Via Matt Yglesias, Chris Preble’s recent book, The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free, contains an interesting hypothesis described in the subtitle. Having an excessively large military makes us less secure.
His reasoning is that the possession of vast military capacities gives us an inflated conception of our role in the world and encourages us to expand our strategic aims far beyond our capabilities, which causes us to make costly mistakes such as the war in Iraq. A smaller military would require more restraint, amore humble conception of what we can accomplish, and fewer mistakes caused by over-reaching.
Yglesias, in his commentary, points out how politically implausible this proposal is but nevertheless endorses Preble’s explanation of our military hubris:
I think this analysis is dead on. My prescription would not be quite as radical as Preble’s. I think the main flaw with it is that he doesn’t take his own analysis seriously enough—for a variety of reasons, it’s just not going to be the case that America suddenly decides to abandon its aspirations to play a global leadership role. Under the circumstances, I think it’s important to try to think of plausible ways for us to play that role in a constructive way rather than a self-defeating and destructive one, rather than just kind of saying from the sidelines that we should abandon the whole thing.
I am not convinced that drastically reducing the military would make us more safe. Radically reducing the size and capabilities of our military may create a variety of unpredictable strategic imbalances between, for instance, South Korea and North Korea, Japan and everyone (but especially China), Russia and Europe, etc.
It’s not obvious that a world in which a variety of regional powers engage in an arms race is more stable than the world we have.
It is a cliché that power hates a vacuum. Although, in the modern world, the U.S sometimes seems uniquely hegemonic and vainglorious when it comes to military adventure, surely other countries could match our pretensions if given the opportunity.
Preble is right that having a large military entails some built-in mechanisms that encourage a self-justifying ideology of military adventurism. But I think the main factor is not the size of the military but the traditions of American Exceptionalism that inform much of our foreign and domestic policy. [American Exceptionalism is the view that America is an exceptional country with a unique destiny to supply liberty, democracy, and an Xbox to every human being.)
After all, the doctrines of Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism were formulated and took root in the 19th Century, long before the two world wars gave birth to the modern military colossus, and Theodore Roosevelt, despite a very small military, had no trouble ginning up justifications for mucking about in the affairs of other countries.
We might also give up the mistaken view, related to American Exceptionalism, that the U.S. fights wars primarily with the intention of helping others rather than advancing its strategic interests, a belief that Yglesias criticizes in another post.
Yglesias is right that we should find a way to play a more constructive role in world affairs. But that will require being clear-headed about what we can do with the military. And that will require giving up the notion that only the U.S. can lead the world out of the wilderness.
