A password will be e-mailed to you.
Hide from Public

No More of the Same: The Problem with Primacy

August 31, 2016

Editor’s Note: Welcome to the seventh installment in our new series, “Course Correction,” which features adapted articles from the Cato Institute’s recently released book, Our Foreign Policy Choices: Rethinking America’s Global Role. The articles in this series challenge the existing bipartisan foreign policy consensus and offer a different path.

 

A suicide bombing in Yemen kills scores of new military recruits. Uzbekistan’s President Islam Karimov has suffered a brain hemorrhage. Nuclear-armed North Korea tests ballistic missiles. Venezuela is in a political and economic death spiral. The civil war in Syria drags into its fifth year, and only seems to get worse. In each case, a worried world asks: “What is the United States going to do?”

U.S. policymakers have invited this response. For decades, U.S. foreign policy has followed a quixotic goal of primacy, or global hegemony. It presumes that the United States is the indispensable nation, and that every problem, in any part of the world, must be resolved by U.S. leadership or else will impact American safety.

But primacy has proved both difficult and costly. It is also frequently disconnected from American security needs.

An alternative approach to global affairs would concentrate on vital U.S. national interests and maintain the tools necessary to defend them. It would also reject the need for global hegemony. The idea that we can only be safe once the world is remade in our image is riddled with logical fallacies. Moreover, an interests-driven foreign policy would take seriously the consequences of our actions abroad and here at home — on our soldiers, our fiscal health, and our principles.

Instead of asking, whenever a distant crisis breaks, “What is the United States going to do?” we should ask, first, “How does this affect vital U.S. national interests?” and, second, “In light of recent developments, what can the United States do, while remaining prosperous and relatively safe, and what must others do to protect themselves?”

This might seem like common sense, but it runs counter to the foreign policy thinking among American elites. They argue that America’s dominant position in the international system is good not only for America but also for the world. A large, expensive, and globally deployed military is designed to smother potential peer competitors and stop prospective threats before they materialize. Primacy also requires a globe-girdling array of allies and the active spread of liberal values. It even means “resisting, and where possible, undermining, rising dictators and hostile ideologies” through frequent military interventions, as primacists Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol have argued. They are comfortable going to war even “when we cannot prove that a narrowly construed ‘vital interest’ of the United States is at stake.”

Primacists hold that it would simply be too dangerous to allow allied countries to defend themselves or independently assert their interests; therefore, the United States must do it for them. Though such a strategy encourages free riding, primacists are more worried by the prospect that allies’ self-defense efforts might fail, necessitating more costly U.S. intervention later and under less favorable circumstances. U.S. security guarantees, the primacists say, tamp down the natural inclination of states to want to provide security for themselves, thus preventing allies from engaging in arms build-ups that might unsettle their neighbors, perhaps even unleashing regional arms races.

Unfortunately — but predictably given what theory and history teach us — primacy has been neither easy to implement nor cheap to sustain. When the U.S. military is called upon to fight wars across the globe, the human toll is considerable. Since 9/11 and through 2014, nearly 7,000 U.S. troops have been killed, 52,000 have been wounded in action, and close to a million veterans have registered disability claims.

The fiscal burdens of primacy are severe as well. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the United States trillions of dollars, some of which we will be paying for many decades in the form of additional debt servicing and veteran care. And primacy guarantees more fighting in the future — and the bills that come with it.

Of course, we ought to have a strong defense. But, under primacy, the U.S. military is expected both to stop threats from materializing and to stomp out any fires it fails to prevent. That expectation requires us to maintain the world’s largest and most active military. Notwithstanding the false claims that the Budget Control Act is responsible for “gutting national defense”, or the widespread belief that the U.S. military has been hollowed out and needs to be rebuilt, the U.S. military is the preeminent fighting force in the world. No state can match U.S. global power-projection capabilities. And U.S. military spending remains near historic highs. In inflation-adjusted dollars, military spending — both war and non-war — averaged $612 billion per year during President George W. Bush’s two terms in office. Under President Barack Obama, it has averaged $675 billion. The United States will have spent nearly $500 billion more on the military in the Obama years than during the Bush years.

