America: Prone to War, not Diplomacy
The American Foreign Policy is one built on force, coercion, and blowing things up. America’s concentrated agenda on the 21st century challenge of global terrorism and the rise of China has not revolved around an increase in diplomatic engagement, nor has there been a focus on cultural and social understanding. The importance of bridging cultural gaps has been sentenced to the waist side in favor of sharpening the sword of king force.
The U.S. currently spends more than $583 billion on its defense budget. France (believe it or not) comes in a far-behind second, spending just over $74 billion. One would think that this indulgence in military spending would be matched in the field of diplomacy, since war should also be a last resort, right? Well, according to some alarmingly facts pointed out by Nicholas Kristof in his recent New York Times Op-Ed, this isn’t the case — not even close. Here are a few of the unsavory facts pointed out by Kristof that show America’s apparent disdain and neglect of diplomacy:
- The United States has more musicians in its military bands than it has diplomats.
- This year alone, the United States Army will add about 7,000 soldiers to its total; that’s more people than in the entire American Foreign Service.
- More than 1,000 American diplomatic positions are vacant because the Foreign Service is so short-staffed, but a myopic Congress is refusing to finance even modest new hiring. Some 1,100 could be hired for the cost of a single C-17 military cargo plane.
- The entire American diplomatic corps — about 6,500 people — is less than the staffing of a single aircraft carrier group.
Instead of using the increased international focus on China to build strong cultural ties and strengthen diplomatic relations, vast amounts of money are being funneled to the Navy and Air Force for F-22s, attack submarines, and advanced destroyers — not the ideal type of vessels for diplomatic engagement. There has been an overall neglect in establishing strong diplomatic ties with China. The typical response to China’s rise has been to build up arms, not extend a welcoming hand.
This type of statecraft frustrates “beyond belief” veteran statesman Dennis Ross, who views the Bush administrations marginalization of American soft-power and neglect of the America’s diplomatic corps as a great travesty to American diplomacy and the main culprit behind the increase in anti-Americanism and the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. In his recent book Statecraft: And How to Restore America’s Standing in the World, Ross praises the Bush I and Clinton administration for their focus on diplomacy and negotiations. Prior to the rise of the hawkish Bush II administration, the focus on American soft-power and global outreach marked a time in which the American leadership connected to the world via “talking” instead of “shooting.” Among the examples of diplomatic success, Ross cites the German reunification, the Balkan crisis, and the first Gulf War. All, according to Ross, are cases of diplomatic success, marked by extensive engagement and negotiations.
The call for more diplomatic engagement is more than a part of the dove lobby’s liberal fluff. It focuses attention on a painfully overlooked aspect of international politics and cultural understanding. America’s intuitive response to fighting terrorism is to simply blow them sky high, to punish those “derned terrist” until they get the message and bow-down to the all-powerful America. A recent study from the RAND Corporation found that the most effect way for a terrorist threat to “disappear” was for it to be absorbed by the political process. Interestingly enough, the report found that the use of military force hardly ever solved the problem of a terrorist threat. When aggrieved parties have an opportunity to voice their dissent via the political process, they are forced to “de-radicalize” themselves in order to gain legitimacy amongst the population. Examples such as the Belfast Agreement (establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly) and, more recently, the induction of Hezbollah into the Lebanese cabinet (and the subsequent deal with Israel) are cases-in-point of the effectiveness of an opposition party.
As for larger issues, such as the rise of China, an approach that advocates the position taken by international theorist John Ikenberry should serve as a model for future U.S. foreign policy. Instead of antagonizing a rising China by focusing on a build-up of arms and an increase in military spending, the U.S. should seek to encourage and cradle China’s absorption into the Western institutional mold. Unlike any time in history, a rising superpower will face a well-established international order with existing institutions and well-established norms. This provides the world (specifically the U.S.) with the opportunity to prove wrong the hegemonic stability theory in favor of a peaceful absorption. The international world doesn’t have to change. There exists already the necessary tools and institutions to make China’s ascension to superpower status a peaceful and relatively harmonious event. Instead of viewing China’s rise of a threat, and thus a reason to spend more on military aggrandizement, the U.S. should seek to expand its diplomatic corps and work to bridge cultural gaps and mend ill feelings.
