by Sean Lavelle, The National Interest
America routinely conducts military operations in no fewer than seven countries around the world. These interventions are what military theorists might call “low-intensity conflicts.” They are primarily aimed at tamping down the probabilities that radical groups will successfully attack the U.S. homeland…
America’s forces, which are optimized for large, expensive and conventional conflicts, simply cannot conduct small wars in a cost-effective manner.
And then there is the question of whether America’s overseas interventions are as effective as the alternative options. Would it not be better for America’s more local allies to handle these problems with the greater dexterity and cultural understanding that proximity affords? This could result in fewer American deaths, fewer American dollars wasted and better security outcomes. But how could America induce its allies to carry the burden of combating radical groups?
It could engineer a system of alliances that benefits both the weaker and stronger parties. Winning a small war requires cultural intelligence, singular focus and an ability to credibly maintain a permanent presence. America has not proven particularly capable in any of these areas. Its allies might. On the other hand, winning a large, conventional war requires economies of scale, technological superiority and control of the commons. America is uniquely positioned to dominate all three. U.S. allies are not…
No comments:
Post a Comment