HERBERT LONDON: THE PRAYER STRATEGY
The Prayer Strategy by Herbert I. London
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2262/the-prayer-strategy
Like a tide that ebbs and flows, isolationism in what some have called Fortress America arrives at the water’s edge each generation. War fatigue, monstrous expenditures, casualties and the cry that we cannot be the world’s policeman contribute to the belief from both the left and the right that we should turn inward and concentrate on building America instead of
nation-building abroad.
This call does not make political distinctions. It can be heard from the Ron Paul wing of the Republican party and from the Barack Obama wing of the Democratic party, if not from President Obama himself. Prompted by the belief that our goal in Afghanistan is vague and an appropriate exit strategy nonexistent, and that the Libyan operation violates the War Powers Resolution and remains an ill advised venture, an anti-war cry across the country is gaining currency.
Those two cases provide plenty of ammunition for the anti-war critics. Whatever modest success U.S. forces have had in stabilizing areas of Afghanistan, stabilization is fragile, and many of the Afghani forces fight with us during that day and join the enemy at night. The draw-down of 10,000 troops that the President is requesting may further jeopardize the modest success we have had, at least that is what General Petraeus and other military officials have hinted.
The Libyan invasion is a classic example of the disharmony between goals and tactics, and the absurdity of delegating any military task to NATO without direct U.S. control. For a two week period, the US bombed Khadafy’s forces in an effort to assist the so-called rebels. After this, we simply passed the baton to the NATO generals, who now claim they are running out of ammunition. President Obama said our goal was not to kill Colonel Khadafy, but to encourage him to step down. Obviously he has not gotten the message. He is fighting for his life and we are fighting for… precisely what are we fighting for?
Yet despite criticisms which runs deep, my fear is that many have converted these two misadventures into a generalized policy stance. Even former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has indicated “we will not be fighting major land wars any time soon.” Surely we can choose not to fight any war, but history has a way of intruding on this decision. We may choose to appease or turn away our gaze or even accept defeat, but there will be enemies intent on destroying the United States and they may not have any compunctions about fighting a war.
The danger of isolationism is that it encourages complacency. Presumably if there are no interests abroad, there no a need to maintain an active military force. History does not repeat itself exactly, but its broad outlines are often duplicated. It now appears as if the scenario unfolding at this time resembles the 1930’s, a period when the U.S. opted out of worldwide commitments. One can only hope that an attack like the one at Pearl Harbor will not be necessary to jolt us awake.
As history has shown, building military readiness after dramatic retrenchment is painful. Far better to add on to existing resources than starting anew. But as the Libyan venture suggests Presiden,t Obama seemingly has convinced himself that American interests can be channeled through multi-lateral organizations. The upshot of this position is to spend less on military matters and hope that others will fill the vacuum left by our withdrawal. This is a prayer strategy that serves as a gateway for our enemies.
The signal we send through isolationism is that we do not possess the will to stand by commitments to our allies or defend our interests abroad.
Whether this mood is transitory remains to be seen. Americans invariably surprise everyone with their resilience. But have we been worn down by fatigue? Is America different from its past? Will the sentiment of decline dominate the culture? Will this century witness an American withdrawal from global affairs? And will the isolationists continue to ascend to foreign policy leadership?
Comments are closed.