Let it be known that this write-up isn’t a dove advocates apologetic. I understand that the pressure for a strong and large military is perceived as a must for the United States and, in many ways, a necessity. But the disproportional figures between military spending and diplomatic investment are staggering. I can only hope that future administrations, whoever they are, will put a renewed focus on the virtue of engagement and breathe a new life into American diplomacy.
I think I speak for most Foreign Service Officers when I say we appreciate every voice calling for more support for diplomacy. I have linked to and quoted you here: http://lifeafterjerusalem.blogspot.com/2008/08/pc-america-prone-to-war-not-diplomacy.html
While defense spending is about 600 million dollars, isn’t defense spending as a percentage of the federal budget preety low compared to most of the 20th century?
je,
Yes, this is true. It currently registers at around 4% of GDP. That’s up over the last decade, but still not quite as high as the Reagan years (6+%) or during Vietnam (9+%). However, the bottom line is that the US, over the last few years, has increased the military budget significantly. Although percent of GDP seems relatively normal, if you consider the amount it increased by from 2006 to 2007 you’ll get a better picture. President Bush’s defense budget request of $481.4 billion in January of 2007 represented an 11 percent increase in military spending. There has not been a comparable amount of spending for the diplomatic corps — herein lies the problem.
Right, but you title the piece “America, Prone to War.” This seems a little misleading with reference to military spending in relationship to gdp.
Further, the State Department’s budget is 2002 was about 8 billion dollars. The 2009 request is 11 billion. Isn’t this increase pretty comparable to the increase in the Defense Department’s budget?
The title was to catch the attention of the reader. But it is still more true than not.
We’ll see if the request is matched.
But, je, don’t get caught up too much in the numbers. This is more about foreing policy principal and what is needed in the future. The last 8 years have been indicative of a neglect in diplomatic engagement. Containment of Iraq, neglect of international opinion, and the negligence in Southeast Asia were results of an overly concentrated military-force policies. I’ll hedge my statement a bit by saying that it seems that coercive measures and undiplomatic practices seems to be subsiding in favor of diplomatic engagement, hopefully for the long-term.
SC – You really have a staggering ignorance of military culture and its mission. Every servicemen deployed in uniform is a diplomat for our country. Planes and subs are being built, because many of the current ones in use are old and breaking down with outdated technology. They also produce thousands of jobs.
It makes me angry when those against the Iraq War use the US military as a scapegoat to argue their point. Instead, they should address their concerns to the elected officials who authorize involvement in the first place. It is much more compelling and convenient to show tanks and missiles and decry the erosion of society, because nations maintain armed forces. How safe and naive it is to promote utopic fantasies of world peace. All military is demonized as a perpetrator of hate and violence without noting the inconvenient distinction between tyrannical and democratic nations. Left leaning groups propagandize with “Gen. Betray Us,” attacking a brilliant mind and a decent man, who is carrying out to the best of his ability, the orders he was given by the fed. gov’t. MoveOn.org should instead call out the congressmen and senators to whose campaigns they so generously contribute. But the media sees a uniform and a gun as a potent symbol of aggression, so it is adopted out of willful ignorance by society. People have such a skewed understanding of the US military and hopelessly short memories, and the liberal media outlets do their best to put the military in the worst light possible. Your slideshow by NYT of rogue photographers who took pictures of dead and dying US soldiers is a perfect example of this. Besides being terribly insensitive and disrespectful to the servicemen and their families, it was promoted as the “reality of war.” The reality is the that the military’s efforts to preserve civilian lives has cost them theirs. The US doesn’t practice a policy of calling air strikes into occupied neighborhoods when encountering insurgents during combat, unlike Russia in Georgia who put considerably less value on human life.