The United States spends at least as much on its military as the next eight countries worldwide and nearly three times more than China and Russia combined. Although not all of that money is spent wisely, it still buys incomparable capabilities. No sensible American should wish to trade places with any other country on earth. The U.S. military is second to none, and our massive economy is a solid foundation for generating military power when it is needed..

In the current strategic environment, the United States could easily spend less and still safeguard America’s vital interests. It could do so through smarter spending, eliminating wasteful gold-plated programs such as the F-35, and demanding greater burden-sharing from allies. At present, U.S. security guarantees to wealthy allies cause them to underprovide for their own defense, meaning they have less capacity to help us deal with common security challenges.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen warned that debts and deficits represent threats to not just our fiscal health but our national security as well. Although military spending is not the primary driver of the nation’s massive and unprecedented fiscal imbalance, primacy’s high costs undermine our economic security.

Such expenditures might still be justified if they were instrumental in keeping Americans safe. But, in fact, primacy is based on a number of faulty premises, including: (a) that the United States is subjected to more urgent and prevalent threats than ever before; (b) that U.S. security guarantees reassure nervous allies and thus contribute to global peace and stability; and (c) that a large and active U.S. military is essential to the health of the international economy.

Primacists hold that the United States cannot adopt a wait-and-see attitude with respect to distant trouble spots. They believe that the security of all states are bound together and that threats to others are actually threats to the United States. Primacists believe that instability and crises abroad will adversely affect American interests if they are allowed to fester. “The alternative to Pax Americana—the only alternative—is global disorder,” writes the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens, with emphasis. Because any problem, in any part of the world, could eventually threaten U.S. security or U.S. interests, primacy aims to stop all problems before they occur.

This assumption is based on a very selective reading of world history, grossly exaggerates the United States’ ability to control outcomes, and underplays its costs. It also miscasts the nature of the threats that are facing us.

Technology has not evaporated the seas, allowing large land armies to march across the ocean floor. Meanwhile, potential challengers like China face more urgent problems that will diminish their desire and ability to project power outside of their neighborhood. They can cause trouble in the South China Sea, but that does not mean they can or will in the South Pacific or the Caribbean. China’s economic troubles and rising popular unrest, for example, could constrain Chinese military spending increases and focus Beijing’s attention at home. Causing problems abroad would threaten critical trading relations that are essential to the health of the Chinese economy.

Primacists argue that we cannot rely on oceans to halt nuclear missiles that fly over them or cyberattacks in the virtual realm. And terrorists could infiltrate by land, sea, or air, or they could be grown right here at home. But our own nuclear weapons provide a powerful deterrent against state actors with return addresses, and a massive, forward-deployed military is not the best tool for dealing with terrorists and hackers. The hard part is finding them and stopping them before they act. That is a job for the intelligence and law enforcement communities, respectively. And small-footprint military units like special operations forces can help as needed.

There have always been dangers in the world, and there always will be. To the extent that we can identify myriad threats that our ancestors could not fathom, primacy compounds the problem. By calling on the United States to deal with so many threats, to so many people, in so many places, primacy ensures that even distant problems become our own.

Primacy’s other key problem is that, contrary to the claims of its advocates, it inadvertently increases the risk of conflict. Allies are more willing to confront powerful rivals because they are confident that the United States will rescue them if the confrontation turns ugly, a classic case of moral hazard, or what MIT’s Barry Posen calls “reckless driving.”

Restraining our impulse to intervene militarily or diplomatically when our safety and vital national interests are not threatened would reduce the likelihood that our friends and allies will engage in such reckless behavior in the first place. Plus, a more restrained foreign policy would encourage others to assume the burden of defending themselves.

Such a move on the part of our allies could prove essential, given that primacy has not stopped our rivals from challenging U.S. power. Russia and China, for example, have resisted the U.S. government’s efforts to expand its influence in Europe and Asia. Indeed, by provoking security fears, primacy exacerbates the very sorts of problems that it claims to prevent, including nuclear proliferation. U.S. efforts at regime change and talk of an “axis of evil” that needed to be eliminated certainly provided additional incentives for states to develop nuclear weapons to deter U.S. actions (e.g., North Korea).

