To understand America's new military posture, one has to read the 90-page
document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and
Resources for a New Century." It was drafted two years ago by the
neo-conservative think-tank "Project for the New American Century,"
before President Bush and his advisers bought into this grand design
as America's new "National Security Strategy."
The document calls for "a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully
promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts
the United States' global responsibilities." The authors explain
that the "history of the 20th century should have taught us that
it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to
meet threats before they become dire."
Gone are the days when the key principles of American foreign policy
were deterrence, containment, and collective security. From now on,
U.S. policy makers are to focus on how best to accomplish military interventions,
pre-emptive first strikes, and counter-proliferation measures that the
President deems necessary. In his own words, "The only path to
peace and security is the path of action."
The new strategy entails "four core missions for U.S. military
forces: Defend the American homeland; fight and decisively win multiple,
simultaneous major theater wars; perform the 'constabulary' duties associated
with shaping the security environment in critical regions; transform
U.S. forces to exploit the 'revolution in military affairs'."
America can no longer be satisfied with balancing its nuclear arsenal
vis-à-vis Russia's. It has to insist on nuclear superiority protected
by a missile defense system capable of eliminating any foreign missile
threat. The defense of North America also requires that the U.S. expand
its security perimeter around the world by deploying a network of "forward
operating bases" and "a permanent allocation of U.S. forces."
Military pre-eminence over Eurasia will prevent the rise of any potentially
hostile power, "cope with the rise of China to great-power status,"
and permit pre-emptive strikes wherever necessary against states suspected
of developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Pre-eminence
also requires control of the new military frontiers of space and cyberspace.
In response to the "revolution in military affairs," the U.S.
has to remain at the cutting edge of the development of high-tech, including
unmanned, weapons. To "secure and expand zones of democratic peace,"
the strategy paper wants the active-duty strength of the armed forces
increased from 1.4 million to 1.6 million, give them more lift and electronic
support, expand combatant surface and submarine fleets, and supply the
Marine Corps with additional V-22 Osprey "tilt-rotor" aircraft.
To achieve these objectives, defense spending will have to be increased
to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product.
This will require adding up to $20 billion annually to defense appropriations.
Since the U.S. no longer faces a credible global rival, the President
is free to decide where, when, and how he wants to take corrective measures
at world trouble spots of concern to him. He no longer needs to worry
about other countries' negative reactions to U.S. leadership and decision-making,
because they are no match for America's armed might.
President Bush warned that countries refusing to go along with America's
policies thereby condemn themselves to becoming irrelevant. He also
cautioned the United Nations Security Council that it would become irrelevant
if it did not soon adopt the kind of resolution on Iraq that the U.S.
considers strong enough. Actually, the Council members have little choice.
If they agree, the U.S. gets its wish. If they disagree, the President
will simply deal with Iraq militarily as he sees fit.
There is one crucial problem, however, which the strategy paper does
not address: While the President may be able to police the world militarily,
how is he going to change the minds of the millions of people prone
to reject America's dominance either in non-violent open protest or,
worse yet, in violent surreptitious resistance?