Peace through strength

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is the following a good philosophy by which to dictate a country's foriegn affairs?

[youngborean]

I guess it would only be effective for true peace if the strength was apparent, but the strong element chose peace. I personally believe that it is a strong testimony to respond peacefully when you are in the position of power. Of course it would only work if the party not in the "strength" position wasn't seeking power of its own but only mercy.

[juliod]

Is the following...

Nothing followed that question.

DanZ

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is the following...

Nothing followed that question.

No. But is there any doubt in your mind as to what the question of debate is after reading the topic title?


For any clarification: peace through strength

I would like to hear other's thoughts on this before interjecting with my own.

[Wyvern]

In an ideal world this doctrine would not be necessary. However we aren't in an ideal world, ours is one in which many of the countries are constantly trying to increase their power and the easiest path is normally by taking it from other countries.
A good example is Iraq before the first gulf war. Iraq saw to their south the kingdom of Kuwait which had next to nothing as far as military capabilities go while at the same time they had massive oil deposits. So what did Iraq do? they made a flimsy argument that Kuwait is a part of historic Iraq and they took over in a matter of days. Granted the U.S. threw them out after a while but this demonstrates that without strength peace is only attained at the behest of others.
The other outcome is illustrated by nazi Germany taking the Sudetenland. In a very similar move Hitler said the Sudetenland was a part of greater Germany and it was also taken within a few days. The international response was one of appeasement, a treaty was signed that gave Germany that land in return for the promise they wouldn't do it again. We all know where this led to. (note, I am not making comparisons between Iraq and Germany simply those are the two examples I chose mostly because they are well known)
A third outcome is possible when strength meets strength ala the cold war where a number of proxy wars were waged in order to spread or inhibit influence, since due to the MAD doctrine neither side was willing to bring up a direct conflict.

[juliod]

Strength is necessary to maintain equilibrium among nation-peers. Even peaceful nations like Switzerland must maintain a military force. A nations military embodies the national boundaries more than the geographic lines on a map.

But the question is whether this fact is a good model for a foreign policy. The question then becomes whether we need parity or dominance. Current policy is that we must maintain dominance. And that this dominance will give us freedm of action without need of allies or international consensus.

That is where dominance turns to weakness. By making unilateral power our sole policy, we can no longer count on allies and international support no matter what the problem. Our only ally is Tony Blair's Britian. But once he leaves we will have none. (The conservative party may be more supportive of the war-on-terror, but they will certainly put much more interest on the UK's interests than Blair. And since stated US policy is that the UK does not matter, we can expect any new UK government to be quickly alienated.)

Our current dominance in the world is not sustainable. It is an artifact of the collapse of the Soviet Union, with whom we sought mere parity. We became the sole superpower, and have maintained that by spending more on the military than the next ten nations combined. Clearly unsustainable.

So, no, "Peace through Strength" fails if strength is understood to mean unilateral dominance.

However, it is beneficial if strength is taken to mean mutual security and multilateral defence structures.

DanZ

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I have come under the immpression that "peace through strength" is merely a convulted excuse for militarism, and in no way seeks the effects it implys.

While it is necissary for nations to harbor some form of self defense to attain an equilibrium amoung peers (as Juliod points out), I find that the current US foreign policy far oversteps all reasonable bounds in doing so.

It is curious that Americans would preach the need for a democratic society, yet abandon this philosophy when met with the alternative of global military/economic domination. By asserting our power and influence we fail in convincing enemies to 'back down'. Countries with opposing motives and goals will instead build up power in order to match the threat, as can be aptly demonstrated by North Korea's and Iran's race to arms. Both have repeatedly expressed the rationale for their nuclear program- to offset the threat posed by an aggressive United States military. And yet, we continue to bare our fangs.

The current "war on terror" is a good example of such a strategic fallacy. Bigotry reins supreme on both sides, and we only feul this hatred further by inciting violence. The chemistry here is not hard to comprehend. Desperate Muslims loathe the western Christian influence they are forced to endure. Spured by the intolerant culture that bred them, terrorists lash out at the infidels of the United States. How do we offset this threat? Push back.

It does not take a psycology major to figure out what is likely to ensue. Two very proud cultures are clashing, and reasonable diplomacy is our only hope of ending this shoving match.

We have all attended kindergarden. We all know what happens when little Joey intrudes into little Timmy's play space. Timmy (assuming he is a prideful young lad) is likely to stand up to this threat. Tim shoves. Joe shoves back. The shoving match will escalate with each retaliation until a teacher intercedes and sorts out the situation.

The United States and middle east badly need a teacher to intercede. It is sad that our leaders feel the need to resort to playground tactics in order to solve their problems. America may be the big guy on the playground now, but sooner or later someone is going to get tired of the crap and stand up to the threat. As with all empires, any peace will be short lived.

What do you expect an animal to do when you back it into a corner? George hunts, he should know. Fighting fire with fire only increases the blaze. Imagine if the foriegn policy of Switzerland reflected upon every nation on the planet. World peace is not a complicated endeavor, it merely requires a simple agreement to humble cooperation.

The United States must disarm all nuclear weapons. We must begin to pull our troups from hostile situations in Iraq. Most of all, we need to lose the arrogant in-your-face attitude that accompanies our deep rooted nationalism. Intermittent solutions abound, and our affairs are apt to flourish should take advantage of them.


Diplomacy> Strength, 99 times out of 100.

[sue]

Diplomacy> Strength, 99 times out of 100.