Meanwhile, efforts intended to smother security competition or hostile ideologies have destabilized vast regions, undermined our counterterrorism efforts, and even harmed those we were ostensibly trying to help. After U.S. forces deposed the tyrant Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iraq descended into chaos and has never recovered. The civil war in Syria, and the problem of the Islamic State in particular, is inextricable from the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. The situation in Libya is not much better — the United States helped overthrow Muammar al-Qaddafi in 2011, but violence still rages. The Islamic State, which originated in Iraq, has now established a presence in Libya as well, provoking still more U.S. military action there. It is clear that those interventions were counterproductive and have failed to make America safer and more secure, yet primacists call for more of the same.

Lastly, primacists contend that U.S. military power is essential to the functioning of the global economy. “U.S. security commitments,” explain leading primacists Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry, and William C. Wohlforth, “help maintain an open world economy and give Washington leverage in economic negotiations.” The United States sets the rules of the game and punishes those who disobey them. If the United States were less inclined to intervene in other people’s disputes, the primacists say, the risk of war would grow, roiling skittish markets. But such claims exaggerate the role that U.S. ground forces play in facilitating global trade, especially given the resiliency and flexibility of global markets in the face of regional instability. Moreover, primacists ignore the extent to which past U.S. military activism has actually undermined market stability and upset vital regions. Smart alternatives to primacy feature a significant role for the U.S. Navy and Air Force in providing security in the global commons while avoiding the downsides of onshore activism.

In conclusion, America’s default foreign policy is unnecessarily costly and unnecessarily risky. Its defenders misconstrue the extent to which U.S. military power has contributed to a relatively peaceful international system, and they overestimate our ability to sustain an active global military posture indefinitely.

The United States needs an alternative foreign policy, one that focuses on preserving America’s strength and advancing its security, and that expects other countries to take primary responsibility for protecting their security and preserving their interests. America’s leaders should restrain their impulse to use the U.S. military when our vital interests are not directly threatened while avoiding being drawn into distant conflicts that sap our strength and undermine our safety and values.

 

Christopher Preble is the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. William Ruger is vice president for research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.

Image: U.S. Army, Staff Sgt. Jason Robertson

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

6 thoughts on “No More of the Same: The Problem with Primacy

  1. More of the usual strawman arguments about “elites” and the same old, same old illogical isolationist arguments

    The authors open up talking about “elites” saying this or that, and quote a handful of bloggers and think tank guys. Here’s a clue, guys – these “elite” guys aren’t elites, they’re just talking heads. After GWB finally realized how misled he was by some of those guys in 2003, everybody stopped listening to them.

    The actual elites are the decision-makers who are, in turn, elected by the American people. That would be the President and his/her administration national security appointees, and the US Congress. They collectively make the decisions, not Bill Krystol or Robert Kagan. And the decisions actually made do not represent a rampant mis-read of American national interests nor of American national will. The voters ultimately decide.

    Yes, it is true, that in a clear “black swan event”, in the aftermath of the bloodiest attacks on American soil in the history of our nation, all the victims being non-combatants at that, our President and Congress made a one-time unwise decision to go after Saddam Hussein over “WMD”. But other than that, we’ve been pretty selective in our interventions, and if we erred it was nearly all on the side of non-invasion.

    We did not invade Libya. We did not invade Syria to topple Assad – we DID and DO support attacks on ISIS forces in Syria, and in northern Iraq, in accordance with the AUMF, because those guys are AQ killers, specifically AQ in Iraq, who merely assumed a new name of ISIS. We did not invade Yemen. We did not intervene in Iran during the Green Revolution. We did not intervene in Egypt during the two serial regime changes. We did not intervene in Mali, we did not intervene in South Sudan … on and on and on.

