ShareThis Page
Why we aren’t winning wars |
Featured Commentary

Why we aren’t winning wars

| Friday, January 16, 2015 8:57 p.m

The United States has the most potent military in terms of firepower and operational capacity in history. Our forces can direct a rocket from Nevada through a window in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and nimbly set up nearly 20 Ebola treatment centers in Liberia.

Yet this same military, as writer James Fallows recently pointed out in The Atlantic, has not won its wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya or anywhere else in the last 20 years — if winning means creating a stable, capable and ideally democratic governing structure that is able and willing to police its own territory.

After the United States poured billions of dollars into the Iraqi army, it fell apart in the face of a few thousand initially lightly armed ISIS fighters.

Conditions in Afghanistan are in some ways far better than they were before 9/11: Life expectancy has jumped by more than five years and many more children attend school. But the Taliban remains an active threat.

Libya is descending into chaos.

We have not lost because the military and its leaders failed to adapt or because military resources were misdirected. We have lost because we — our civilian leaders, our country — have accepted objectives that are not attainable. Our goal has been to put countries on the road to modernity, to move them toward well-governed, prosperous, democratic states that respect human rights, treat women and men as equals, have a free press, extend the rule of law to all members of society and encourage market-oriented economic activity.

What our military cannot do — what no one can do — is transform domestic political and economic institutions in these countries. We, our leaders and our people, are guilty of assuming that the United States is the natural model for how human beings should organize political authority. We think that modern liberal democracy is what many countries should aspire to and that, absent obstacles, it will spring into existence. This is a chimera.

For most of human history in most of the world, rulers who wield power have invariably acted in their own self-interest. Corruption is not an aberration; it is the lubricant that makes their governing possible.

We must change our goals if we are to enhance our own national security and provide a better life for the citizens of the countries where we send our men and women to fight.

Our objective should be “good enough” governance, which means ensuring that a state is capable of keeping order within its own boundaries — at least enough order to contain transnational terrorists. Maintaining order in some countries might require an American military whose primary mission would be to degrade transnational terrorist entities and perhaps intervene to maintain a balance of power among local strongmen.

Ideally, “good enough” governance would include providing some public services such as health care and primary education that would not threaten the local elite’s ability to extract resources and stay in power.

Unless we accept that our Wilsonian aspirations are unreachable and counterproductive, the United States will not be able to align its assets — military and civilian — with policies that have a chance of keeping us safer.

Stephen D. Krasner is a professor of political science and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He was director of policy planning for the State Department from 2005 to 2007.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.