The doctrine itself is sound. The current implementation in the US is poor.

[edit] The rhetoric from the leadership started out bellicose and has since improved at least a little, but it could be a case of "too little too late". But also, we are still in the process of learning how to effectively wage war (or better yet prevent war) against terrorists instead of states. That will take time.[/edit]

Sun Tzu would agree with your last statement.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

[veerar]

One might have heard the saying,"Might is right".So if a strong nation,perseveres,for peace,it would have more influence on other nations,than a weak,one trying to do the same.I would like to cite an example.Even now,India,is a weak nation,compared to the USA,economically and of course,militarily,apart from advances in Science and Technology etc etc.I remember.clearly,Mr Jawahar Lal Nehru,the then Prime Minister of India, trying to broker peace between,the USA and the former USSR,in the early sixties.(Between M/S Kennedy and Krushchev,the two leaders,then).A very weak India could achieve,nothing,in this respect,and was even the laughing stock of the world,for her debalce against,China,in 1962.Mr Nehru might also have been a bit naive,inexperienced,as he might have been,in geopolitics.
Hence Peace can only be achieved thro' strength!

[Metatron]

Countries with opposing motives and goals will instead build up power in order to match the threat, as can be aptly demonstrated by North Korea's and Iran's race to arms. Both have repeatedly expressed the rationale for their nuclear program- to offset the threat posed by an aggressive United States military. And yet, we continue to bare our fangs.

I'm somewhat skeptical about your assertion that these two countries have repeatedly expressed that the rationale for their nuclear programs is to offset the U.S. threat given that both countries deny that their nuclear programs have anything to do with nuclear weapons in the first place. I doubt that they're claiming that a "peaceful" nuclear reactor is going to stop American aggression.

You also seem to imply that the only reason for these nation's nuclear programs is that they are the poor picked on kids trying to stand up to the mean U.S. bully. I disagree.

In the case of North Korea, the U.S. has been in a static defensive position on the DMZ between the two Koreas for over fifty years. Furthermore, the U.S. forces there are not even close to adequate for offensive operations (and indeed, are probably not adequate for defense even with the South Korean arm forces in a sudden attack). So where is the grave new military threat from the U.S. that justifies their nukes? My personal opinion is that Kim Jong Il and company understand that their country is an economic basket case that cannot adequately feed their own people and therefore their options are:
1. change their economic system and risk losing power
or
2. establish a nuclear capability (along with IRBMs and eventually ICBMs) to blackmail their neighbors South Korea and Japan into economic concessions that will help keep them afloat and in power.

As for Iran, your supposition that the threat of the U.S. military as motive for nukes is far stronger. After all there is a far stronger U.S. military force in a neighboring country than exists in South Korea and that force was recently used in an offensive operation. So given that the motive is there, the next question is: If there was no significant U.S. military threat to Iran would it be logical to assume that Iran would have little interest in developing a nuclear capability?

In my opinion, the answer is no. Since the Iranian revolution, Iran has consistently displayed, primarily through support of external Shia groups like Hezbollah, the desire for two related goals: the spread of it's aggressive form of Shia fundamentalism through out the Middle East and local hegemony in the Persian Gulf region. A nuclear capability would allow Iran to easily cow any other nations in the area if they decided to "liberate" Shia areas in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, the nukes would also make U.S. and other Western democracies think twice before intervening. Such a move would not only allow them to strengthen Shia fundamentalism in the region but would give Iran a virtual hammerlock on world oil production especially given that the puny oil nations like Kuwait and Qatar would have to fall in line or be overwhelmed.

Desperate Muslims loathe the western Christian influence they are forced to endure.

Perhaps you can point out to me where in the Muslim world the U.S. is forcing Christianity down someone's throat? Or perhaps the Muslim nation we are forcing to buy American consumer products at gun point?
Our primary impact in most of these nations is providing the infrastructure and know how to allow them to exploit their oil wealth without which they would be among the poorest nations on earth. The degree to which Western consumerism and liberalism affect their societies is largely out of our control and is something their people need to take up with their own governments.

It does not take a psycology major to figure out what is likely to ensue. Two very proud cultures are clashing, and reasonable diplomacy is our only hope of ending this shoving match.

What kind of "reasonable diplomacy" do you expect to have with people who crash airliners into buildings?

We have all attended kindergarden. We all know what happens when little Joey intrudes into little Timmy's play space. Timmy (assuming he is a prideful young lad) is likely to stand up to this threat. Tim shoves. Joe shoves back. The shoving match will escalate with each retaliation until a teacher intercedes and sorts out the situation.

But what if little Joey is a religious fanatic that wants to KILL little Timmy and is okay with dying to make that happen?

Fighting fire with fire only increases the blaze.

And your response to Pearl Harbor would have been what exactly?

Imagine if the foriegn policy of Switzerland reflected upon every nation on the planet. World peace is not a complicated endeavor, it merely requires a simple agreement to humble cooperation.

Hey, if you can convince all of the nations of the world to adopt neutrality simultaneously and figure out a way to keep them there, more power to you!

The United States must disarm all nuclear weapons.

Unilaterally???

We must begin to pull our troups from hostile situations in Iraq. Most of all, we need to lose the arrogant in-your-face attitude that accompanies our deep rooted nationalism. Intermittent solutions abound, and our affairs are apt to flourish should take advantage of them.

What intermittent solutions would you suggest?

Diplomacy> Strength, 99 times out of 100.

Diplomacy without Strength = Appeasement