. This scenario is essentially the conflict theory defined (Patterson, 2006). Is the military a tool for oppression used purely for purposes of influence and domination? I believe that the majority of military men and women believe that their missions serve honorable, humanitarian purposes. They could not do their jobs effectively otherwise, but the intentions of the civilian leadership have become increasingly subject to question by all levels of the military establishment. The United States became a military superpower along with the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. This era began almost immediately following the Second World War and ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The U.S. was treated to a double bonus, the threat of another world war was greatly diminished and America remained as the lone supreme military power. The country had come a great distance from what it had started with which was a loosely coordinated band of militia who were more idealist than soldier. Certainly, the threat of a superpower conflict that could destroy the United States greatly diminished following the Cold War. In addition, the U.S. enjoyed great prestige thereby the ability to influence global politics simply by its status from being the world’s largest economic and military power. It seemed to most that the U.S. was entering an extended time period of reduced military involvement. However, “in the ten years following the end of the Cold War, the United States engaged in as many major military interventions as it had in the previous forty” (Graham & Pianin, 1998). The military superiority of the U.S. after the Cold War was certainly used by politicians and diplomats to advance foreign policy. What is concerning though, is that foreign policy seems to be motivated by military capability. Military force should always be a consideration when forming foreign policy but it never should be the primary determinant. For example, both the Soviet Union and the U.S. built large arsenals of nuclear weapons during the Cold War years but this was for strategic purposes. It proved successful because these weapons were not used, the original intention of the strategy. That is much different than reviewing the power of the military then considering what nation could be invaded successfully. Precision bombs and stealth jet fighters are more successful when they are not used but their manufacture has led to unintended military and political consequences. Political leaders have the responsibility of deciding how to successfully integrate the present military advantage into a reasonable global engagement policy. At present there seems to be little federal guidelines regarding the appropriate use of military forces. The new generation of stealth and guided weapons has resulted in the reduction of U.S. military casualties in a given conflict, at least theoretically and in the minds of the public. This has given politicians more leeway to react to foreign affairs with military force. The U.S. now has the ability to invade a country simply because it can and not because it is the option of last resort. Prior to the Cold War, the government at least presented to the public, that it used military force only when necessary so as to protect the country’s vital interests. Many times, though, the policy makers’ characterization of vital was flawed yet U.S. military involvement was always justified in this manner. After the Cold War, the country’s vital interests were no longer the measure by which to initiate military action. The first President Bush committed forces to Somalia in the early 1990’s to be part of a United Nations humanitarian mission but public support quickly evaporated when the American soldiers began dying. President Clinton sent troops to the Balkans which proved to be successful because it caused minimal U.S. casualties while achieving political objectives. This conflict showed that the American public will tolerate military intervention even when not presented as protecting vital interests but only if it doesn’t cost a great deal of Americans lives. Somalia was a failure but military actions in the Balkans, Haiti, Panama and the first Gulf War has evidently encouraged the United States to initiate militarily action without any foundation in reason or common sense. Still a superpower, the U.S, can overwhelm most other nations militarily, but successful foreign relations and global political objectives are made more complicated and less likely if the military is continually used for dubious purposes (Larson, 1996). As conflicts of many descriptions break out all over the world, the use of military action will continue to be a topic of discussion. This use, especially by the world’s greatest military power, requires a sense of immense responsibility. While the U.S. was intervening in the Balkan states, human atrocities that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Africans were largely ignored. Government leaders should be held accountable for their justification of military intervention in the Balkans but not Africa. The rationalization for the use of military force is hardly consistent even within the same administration. The instances of misused military power over the past half century have escalated in the past 15 years which has caused an ever-widening credibility deficit for the U.S. Now, more than ever, it is vital that the U.S. formulates a reasonable policy which dictates the specific guidelines for engaging in foreign military operations. Within this policy, American interests should always be unambiguously defined. An understanding of both the potential and limits of military intervention must be clearly understood. If not, situations such as the current Iraq debacle and its peripheral consequences including an increase of global terrorism and the growing hatred of America will continue. War produces change and if applied in an appropriate situation can prove to be effective, but if applied incorrectly will lead to disastrous consequences. The current Iraq and previous Vietnam War proves this point. Although inflexible guidelines for engagement are impractical, political leaders must recognize that objectives must match the cost, whether