<<  <  >  >>

Washington

want to go to war for such purposes, let

military weapons and technologies

them. But there is no need for the United

to rogue nations, such as Iran, Iraq,

should return to a

States to take on such a neoimperialistic role.

and North Korea, which threaten

foreign policy

Returning to a more traditional, re-

American interests. Conflicts in the

appropriate for a

strained international role would reduce

Balkans, the Persian Gulf, Africa, and

pressure on the American armed forces.

South America threaten U.S. inter-

republic rather

With a smaller force (under 1 million) less

ests as well. Terrorism and global

than an empire.

frequently deployed, the Pentagon would

crime syndicates require military

monitoring.148

need fewer personnel--fewer first termers,

careerists, NCOs, and officers. Thus, both

recruiting and retention problems would

The vision of an embattled America

disappear. George Wilson admits that

sounds plausible--if one believes that the

dropping strategically superfluous com-

United States is acting alone in a hostile

mitments is an obvious alternative to his

world. But Maginnis's case collapses when

proposal for a selective draft, but, he argues,

one remembers that America's adversaries

"nobody is talking seriously about doing

face a Washington-dominated coalition

that."143 It is time to do just that.

that accounts for 80 percent of the globe's

military spending and encompasses all of

The prospect of not attempting to man-

the most economically and technologically

age the globe horrifies some observers.

advanced nations. Vague threats to

Defense Secretary William Cohen contends,

"American interests" pale in comparison

"We have to assume a great deal of burden

in this world."144 Gordon Sullivan admits

with the danger posed by the Soviet Union

during the Cold War.

that "no one wants to return to the draft"

The countries presenting the most seri-

but goes on to say that "neither can the

ous risks of war for America today, such as

nation avoid its role as the world's sole

in Iraq and North Korea, are declining in

superpower, unless it is willing to accept the

strength.149 Moreover, those threats are

greater risks associated with a more isola-

tionist foreign policy."145

directed not at the United States itself but

primarily at its allies, which are far more

Sullivan has the relationship exactly

prosperous than most of their potential

wrong, however. The risks associated with

adversaries (compare, for example, South

entanglement are far greater than those

and North Korea, Western Europe and

resulting from nonintervention. George

Russia, and Japan and China).

Tenet, director of the Central Intelligence

Most recent U.S. deployments of troops

Agency, cites a number of international dan-

gers.146 Former vice president Dan Quayle

overseas, such as those in Bosnia and Kosovo,

has made much the same argument.147

have nothing to do with U.S. security. The

Yugoslavian civil war lasted longer than

Robert Maginnis of the Family Research

World War I without expanding because

Council paints the picture of a dangerous

major powers established firebreaks to war

world most dramatically:

instead of allowing alliances to act as trans-

mission belts for war, as they did in 1914.

Further downsizing the military is

Terrorism, too, is more likely to result from

not an option. The post­Cold War

U.S. involvement overseas. As much as other

world is increasingly dangerous. The

groups or nations may dislike or even hate

Chinese, for example, are quickly

American values, they are unlikely to strike

building an offensive capability and

out violently unless Washington is seeking to

are threatening U.S. interests in Asia.

impose its will on them.150

Now is not the time to abandon our

friends like Taiwan, Japan and South

Would the larger world order turn nasty

Korea. China and Russia are selling

without constant U.S. meddling abroad?

16