The destructive nature of World War II was a direct result of the realities of post-World War I Europe. It revealed that victory alone does not ensure lasting peace and prosperity. In the age of total war, the results of geopolitical events allowed to spiral out of control cannot be avoided or contained by solely reactive military strength. Indeed, the millions of dead upon the fields of battle, and the millions more slaughtered by unchecked hatred, attest to the consequences of inaction.
As the Nazi flag fell and the Iron Curtain descended on Eastern Europe, America’s leaders felt the world could not endure the devastation of a World War again. The consequences of such a war meant we could not consider open conflict with the Soviets. But, neither could we allow it’s Communist Regime to spread its influence unchecked.
The disgraced doctrines of appeasement, which allowed unchecked aggression, did not belong in a world faced with two politically opposed nuclear powers. America’s leaders surmised that to preserve peace and prosperity, military strength could no longer be held in reserve until geopolitical foes declared outright war. They realized America would have to display its military power to avoid the consequences of cataclysmic conflict. Thus, out of necessity, America and her allies adopted the policy of deterrence.
Deterrence is the idea that a credible threat of force combined with the surgical use of limited and directed military action can deter geopolitical foes from pursuing activity that would lead to instability and war. The principles of deterrence concede that avoiding regional conflict is not always possible. But the overall results of nuclear and strategic deterrence endorse its sound nature. Thanks to the policies of deterrence, we were able to avoid global war and nuclear holocaust while representative government recognizing human rights has thrived.
At the end of the Cold War, nuclear deterrence no longer seemed needed. Our new policy became nuclear non-proliferation. This was a worthy goal, but one that led to an eventual departure from strategic deterrence as a definitive US policy.
After the Berlin Wall fell, a pattern arose where avowed enemies of the United States began acting without fear against our interests and our citizens. These enemies had grown to expect little to nothing in regards to an American response. In some cases, we did respond. However, since the responses were not part of a constant and cohesive strategy of deterrence, the reactions often bogged down and proved fruitless as the righteous anger from the public dwindled and burned out.
In our modern conundrum, we do not face the threat of total nuclear holocaust from a single nation whose political goals call for our downfall. Instead, we face the dangers of violence against our citizens from religious and fundamentalist groups spanning many countries and supported by various rogue nations willing to use these groups and their tactics to destabilize their regions.
Nuclear deterrence is not an option. It would further inspire these rogue parties to develop and apply nuclear technology and risk groups who do not fear the consequences of nuclear holocaust obtaining and using them.
However, the renewed policy of strategic deterrence, aided by new tactical deterrence options, can establish known consequences for destabilizing actions. It would provide a clear and constant framework for the use of military power in a new and changing form of conflict.
In recent years, a massive refugee crisis has stretched the capabilities of our allies and is creating ethnoreligious conflict at home. The threat of global instability from rogue nations tests our will and military might. And, fellow world powers have engaged in dubious behavior across the world.
We are once again facing the consequences of appeasement, reimagined as strategic patience under the Obama administration. The Trump administration has moved away from strategic patience in some ways and has engaged in deterrent-like action. But these have occurred as isolated episodes instead of as part of a clear and cohesive strategy of deterrence.
It’s time we open an honest dialogue on the practical applications of American foreign policy in establishing a world where peace and prosperity are not under constant threat. We need to develop a consistent bipartisan strategy that can transcend our current political dysfunction.