If funding the military is so bad, who plucked people from the rooftops of their flooded homes, when their elected officials failed to evacuate them before the storm? The Coastguard. Who was the first deployed to areas destroyed by the tsunami, bringing food and medical supplies? The Marines. Who sends a fully staffed 400 bed floating hospital ship every few months to administer vaccines and medical care to children in developing countries? The Navy. Who builds bridges, damns, roads, shelters and brings supplies to war-torn regions? The Army and Air Force.
Diplomacy is taking place all over the world, the NYT doesn’t talk about it. DC is a exceptional place to educate yourself about the military, you should take advantage of it before you leave.
that plane crazy ya’ll!!! look at all those bombs it droppin! i bet that shit cost a lot of money.
Well I, for one, am glad that we have such a prescient military mind as Karen L to set all of us straight on all things martial. In addition to the odious sanctimony, the moronic argumentative style suggests a small and narrow mind. Many on the left clearly have a skewed and negative view of the military, but the fellatory treatment given all things military by those like Karen is equally dangerous. The claim that American forces don’t call air strikes into residential neighborhoods is patently absurd. The Pentagon has a complex policy concerning acceptable levels of collateral damage. I’m not arguing for any kind of moral equivalence between the US military and the actions of the Russians. There is a clear difference. That said, there are clear guidelines used by the military when authorizing air strikes, and the are willing to risk a certain level of civilian casualties in pursuit of enemy targets. The US military obviously does a great deal of good around the world, and I believe that it is, on balance, far more good than bad. Believing in the general good of American military power does not, however, require one to whitewash and ignore the problems presented by the social, strategic, and economic consequences of American imperial military power. Those are conversations well worth having.
On this issue presented by the post, I’m fairly certain that Steven was not arguing for a military budget of zero dollars. The level of funding the military gets is an appropriate topic of discussion, especially where the massive amounts of fraud and waste are involved (a congressional priority of known anti-military leftist John McCain).
jkkuwitzky: I didn’t claim that air strikes are never called into residential neighborhoods. I was speaking about the US rules of engagement in contrast to the heavy-handedness of other countries, nor do I endorse “all things military”. You should read more carefully what I said before labeling ME moronic. Where did I accuse SC of wanting to drain the military budget? I think you’re reading what you want to believe, instead of what I actually wrote. I was speaking of the misinformed perception often given of the US military as grunts who like to, as SC said, “blow stuff up”. I think this blog provides enough criticism of imperial military action to counteract any “whitewashing” that I might be accused of. Are you suggesting that the military is the only gov’t funded entity that’s inefficient? Calling out liberal media bias doesn’t make me ignorant or sanctimonious, nor do I appreciate the misogynistic overtone in your criticism of my post. If you think desiring a more balanced view of the US military here and abroad is one big blow job, then that’s your problem.
Karen, Let’s clarify a few things here.
1. No where in this post do I come remotely close to bashing the military, or even calling for a decrease in military investment. I am simply stating that an investment in America’s diplomatic corps is lacking, and an emphasis on bridging cultural gaps has been marginalized. No where do I talk about how “bad” funding is for the U.S. military nor did I say anything about how the military doesn’t do a decent job (although there is definite room for debate there).
2. The mission of the U.S. Armed Services is, bluntly, to seek and destroy or provide necessary security for other activities. Sure they do many things beyond this, but that isn’t their primary objective. What a Foreign Service Office or a Political Desk Officer does, in general, is very different from what an infantry soldier is trained and equipped to do.
