Telling the world where we stand

Commanding Moments
    By Michael Burstein

Remember the Gulf War? Most of us were in middle school, bringing Walkmans to class to listen to the news, and tying yellow ribbons in a show of support for American soldiers. The international community patted itself on the back for ushering in a "new world order" in which a multilateral force built through the United Nations (UN) would bring down any would-be foes.

Eight years later, this vision has yet to come to fruition. Iraq, the model pariah, has become the UN's perennial headache. Faced with crippling economic sanctions that continue to hurt his people, Sadaam Hussein has brought the world to the brink of military conflict on-and-off for years, and there is no clear end to the conflict in sight. But more importantly, the Iraqi debacle has shown most clearly the inadequacies of U.S. military policy—a lack of clear objectives and a lack of consistency. It's time America figures out once and for all what role it wants to play in international affairs and starts playing it.

With Iraq, the goal appeared clear from the start: containment of a madman dictator who posed a direct threat to stability in the Middle East and American economic interests. But in the events following the Gulf War, this rationale became increasingly cloudy. And now we are left with a question: if we had attacked Iraq this week, what would we have been trying to accomplish? It is clear that Hussein is making a mockery of the UN by continuously challenging Security Council resolutions and flaunting his still intact weapons program. It is not clear how a military attack would force him into compliance.

A similar situation has been playing out in Bosnia. While America has an interest in Balkan stability, it may not necessarily be a military interest. Again, international foot-dragging has prevented the articulation of a clear American policy. The use of force against Slobodan Milosevic in a complicated ethnic civil war was clearly a bad idea, but the U.S. consistently played along with NATO's military threats.

Over the summer, the U.S. carried out air strikes against Osama bin Laden, a shady terrorist with a supposed network of operatives all over the world. Even putting aside any accusations of political motivations on the part of an embattled President Clinton, LAW '73, the action again seemed merely a display of military might. Conventional wisdom maintains that you cannot bomb terrorists, and in the weeks following the attack, the accuracy of U.S. intelligence and targeting was questioned. It seems like nothing was accomplished.

Military diplomacy is a tricky game. Threats are bargaining chips. Firing missiles shows that you are serious. It is reckless, however, for the United States to commit itself to military action without either clear strategic goals or a clear international mandate. Putting American lives at risk for missions with specious justification is wrong.

To put military policy back on solid footing, the U.S. must first decide what is in its national interest—what role it wants to play in international diplomacy. There are two competing philosophies. One says that we should be the "global policeman" at the UN's beck and call, comprising the primary force behind internationally motivated action. The other maintains we should use force at our own discretion with clearly established military goals. In reality, of course, these two approaches are mutually inextricable. Accepting global responsibility means that we may be obligated to act without direct national interest. On the other hand, lone superpower status is not a carte blanche for military action, and unilateral action risks international condemnation. Military policy appears confused because we have failed to come up with a satisfactory blend of philosophies; we have failed to define our global role.

To resolve this quandary and actually achieve our foreign policy goals—such as the destruction of Sadaam Hussein's weapons program—our leaders must clearly and publicly answer two questions each and every time they contemplate committing American forces abroad. First, what are our objectives in pursuing military action? Second, what are our objectives in dealing with the international community?

The Iraqi debacle has made everyone look bad: the U.S., its allies, and the UN. It is time for the U.S. to assert its leadership in international affairs, and ensure that future madmen like Sadaam Hussein cannot take advantage of an ambiguous international order.

Back to Opinion...