By Marc Seltzer; originally published on September 11, 2009, at care2.com
Reflecting on 9/11 includes thinking about eight years of foreign policy. What concerns me is the massive commitment we have made in two foreign wars and the uncertain accomplishments we have to show for it.
In Afghanistan and then Iraq we invested tremendous human and economic resources. We may in the long run succeed in giving Iraq the opportunity to create a functioning democracy, but the cost was high.
In Afghanistan, it is still not clear that a positive outcome can be achieved, although the committment of sufficient resources may also bring results that were not possible previously.
During President Ronald Reagan’s eight years in office, he responded to various threats without engaging in a substantial ground war. When he chose to react with force to Libyan terrorism, he bombed Moamar Gadaffi’s compound. Gadaffi survived, although immediate family members were killed in the attack. One military act, with small risk to our forces and cost to our economy, backed up by economic sanctions. We did not attempt to replace a regime or transform a society.
Since then, Gadaffi has renounced terrorism and sought to comply with international norms. Gradually, sanctions have been removed and Libya has begun its return to the community of nations.
President Reagan did commit tremendous national resources to oppose the Soviet Union, the major Cold War threat. But despite “Star Wars’” failings, the U.S. investment in missile-shield technology fostered American economic and technological superiority, which ultimately forced the Soviet Union to change. Not all former soviet states are success stories today, but many are, and the 30-year threat of nuclear war subsided.
Since 9/11, the loudest complaints about our use of force have been over justification for our invasion of Iraq. Those who believe that military action wasappropriate focus on security to be gained from defeating the enemy and establishing stable government. What about the security to be lost, if we demonstrate that we are unable to accomplish our mission or unwilling to face new threats (Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs), because we have already given too much?
Our military proves itself every day in discipline, bravery, organization and tactics. But do our political leaders have the strategic wisdom to use force so that we achieve the most for the least expenditure of precious resources?