Imperial Ambitions

John Arquila of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey CA has some thoughts on the current state of the Bush Doctrine and practice.  He relies on some of the favorite historical metaphors of the "neoconservatives" - the Roman Empire and the Second World War:  In these times, do as ancient Romans did - and survive: Negotiate with foes, slash commitments San Francisco Chronicle 06/12/05.

The following statement of the current situation is a good way of posing the question of whether we really want to be in this situation.  Or to stay there.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has been the world's sole superpower, a military colossus whose capabilities far outmatch those of any other nation. Yet our dominant sense is one of siege rather than celebration, as a seemingly endless stream of enemies has emerged to imperil American security and prosperity.

Perceived threats haven't come just from terrorists. Even during the decade before Sept. 11, 2001, what might be called our "national security holiday," we saw reason to fight in Iraq and Somalia, occupied Haiti, and sought to bomb the Serbs into submission on two separate occasions.

The attacks on America in 2001 simply drove the point home that a new era of perpetual warfare was now underway. So, like the ancient Romans before us, we feel compelled to man the ramparts all over our vast sphere of influence in an effort to keep the barbarians outside the gates.

Today, our latter-day legions fight terrorists across a broad swath of the Muslim world, from remote sites in the Sahara to the Horn of Africa, on through Iraq and Afghanistan, then to Southeast Asia. Our legions also shore up the securityof Taiwan and South Korea, and must always be ready for other contingencies that may arise abruptly at any time or place.

Fortunately, people who write seriously to have some affect on military and strategic thinking don't all feel the complusion to genuflect constantly to the wisdom and nobility of the generals' latest fads:

With regard to transforming the military, we are now in the fourth year after Sept. 11 and our armed services still look much as they did before the terror war began. How different this is from four years after Pearl Harbor in 1941. By the end of World War II in 1945, our military had been completely transformed and had vanquished all enemies.

The major difference now is that the U.S. military is the world's largest bureaucracy, and has proven highly resistant to change. So as we create more enemies, the military is unlikely to save us. Pentagon leadership has both the political clout and the sheer inertia to remain in stasis for years to come. (my emphasis)