3. You wanna quit associating me exclusively with the ignorant “left wing” of America? Seriously, Karen, it’s getting a bit old. And what is this business about MoveOn.org (whose slander of Gen. Petraeus is nothing short of a detestable low-blow)? I can’t say anyone on this blog has come remotely close to advocating the infamous poster depicting Gen. Petraeus as a back-stabber. Petraeus has been a superior tactician who turned Rumsfeld’s and Paul Bremer’s absolute mess into something resembling success. And somehow I am an insensitive and ignorant American? Why? Because I think that diplomatic engagement is more effective than dropping bombs or that I think people ought to see what happens in war? Give me a break. I’ll agree that many on the left have a very skewed view of the role and responsibilities of the military; however, I am not siding with or advocating any such position.
Karen, honestly, if you want to debate the merits of my argument (which is fair and rather objective — in my opinion and probably of most others) then I am all for it. However, you seem to revert back to the same old throwaway lines that the “left” (that I am somehow in lock-step with) doesn’t understand the effectiveness, responsibility, and role of the military. It isn’t that easy, and I’m not that stupid.
I suspect you are a military wife or have strong ties to the military. I am sure you’re simply seeking to defend the valor of servicemen and servicewomen. However honorable that may be, don’t let it get in the way of making sound and valid arguments.
Bottom Line: The military does a fine job when used properly. So, too, does the diplomatic corps. However, Under the Bush II administration, there has been a shortage in emphasis placed on diplomatic engagement, negotiations, and over-all openness. If you disagree with this, then we have a debate. Don’t just lump and dump me with the left-wing crazies.
1). “Where did I accuse SC of wanting to drain the military budget?”….. “If funding the military is so bad…..” Perhaps they are not exactly the same thing, but you seemed to be asserting that he though funding the military was a bad thing. A few connected dots later and you get not funding the military. At the very least they are variations on the same theme.
2) “I didn’t claim that air strikes are never called into residential neighborhoods.” ….. “The US doesn’t practice a policy of calling air strikes into occupied neighborhoods when encountering insurgents during combat…”. You and I both acknowledged the difference between the practices of the American and Russian militaries. I think the American standards are better, but I’m sure you could find more than a few Iraqis (or Serbs, Laotians, and Japanese) who think American rules of engagement are a bit “heavy handed”.
3. Of course I am not saying that the military is the lone outpost of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. If only that were the case. It is, however, one of the few realms of government where it is politically dangerous to suggest greater oversight (social security might qualify, but thats another discussion).
4. What made your comment (in addition to others you’ve made before) sanctimonious is the attitude you exude that you alone understand the military and its ways. I don’t know anything at all about your life experiences, but your tone suggests some sort of connection to the armed forces and the solipsism that often accompanies that sort of background.
5. Though I can see how you might have interpreted a certain remark as misogynist, that certainly was not my intent. I actually think there is a weird sexual component to the hero worshipping militarism of the non-veteran Right, but thats a conversation for another day. Your comments consistently suggest what I believe to be a less than clear headed view of the military, but that comes down to a difference of opinion. The photo issue is a prime example of this. I understand and respect your point of view, but I think portraying conflicts in a realistic way (yes, both the good and the bad) is of greater importance than the emotions of the families of the wounded and killed. Its a tough call, but at the end of the day war is, at its foundation, a public policy that the public needs to understand in full in order to properly function as a democratic decision making body. I’m not defending the way the media covers wars. I think they make mistakes on both ends of the issue. They were much too pro-war during the run-up to the invasion and shortly thereafter, and they were too pessimistic at times during 2005 and 2006. I don’t like the lack of nuance presented in discussions of the Surge and its aftermath. I am, at this point, basically a supporter of the Iraq War, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t see big institutional problems in the way the military functions in our nation’s political life.
SC: I thought I was debating the merits of your argument. I think the problem is that we disagree on the mission of the DOD/military…
“The mission of the Department of Defense (US Armed Forces included) is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.” That’s the official statement. Not “to seek and destroy or provide necessary security for other activities.” You’re basing your entire argument on an inaccurate premise. You exclude diplomacy as part of its mission, but the DOD thinks differently.