counted by deaths, credibility or other peripheral circumstances. U.S. political leaders must also resolve to use military force only as a last resort or in self-defense and not simply because they have the ability. In short, they should follow the guidelines of the military itself. “Traditionally, the defense establishment has advocated military action only in cases where vital national interests are threatened and there is a clear, obtainable objective” (Ignatieff, 2000). Technology has played a major role in U.S. military actions and in the decision to act. This same advantage that allows America to intercede in foreign affairs when and wherever it wants is creating a divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world including its closest allies. The advanced technology of the U.S. military is far superior to that of any other country even those who are closely allied to the U.S. This makes the efficient integration of forces all but impossible. “Frequently, integrating allied forces means that the United States must compromise doctrinally” (United States General Accounting Office, 2001). A coalition of allied forces is not a proficient method by which to fight a battle but such a coalition is necessary to justify the action to other world governments. The U.S. cannot unilaterally invoke military force although it would be a preferred method, tactically speaking. Going to war alone would give the world the impression that the U.S. is acting as pirates, thugs and mercenaries thereby diluting the credibility and legitimacy of what the country is supposed to stand for. America and its Allies should be better integrated. If they must interact for political purposes, it’s only logical they train extensively in joint military operations. The U.S. military has become increasingly involved in foreign affairs for an ever widening range of rationalizations. At this same time, the advancement of information technology has enabled the transparency of a conflict on a global scale. War is brutal which translates to U.S. brutality depending on an individual’s perspective. No matter where the conflict or the reasons for deploying military forces, much of the world will likely be against the action. This underscores the reason for demonstrating extreme caution when making the decision to use force. A strong military provides national security and its use outside of strict self-defense situations has proved necessary in the past and very probably will again in the future. By training with allied forces and assuring that military action is used prudently, the U.S. will fight more effective battles thus producing fewer deaths and hopefully fight fewer battles producing fewer deaths still. The U.S. government should protect its interests with military force if necessary following careful consideration, but a priority for policy makers should be to strengthen the nation’s capability to utilize ‘soft power.’ The term ‘soft power’ is “the ability of a country to use its cultural and ideological appeal , rather than coercion to get what it wants; it is the process of attracting other nations to the same outcome that it desires instead of forcing them to accept it” (Kaplan, 2002). ‘Soft power’ is a useful diplomatic tool that can be used not only before but while military operations are taking place, an example being the ‘bombs-and bread’ campaign in Afghanistan. The strategy was to appear as humanitarians in the eyes of world opinion not as ruthless invaders. Bombs were dropping on the oppressive Taliban regime while food was being dropped to the people that had suffered under their rule or because of the war. The historical trend of the U.S. military had been focused mainly on facilitating its army with the ability to inflict greater amounts of damage than it could previously. Recently, the rapid advancements of technology have changed this focus. Now, the military is able to inflict damage much more efficiently which lessens the quantity of damage necessary to achieve the same goal. This outcome is indeed more preferable on moral grounds but it also allows whatever justifications for employing military force a greater propensity to appear as an acceptable solution to the public. The government has been able to use force seemingly at will because of this but when its use of the military is considered either excessive, irresponsible or both, it damages U.S. credibility regarding its reasons for war and its supposed moral stance. In its role as the world’s lone superpower, the motto of the U.S. seems to follow the Machiavellian idea that “it is best to be both feared and loved, but if one cannot be both it is better to be feared” (Machiavelli, 1985). Globalization is continually bringing nations closer together economically, culturally and technologically. With this and the current debacle in Iraq in mind, the U.S. would be wise to consider that generally, the political and military strategies which are ultimately successful are strategies based on ethics and morality, not domination or greed. References Graham, Bradley & Pianin, Eric. (August 13, 1998). “Military Readiness, Morale Show Strain: Budgets Contract; Deployments Expand.” Washington Post. Ignatieff, Michael. (2000).  Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond. New York, N.Y.: Metropolitan Books. Kaplan, Eben. (2002). “Just Warriors: The Role of the American Military in the Globalized World.” Bard. Retrieved October 17, 2006 from Larson, Eric V. (1996). Casualties and Consensus: The Historical Role of Casualties in Domestic Support for U.S. Military Operations. RAND Report MR-726-RC. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved October 17, 2006 from Niccolo Machiavelli, Niccolo. (1985). The Prince. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 65-68. Retrieved October 17, 2006 from Patterson, Clark. (September 29, 2006). “Waging War on Conflict Theory.” Campus Magazine. Retrieved October 17, 2006 from United States General Accounting Office. (July 2001). Kosovo Air Operations: Need to Maintain Alliance Cohesion Resulted in Doctrinal Departures. Report to Congressional Requesters, Report number GAO-01-784. Washington D.C.: General Accounting Office. Retrieved October 17, 2006 from Read More