US Militarism and Foreign Policy

The most important question at stake is the analysis of this relation, and the way it changes over time. Focusing on the Obama administration and US militarism, and by using continuity in US militarism, the discourse of militarism in US foreign policy and the special characteristics of the Obama administration, we will analyze this issue.   

1-    Continuity in US foreign policy

Generally, the US military and armed forces, as permanent and stable components of US power and foreign policy, have always had decisive roles in the foreign policy and security of the United States. We must keep in mind that the rise of the US as a super power after the Second World War was mainly due to its military power. At that time, only two powers, namely the US and the Soviet Union, were in a better condition compared to other powers. However, their military buildups were different. Nevertheless, their rise to the status of superpowers was in light of their militarism.

Military continuity has maintained its position in the international and regional relations of the US in the post WWII era. Also, during the Cold War, one of the main factors which determined the balance of power between East and West was US military power.

After the Cold War, a new framework of power relations was established among the major global powers. As a result, the bipolar system changed but the sensitivity and importance of US militarism was not reduced at all. Actually, immediately after the Cold War it was emphasized that the US was a superpower and that it had no equal in terms of its military power. Nevertheless, the unipolar power of the US has been challenged worldwide, and the US hasn’t been able to maintain its hegemonic power.

Jimmy Carter’s recent book also refers to the same issue. He discusses American values in this book, and states that after he left the White House in the 1980’s, the US has participated in more than fifty military operations overseas, some of which were extensive operations like the Balkans, and others involved limited military operations like the bombardment of Somalia.

This brief review proves that US foreign policy, the US’ global position, and the presence of the United States in regional equations from after the Second World War up until now has always been linked to its military forces.

But all foreign policy issues in the US are not limited to this link. Among the foreign policy and national security elite inside the US, numerous controversies and discussions are going on about the military power of the country.

 2-Controversies over the deployment of US military power

One of the major questions among decision-making circles in the US has been when, how and to what extent the US should use its military power for foreign policy means.

To answer this question, one of the main perspectives is the value of military power in creating, inhibiting and preventing any military operation against the US by other countries. Therefore, this power should not be used casually. This power is there not necessarily to be used. In other words, the deterrent role of this power is very important.

But another group believes that due to the US’ military superiority, this power must be used and creating fear must be achieved by the exercize of this military power. These were the controversies among neoconservatives and opponents of the Bush administration, especially after 9/11, which brought about particular consequences for US foreign policy.

These discussions were not limited to the Bush era, and they have always been present in US foreign policy. During Reagan’s administration in the1980’s, this controversy existed and interestingly they used the term “Low Intensity Wars”, as some US politicians believed that military power must be used in some limited battles. US politicians also refused to consider military involvement in every event. The disagreement is due to the Vietnam War experience. The consequences of this destructive and scandalous defeat are still present in the US military and strategic mindset.

The Bush era, which experienced the Iraq War despite international disagreements, resulted in reformist perspectives, of which one is the Obama administration.

3-The Obama Experience

The rise of Barack Obama to power brought about serious criticism over using military power for foreign policy means without any further considerations. Indeed, Obama strongly disagreed with the US involvement in Iraq, and we might even say that this opposition won him the White House.

He was one of the rare senators who voted against the Iraq War. Anti-war groups- that make up of a large segment of the population of the US- supported Obama’s policies.

Therefore, Obama found his way to the White House partly through anti-war discourse, but when he came to power he faced many challenges in this regard.

His administration inherited two wars- Afghanistan and Iraq- from his predecessor. The Iraq war was better managed and US involvement was reduced there. However, the story in Afghanistan was totally different, and the US policy of expanding its military involvement and connecting Afghanistan and Pakistan faced many challenges. Obama, who entered office with anti-war slogans, was forced to increase US troops in Afghanistan by the end of the first year of his administration. This was paradoxical, since he was receiving the Noble Peace Prize at that time as well. His speech in Oslo while receiving the Prize reflected this deep conflict. A war president receiving the Noble Prize for peace is indeed paradoxical. In his acceptance speech he tried to resolve this conflict but according to many analysts it was not resolved appropriately, and according to others impossible to resolve at all. The reason being that US foreign policy has always had strong ties to its militarism, and it cannot continue without this element.

In addition, any retreat in Afghanistan would have many domestic, foreign, and regional policy issues for Obama, and could even influence his future presidential term. Although currently he has no real rival, US military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq is a problem haunting his presidency.

The US and NATO military operations in Libya added more complexity to this issue. Obama was under public pressure in his participation in Libya, and on the other hand strategic considerations forced him to take part in the war against Ghaddafi. First, the US played a significant role in Libya, but then Obama faced many problems in the Libya conflict from at least from two perspectives.

The first debate focused on the future of the Libyan war, and if the US had accepted the leadership of this war it would be stuck in a third war which had no specific end. Therefore the US refused to take leadership of this operation, but still participated in it.

The second perspective- even more important than the first- is US domestic policy. Debates were going on in the US accusing the White House of conducting a third war without the permission of Congress.

Some skeptics believe that the Republicans were keen to enter this war so that they could blame the Obama administration later; that they wanted the US to enter this vague war so that they could announce this involvement as a weak point of Obama’s policies.

The US has to balance real military power and its capacity to influence in every new international crisis with paying attention to domestic issues, which is a very complex and important task.

Overall, I have to say that US foreign policy has always been linked with militarism, and the method of utilizing this power is has always been one of the major discourses among the political and national security elite. But generalizing this to Obama’s foreign policy is an indication of the deep challenge that reflects how US military conduct influences its domestic policy.

Therefore, US military power is sometimes used for domestic policy purposes rather than foreign policy, and that creates a blurred line between domestic and foreign policy issues.