The idea that the military’s sole purpose is to serve as dumb muscle is a falsehood perpetuated by biased media and leftist ideologues. The notion has been so entrenched in the minds of otherwise rational people, like yourself, that they don’t know their misinformed.
“America’s concentrated agenda on the 21st century challenge of global terrorism and the rise of China has not revolved around an increase in diplomatic engagement, nor has there been a focus on cultural and social understanding. The importance of bridging cultural gaps has been sentenced to the waist side in favor of sharpening the sword of king force.”
I pointed out previously that DOD was and is practicing bridging cultural gaps and social understanding through aid and assistance and not only using force. From reading your article, you seem to think that diplomacy is the exclusive responsibility of the Foreign Service. The “good things” done by the military are not palliative, but essential to fulfilling its mission.
“vast amounts of money are being funneled to the Navy and Air Force for F-22s, attack submarines, and advanced destroyers — not the ideal type of vessels for diplomatic engagement.”
Your suggestion that funding for subs, planes and boats is not diplomatic is inaccurate. The military and FS work in tandem. I too feel positions at the FS should be filled and that they should play a greater role, but you contrasted that with the increased number of soldiers. I never accused you of advocating defunding the military, but I don’t think its a stretch to presume you preferred the hiring and increased involvement of FSO over funding essential improvements to military integrity.
Finally, I don’t know what my personal feelings or situation has to with challenging your arguments.
Karen L,
Thanks for you insight and obvious experience regarding this issue/post.
I’ve really enjoyed reading your responses! Hopefully, they will too, eventually……
Some things:
1) Great post, SC. I think your call for a re-evaluation of our national priorities is an important one. In general, I think defense spending that resembled Cold-War levels is absurd (since the Cold War is over, you know), and it is obvious that the DOD acts as if it has a blank checkbook with no real oversight since no Committee or politician has the political balls to ever publicly question the so-called necessary national security issue.
2) Kolby, I love the word fellatory, and it did seem fairly applicable.
3) Karen, I think you have a valid point at the root of your rant about the military. Of course we need a strong military and it does make sense for us to be able to do the humanitarian things you mentioned. However, it does not make sense to measure the absurdity of our defense spending compared with ourselves and ignore the incredible discrepancy between ourselves and everyone else on the planet.
4) Karen, I wonder if there are many in the Foreign Service who feel that “the military and the FS work in tandem.” That seems like a description that a military person (such as you) might give, but from what I have read from our country’s diplomats, they are not usually pleased when the military takes over their situations. As an involved citizen who is involved with neither group, it seems to me that the DOD and State Department have two different, competing approaches to resolving disputes, not two complementary ones.
5) I love it when people number things. It makes me smile.
One more post, then I’ll drop it. I’m posting what SC has already seen (sorry), but I think it best articulates my point without the sanctimonious nature I’ve been labeled with. For the record, I’m an ardent supporter of the military, but that doesn’t make me blind to its flaws nor against exposing them. However, I think there are plenty of people who post here that can handle the job of criticizing military action. I often take an opposing view to help flush out my own perspective and bug the people that disagree with me:) I’m also posting after David mentioned the need to reduce military spending to pre-Cold War levels. I found this fascinating since SC never mentioned military spending reduction and said so, but I was accused of suggesting he did. Funny. I think the concern many voters have is that Obama will dramatically reduce the military, and policy changes like the one SC’s suggests may very well be manipulated to justify it. The politics of carrying out a policy, no matter how rational and balanced, can create inaccuracies and bias to pursue an agenda, right? I referenced MoveOn.org as an example of using the military to attack a policy, though I know it is an extreme case. I don’t think it is impossible to believe that the military could be portrayed negatively to justify reducing it.
