Do you dangle carrots and use a big stick when things don’t go your way? How does a nation (or even a person) balance sheer power with diplomatic finesse? These struggles expose the dynamics between "soft" and "hard" power which are discussed in the article, Sustaining American Leadership with Military Power by Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D.

As a "superpower" and foremost player in world politics, the United States has created a reputation for knowing what it wants and knowing how to get it... The lines of soft and hard power often blur during times of world conflict and changes of national leadership. Some believe President Obama’s softer diplomatic approaches compromise the superpower status which our forces have dearly sacrificed for. Others applaud the compromising nature of the current administration in light of the downfalls and failures brought upon the nation by the previous one. Is such transformation for better or worse? Read the excerpt below of Dr. Holmes’ article and respond! Are the tables being turned?

Exerpt from Sustaining American Leadership with Military Power by Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D: 

Contrary to what many politicians and talking heads tell Americans, a false choice exists between what are often referred to as hard and soft power. A country’s military resources (its hard power) and the diplomatic tools it uses to persuade others without resorting to coercion (its soft power) operate most efficiently in tandem.

As Teddy Roosevelt famously observed, a nation must "speak softly" with diplomacy while also wielding a "big stick." Just as no country can be expected to provide security and pursue its interests solely through the use of military power, no country can expect to be taken seriously during high-stakes negotiations without the potential threat of military force to back up its word. The two approaches are not separate tools but mutually reinforcing mechanisms.

Backing Carrots with Sticks Works

In the past, when America chose to flex its diplomatic muscle with the backing of its military might, the results were clear.

During the Cold War, the foundational document for U.S. strategy toward the Soviet Union, NSC-68, concluded that military power is "one of the most important ingredients" of America’s national power. This power gave the U.S. the ability not just to contain and, if necessary, wage war against the Soviet Union and its proxies, but also, during tense diplomatic stand-offs like the Cuban Missile Crisis, to reinforce its political objectives with robust strength.

This same equation of military-diplomatic power proved effective in easing tensions during the Taiwan Strait crisis in 1995-1996, when President Bill Clinton sent two aircraft carriers to demonstrate America’s firm commitment to the Taiwanese democracy. Similarly, the display of America’s military strength against a defiant Saddam Hussein in 2003 convinced Libyan President Moammar Qadhafi to abandon his weapons of mass destruction program.

Obama’s Risky "Rebalancing" Act

Before he became President, Barack Obama raised the important connection between our hard and soft power, arguing that America must "combine military power with strengthened diplomacy" while also building and forging "stronger alliances around the world so that we’re not carrying the burdens and these challenges by ourselves." While his statements are correct, his actions as President have done little to demonstrate actual commitment to forging a policy that combines America’s military power with its diplomatic authority.

For America to be an effective leader and arbiter of the international order, it must be willing to invest in a world-class military by spending no less than 4 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product on defense. Unfortunately, President Obama’s FY 2010 proposed defense budget and Secretary Robert Gates’s vision for "rebalancing" the military are drastically disconnected from the broad range of strategic priorities that a superpower like the United States must influence and achieve.

Instead of seeking a military force with core capabilities for the conventional sphere to the unconventional--including a comprehensive global missile defense system-- in order to deter, hedge against, and if necessary defeat any threat, Secretary Gates argues that "we have to be prepared for the wars we are most likely to fight." He is echoing the view of President Obama, who has argued that we must "reform" the defense budget "so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use.

But the conventional Cold War capabilities that this Administration believes we are unlikely to use are the same platforms that provide America with both the air dominance and the blue-water access that is necessary to project power globally and maintain extended deterrence, not to mention free trade...

• Share 
•     
•     
•     
•     
•     
•     
•     
•     
•     
•     
•     
•     
•