A Return to “Peace Through Strength” - Dr. Mackubin Owens

A Return to “Peace Through Strength” - Dr. Mackubin Owens

Since at least the Vietnam War, the Republicans have been seen as the party of national security, implementing a robust defense posture, supporting allies, and favoring a forward defense posture. In general, President Donald Trump adhered to these principles during his first term. But now, some of his more ardent supporters in the Republican Party have counseled against embracing these principles, citing the cost and risks of “endless wars” abroad. This war weariness originated with the Bush administration’s overreach during the post-9/11 military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and continued with the strategic drift of the Biden administration.

But for Trump to abandon a robust defense posture during a second term would be a mistake. The problem is not the use of military force in and of itself but the use of military force in the absence of a policy and strategy that stress the defense of US interests rather than prioritizing the good of some aspirational “international community.” Such a policy guides the selection of ends, while the supporting strategy must adopt concrete actions that guide the regional application of influence, power, and, when necessary, force.

The best means of ensuring US security, liberty, and prosperity is to recur to something akin to the policy and strategy that successfully ended the Cold War, bringing the Soviet Union to its knees and America to the pinnacle of power, an approach the essence of which was captured by Ronald Reagan’s slogan: “Peace through Strength.”

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Reagan’s approach fused principle and power. On the one hand, it recognized that the internal character of regimes matters for US foreign policy. On the other hand, it recognized that in order to be something other than aspirational, a good and just peace sometimes requires the prudent application of force. 

The idea that the internal character of regimes matters can be found as long ago as Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian War, in which he noted that an important goal of both Athens and Sparta was to establish and support regimes similar to their own, democracies in the case of Athens and oligarchies for Sparta. The inference one can draw is that the security of a state is enhanced when it is surrounded by others who share its principles and interests.

But although the internal character of regimes matters, prudence recognizes that it is necessary to limit our aspirations when it comes to “spreading democracy” abroad. That was the great mistake of the Bush administration following 9/11. To begin with, resources are finite, and good strategy requires the United States to prioritize among the goals it wishes to accomplish.

Reagan’s policy and strategy also recognized the classical connection between force and diplomacy. All-too-often, American policy makers, motivated by the assumptions of liberal internationalism, have acted as if diplomacy alone is sufficient to achieve our foreign policy goals. But as Frederick the Great once observed, “Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.” A sound US strategy and policy recognizes that diplomacy and force are two sides of the same coin.

Reagan’s policy and strategy successfully linked principle and power in a way consistent with the existing realities of the international arena, but since the 1990s, US foreign policy has been characterized by a hubris at odds with prudence. The Clinton, Obama, and most recently the Biden administrations tended to place their faith in international institutions, believing that the main use of US power was to support these institutions. All-too-often, the goal of these Democratic administrations was to create a “global good,” a corporatist globalism divorced from patriotism or national greatness. 

In addition, these Democratic administrations consistently failed to make the distinction between friends and allies on the one hand, and enemies and competitors on the other. This was most apparent in Obama’s favoritism toward Iran at the expense of Israel and the Sunni Arab states in the region and the Biden administration’s abysmal treatment of Israel. The result has been a loss of faith in the United States by our allies while emboldening our enemies.

On the other hand, the George Bush administration quixotically embarked on a quest to reshape the world in a liberal image by force. That quest foundered on the shoals of tribalism and religion in Afghanistan and Iraq. This hubristic effort to reshape the international system also contributed to the rise of China, giving credence to the false belief that China is willing to abide by the “norms” of liberal internationalism.

President Trump would do well to maintain the approach to national security that Reagan adopted and executed, emphasizing forward defense in conjunction with allies, forward presence to support that posture, and freedom of navigation. Its geostrategic goal must be to maintain the traditional US maritime alliance along what Nicholas Spykman called the “rimlands” of Eurasia, designed to contain any potential Eurasian hegemon, e.g. Russia or China. This approach has served us well in the past. President Trump would do well to apply its lessons in the future.