The issue I took with the post, was not so much the argument of Bush abandoning soft power for hard power, but what was used to support the arguments. The perception of more hard-power in the form of increased troops, ship construction, etc., can easily be sold as anti-diplomacy. You seemed to contrast of FS(diplomacy) v. Military(force), but instead of citing how Bush has specifically misused hard-power/military use of force, beyond just broad statements, you mentioned spending specifics, which I don’t think is the same thing and which has the potential in the current political climate of going after the military itself (the point that David aptly proved and the reason for my rant). In other words, you made it about the military and not the use of force. Certainly, the perception of increased military funding might be seen to China and the rest of the world as an intent to increase hard-power, but I don’t think an increase in military spending necessarily means there will be less money spent on diplomacy, though more should be spent on the FS. I think they are apples and oranges, especially since the military sometimes supports FS efforts (even if they don’t like each other) and my earlier point about military humanitarian aid, which I firmly believe plays a significant positive role in foreign policy. Bush 2 may choose not to use soft-power to the extent of Bush 1 and Clinton, and probably should adopt more of an engagement policy over containment, but building new planes to replace the outdated ones is not necessarily a show of hard-power, at least in my mind. There I’m done.
Diplomacy is overrated. By this logic we should be able to try and understand the plight of Islamic terrorists and thus ease the tensions that exist between us. Hogwash!
As far as Iraq goes, diplomacy was used to its fullest extent before we invaded to remove a percieved threat. This statement is true regardless of your position on the war.
What about Russia? They are engaged in what is essentially a war for oil and there is little to no criticism from the left. Obama wants to “get all the facts” before he makes a statement. I think that means “have someone tell him where Georgia is on a map and write a speech for him.” I heard a journalist ask the President of Georgia if they had reached out to start a dialogue with the Russians. Suddenly the Georgians are the ones who are not using enough diplomacy. Give me a break!
The left is quick to denounce force used by western democracies and slow to be critical of other leftists (Putin, Sadaam, etc.) So while I respect the call for an equal ammount of diplomacy as military might, I disagree that diplomacy has ever ended a war or prevented one. Even the Cuban Missle Crisis did not defeat the Soviets but merely averted disaster for the time being. The Cold War ended because of a military buildup that could not be matched by the USSR.
If you seek a greater emphasis on diplomacy to somehow avoid conflict, you are naive. If you seek it so you’re not as embarassed around Europeans, you are a coward.
Diplomcay is used, has been used, and will be used. As to why the difference in spending terms, talk is cheap, bombs are not.
In what delusional universe is Putin a “leftist”? An argument can be made for calling Saddam Hussein a man of the left (though the Iraqi Ba’ath Party was on the economically centrist wing of the movement), but I would think that authoritarian mafiya capitalism is a better descriptor of Putin. But then I guess that anyone who you don’t like is a “leftist”.
The same delusional universe where the cold war ended………….
“The Cold War ended because of a military buildup that could not be matched by the USSR.”
I’m finding it hard to really “debate” anything here. Mainly because what most of you are alleging as a false move, I would, more or less, agree with. With this caveat: more emphasis needs to be put on diplomacy (the central thesis of this post). America has largely neglected this crucial aspect of foreign policy over the last 8 years. We are, more or less, in a battle of ideas (hence, the return of history — see Robert Kagan’s book/article). You cannot win a battle of ideas with guns. Sure, it is imperative to have a strong, well-functioning military, but to do so at expense of a strong diplomatic corps is poor statecraft (see Dennis Ross’s book).
The reason I used spending specifics was to illuminate how little funding the American diplomatic corps receives, compared to the military. True, I did have a point in saying that not so much funding should be granted to the military while it is not to Americas diplomatic actors, I never intended it to mean that we should decrease military funding or slash military projects (although there is a debate here — for another time). Again, the bottom line, diplomacy is a virtue that has been largely neglected over the last 8 years; it’s time we invest more money, time, and energy in reaching out, connecting, and understanding people.
Derek, you say the stupidest things…
china will die !!!
perich
naz