Ever since the end of the Cold War, the United States has struggled to find its identity in the international world. I’m not convinced we’ve found a coherent national strategy when it comes to foreign policy and defense. The Republicans’ foreign policy is undecided between the libertarians who want to cut off all interaction with the international world and the neo-conservatives that want to build up our military and spread democracy across the globe. Democrats seem more intent on a focus on diplomacy, human rights, and protecting our workers from unfair trade; but I personally have seen those priorities only in rhetoric, and haven’t seen any convincing policies for actually advancing those goals. What’s the strategy when Iran ignores our diplomatic efforts, trade talks fail, and China refuses to offer more liberty to its people? I’m not pointing fingers at any particular party or policy, just stating that in general we haven’t found the right path on this issue.

I’m also not writing this to propose exactly how we should solve the problems in Israel and Palestine, end our current wars, or resolve any of the other specific issues we currently face. Instead, I’d like to take a step back and look at the big picture – to reassess our goals and desired end state. Clearly the ultimate goal in international relations is peace, prosperity, freedom, sustainable environmental practices, fair trade, and human rights everywhere in the world – but perhaps we should find a more manageable goal on our way there. I believe our main goal in international relations is to position our country in world politics in such a way that provides security, a path to continued economic growth, and the ability to influence other nations in their domestic policies towards human rights, liberty, and sustainable practices. Many would argue that our influence over other countries is much less important than our own security and prosperity – but I believe that in this globalized world these goals are mutually dependent. Today’s problems of international violence and economic difficulties make it apparent that no country can provide security and prosperity independent of others.

So what would this future world look like – a world where America is safe and influential? That’s a difficult question with many possible answers, which is why I believe we’re floundering in our attempts to reach it. Is it only attainable in a world where all nations are democracies? Is it in a world where American military and economic power is unrivaled? Is it a world with a greater balance of power between East and West? Is it a world where Western ideals prevail globally? Is it a world of renewed American isolationism? No one can know the right answer to that question, if one even exists. However, I’m of the opinion that trying to ensure unrivaled American power is an utterly self-defeating goal. The nature of humanity, politics, international relations, and history makes it clear that trying, and especially succeeding, to become dominant creates enemies and ensures an eventual downfall. We’ve seen in Iraq and Afghanistan that superior power in no way ensures success. In fact superior power poses a threat and creates an incentive for other nations to undermine and destroy that power. So it’s my opinion that projecting military power actually lessens our ability provide security and influence international actors in today’s world.
With that in mind, I think America will be much safer and more influential when we can convince the world that our Department of Defense is reserved for defense, rather than aggression of our choosing. I wince every time I see letterhead with the air force phrase, “global air power.” We’re proudly advertising our ability to threaten any nation in the world. What about a mission statement more in line with defending our homeland? Do we really think we need to be able to fight and win wars on two continents at a time to ensure our national sovereignty? Do we need an army, air force, and navy that can all carry their superior forces anywhere in the world?

That’s the thinking that has dominated our defense policy, and I believe it’s self defeating. While it’s clear from 9/11 that terrorism can threaten our home from abroad, the solution to that is not the world’s most overwhelming military power. If we reduce our dominant presence I’m convinced that we’ll become much less of a target for such extremists. With the drastic cut in costs from scaling back to a truly defensive military rather than a power projecting world force, we could greatly increase our resources directed toward intelligence, non-conventional forces, and soft power that can prevent terrorism.

Just think of the incentive China and Russia have to build their military and oppose America – we’re the only nation in the world with military bases in other countries around the world. What would we do if China and Russia set up military bases in Mexico so they could project global power? We would be horrified, yet we have bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, and nearly every other strategically significant and threatening location around our rivals. Perhaps if we kept American forces on American soil we wouldn’t appear to be such a threat – a threat that can only be countered through massive military buildups, developing nuclear weapons, or resorting to terrorism.

So where would such a change leave America – without the power to invade any country any time, without global staging bases on every continent? Could we defend our own land? Would we still have any influence in trade, human rights, and environmental agreements? Could we still combat or prevent terrorism? Could we still protect weak nations from gross injustices and genocides (which we only do when it’s in our self interest anyway)? Would we be safe and influential? I believe the answer to all those questions is undoubtedly yes. If we had a standing military a fraction of what it is today I am confident we could defend our soil from foreign invasion. Military power doesn’t really help when it comes to trade, environmental policy and other countries’ domestic issues – you can’t really threaten to attack a country for polluting or censoring. Our lack of military dominance I believe would improve our standing in the international community, and world opinion has become the dominant force in influencing these domestic issues. I believe we would also find greater cooperation from multilateral organizations when it comes to fighting international terrorism and injustices. In short, I believe the world in which America is safest and most influential is the world in which we aren’t the overwhelming dominant force.