    So these authors are yacking about all the stuff that the “elites” somehow force us to do against our will … except that in most cases that never actually happened. The one intervention that turned out to be more costly than its benefit was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and in that case the American people overwhelmingly supported that invasion before it was launched, by a vast gulf. The American people were extremely PO’d at Middle Eastern killers, for good reason, even if the logic of invasion was not sound.

    No matter how many times these Cato guys keep rolling out the same old isolationist rhetoric, in support of an ideology that has been proven totally wrong (re: Europe 1938, that led to World War Two that led to 45 years of the Cold War; followed by Bill Clinton’s “holiday from history in the 1990s that led to 9.11.01), we know it is vastly more productive to remain engaged and intervene selectively and aggressively only when and where it makes sense. That happens to have been the policy of the US government for most of the period since the end of the Vietnam war in 1973, except for Bill Clinton’s negligence in the 90s, and GWB’s dubious invasion of Iraq in 2003, which he soon regretted.

    And we likewise know that foolishly chopping defense spending and attempting to withdraw from the world only leads to massive death and destruction and loss of human freedom.

    1. You’re pretty spot on here. Lately, we’ve been more selective, more receptive to scrutiny in our interventions, and have been pushing local forces to fight their own wars with a little help from us. Inherent Resolve began in 2014. We are nearing the end of 2016 with only 3 American servicemembers killed by enemy action in that operation and yet ISIS is being run out of Iraq and is facing enemies on all fronts in Syria.

      American interests should always be one of our chief concerns in intervention, but that is why we are rendering this low-engagement support to our allies. Have there been mistakes? Definitely. Should we apply the same strategy everywhere? Definitely not–we need diversity. But unless the authors can publish a compelling argument AND a startegy for pulling back on our support missions, then the conversation only assigns blame to an imaginary “elite.”

  2. Escalation of conflicts and the bills that come with them, elites or whomever is in charge need to have a long term game plan. If there is a genocide, something needs to be done, if there is a genuine threat to stability of trade, we should probably step in. When we send kids 18- 19 just out of high school to get blown up we better be damn sure their sacrifice is worth what we are trying to do there. It’s easy to call someone isolationist, but bleeding out in the sand thousands of miles from home because someone wanted to show off their military muscle just seems wrong to me.

  3. Excellent paper, well thought out, and provides the strategic view the country needs to take.

    The belief that our protracted interventions, such as are ongoing in Afghanistan and Iraq, with their multi-trillion dollar cost are sustainable or supported by the general public is simply incorrect. They are bankrupting the nation and causing our military to be reduced in size to a meaningless level.

    The cost of the ongoing billions (cumulatively trillions) being spent on these interventions in areas where this country actually has no meaningful national interest at risk, when combined with the mismanagement of the American economy causing the nation to lose massive amounts of tax revenues from both business out sourcing and due to the loss of income taxes from millions of lost and once well paying jobs, is doing to this country what the Cold War Costs did to the Soviet Union — weakening our nation beyond salvation.

    The Chinese, Russians, and maybe the Iranians focus on the long view and they are happily watching this Nation expend cumulative trillions on non-stop interventions — knowing where it will lead the U.S.

    This paper intelligently calls for an end to this self destructive policy of interventions where we have no meaningful intervention at stake. Again, it is very well done.

  4. The point missed in the article is that the bulk of our military is operating on equipment designed, built and delivered during the Reagan and BushOne years.

    The rest is currently in transition to the next ~30yrs of usage.

    The F-22 is a 5th generation air superiority, but also the final generation for that sort of aircraft. On top of that there are too few of them (and that was because of what I like to call a marketing failure).

    The F-35 is a 1st generation area dominance aircraft. It goes beyond being a fighter plane, whether 5th gen or beyond. And we need it.
    (the F-22 should have been the 1st gen, but that’s in the past.)

    Justifications aside, this last 15yrs or so has worn out what we have. We have to replace it just to maintain parity with where were before.
    Naturally if you’re going to replace something do it with something better.

    Now on to primacy. Not being the leader means being the follower behind someone else.

    We must be the leader.