If America ends up at war, it almost certainly will be on behalf of an ally. Washington collects allies like most people collect Facebook “friends.” The vast majority of U.S. allies are security liabilities, as potential tripwires for conflict and war.
Yet American officials constantly abase themselves to reassure the very countries that the United States is defending at great cost and risk. For instance, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) recently worried: “What ally around the world can feel safe in their alliance with us?” The right question is with what ally can America feel safe?
Instead of relentlessly collecting more international dependents, Washington policymakers should drop Allies In Name Only (AINOs).
Contra the scare-mongering of hawkish politicians, the strategic environment today is remarkably benign for the United States. The world is messy, to be sure, but the number of big conflicts is down. More important, America faces no hegemonic threat or peer competitor and is allied with every major industrialized state other than China and Russia.
All of Washington’s recent wars have been—from America’s standpoint—iver unimportant, indeed, sometimes frivolous stakes.
Terrorism remains a genuine threat, but falls far short of the sort of existential danger posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Worse, terrorism typically is a response to foreign intervention and occupation. Washington has inadvertently encouraged terrorism by backing authoritarian regimes, joining foreign conflicts, and creating enemies overseas.
Adding unnecessary allies makes this problem worse. In Ukraine, for instance, the Obama administration is under pressure to treat a non-ally as an ally—arming and/or defending Kiev—thereby confronting Russia, a nuclear-armed state which considers border security a vital interest.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/us-should-choose-allies-which-benefit-america
No comments:
Post a Comment