anyone else here heard/read of this unofficial policy? I remember reading about this about seven years ago in one of the major think-thank's journal, but forgot which one it was. Not sure if it was Foreign Affairs or one of the books advertised in it.
Nevertheless, it makes sense. aside from the economic benefits that war brings (the extension of the dollar into once hostile countries; new markets for american products, etc...), it also refreshes our forces in ways that training could never do, while short of having a major impact that a global conflict would ensue. Winnable regional conflicts or regime changes also does the double duty of further isolating our enemies by limiting their reach closer and closer to home (look at Iran) and it wins us new allies. With these allies come new bases of influence that can either be used to change the dynamics of a particular region or left to incubate until they become of further use (the Horn of Africa incubated for well over a decade until the war on terror put it to use and Central Asia is incubating until something comes up over there).
Is this policy a common thread among Presidents? The answer seems to be an unequivocal yes. After the second world war, every competent president has supported a major conflict one form or another. Eisenhower supported the Korean War; Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon supported the Vietnam War. Even where there wasn't major conflict, there was major action. For example, Reagan instigated and oversaw the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union, which led to its eventual collapse. Bush senior oversaw the first Gulf War. Clinton oversaw the establishment of bases on the Horn of Africa. And Bush junior oversaw the Afghan and Iraqi conflict.
War may be unpopular, but it can be a powerful economic and political tool when used in the most opportune manner. Other big powers can do little but watch and protest. As the world has witnessed, all our enemies are surrounded (by our own soldiers or allies). Their own foreign policies are thwarted at every whim. Their leaders are almost always on the defensive and ridiculed. The villianization begins.
Where is the next conflict? Who knows. things like these aren't planned decades ahead. but the pieces have to start falling in place sooner or later. Diplomatic shots are usually fired first. Whether ideological, political, or economic, the interests of all three have to be critical for the next conflict to occur. As with any aftermath, perhaps there has to be a cooling period or a time to get our and the conqueree's house in order. Nevertheless, in a decade's time, the case will be made. The villians' name would've been announced to the world. The debate would've commenced. The endgame would've concluded. And the eagle would've landed.
Nevertheless, it makes sense. aside from the economic benefits that war brings (the extension of the dollar into once hostile countries; new markets for american products, etc...), it also refreshes our forces in ways that training could never do, while short of having a major impact that a global conflict would ensue. Winnable regional conflicts or regime changes also does the double duty of further isolating our enemies by limiting their reach closer and closer to home (look at Iran) and it wins us new allies. With these allies come new bases of influence that can either be used to change the dynamics of a particular region or left to incubate until they become of further use (the Horn of Africa incubated for well over a decade until the war on terror put it to use and Central Asia is incubating until something comes up over there).
Is this policy a common thread among Presidents? The answer seems to be an unequivocal yes. After the second world war, every competent president has supported a major conflict one form or another. Eisenhower supported the Korean War; Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon supported the Vietnam War. Even where there wasn't major conflict, there was major action. For example, Reagan instigated and oversaw the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union, which led to its eventual collapse. Bush senior oversaw the first Gulf War. Clinton oversaw the establishment of bases on the Horn of Africa. And Bush junior oversaw the Afghan and Iraqi conflict.
War may be unpopular, but it can be a powerful economic and political tool when used in the most opportune manner. Other big powers can do little but watch and protest. As the world has witnessed, all our enemies are surrounded (by our own soldiers or allies). Their own foreign policies are thwarted at every whim. Their leaders are almost always on the defensive and ridiculed. The villianization begins.
Where is the next conflict? Who knows. things like these aren't planned decades ahead. but the pieces have to start falling in place sooner or later. Diplomatic shots are usually fired first. Whether ideological, political, or economic, the interests of all three have to be critical for the next conflict to occur. As with any aftermath, perhaps there has to be a cooling period or a time to get our and the conqueree's house in order. Nevertheless, in a decade's time, the case will be made. The villians' name would've been announced to the world. The debate would've commenced. The endgame would've concluded. And the eagle would've landed.
Facebook
Twitter