DEFENSE POLICY

Defense policy in this country is driven by two different strains. The first is the drive to make a new army that is all high tech and highly mobile in nature. The second one is the reality of the messiness of protracted battle in foreign lands. We need to recognize that even though we are the only super power left, we are not the only power in the world. The world of the future will have different points of leverage and conventional warfare will not be the only solution set we can draw upon.

In examining our armed forces we need to reduce the cost of conventional warfare that is not going to lead to direct preparedness. This means we need to look very carefully at large new programs like the latest fighter aircraft or new submarines. We cannot afford to deal with direct people to people warfare unless we equip ourselves with sufficient men and material to deal with the ground we have to conquer. We are no longer interested in subjugating a people group. This means that rather than attack and pillage, our aim is to constrain and educate. It is only with friends that are themselves safe from fear and consequence that we will eliminate the need to occupy those lands which are against us.

The modern world is a very small place. We have all of the technology to drive warfare, in the conventional sense, into a pattern of drones and remote controlled battle that eliminates the human risk of combat. However, war is not the aim, peace is the goal. Peace comes from changing the hearts and minds of those who attack us. This can best be accomplished by providing a strong offense while at the same time working to understand the world around us with which we must engage.

An example of this is the need to have a military that has diverse backgrounds in other cultures. Training the soldier to understand both the cultural needs and desires of the different people groups around the world, we will build within the military a better understanding of how deal with conflict and advise our political leaders. Too many times we have ignored the small events, The USS Cole for example, while not pushing for a complete success plan for large forays, such as Iraq with its plan for battle but no plan for peace.

This soldier of the future, an officer corps that has a bigger view of the world than our own politicians, must have a deeper understanding than just tactics and war plans. He must also have the kind of keen insight into his own political world that allowed Washington to maneuver against both the British crown as well as his own politicians who had no “national backbone” in the Continental Congress.

What I am calling for is to return the military from a reputation of politically astute turf battle players to an “elite” of officers that are both well educated in the art of war but also in the art of training up a people to be free. No battle plan should ever again be just that of conquering, but also that of governing.