The question of is Power is the very objective and can be answered both as a military strategy and political philosophy. At the height of the war on terror The 2008 U.S National Security Strategy outlines the US objective is to support the objectives outlined in the NSS, including the need to strengthen alliances and build new partnerships to defeat global terrorism and prevent attacks against us, our allies, and our friends; prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends with weapons of mass destruction (WMD); work with others to defuse regional conflicts, including conflict intervention; and transform national security institutions to face the challenges of the 21st century(2008 National Defense Strategy). There has been great controversy in arena of public opinion as well in most legal circles as to legality of improvised techniques used to accomplish this objective
Due to U.S dominance in conventional warfare has given non state adversaries (terrorist) and there state sponsors (rogue nations) the necessity to adopt asymmetric techniques to counter or neutralize our advantages. For this the DOD has decided to implement irregular warfare techniques that augment conventional combat methods. U.S threats also seek to equal the level warfare capability by developing or obtaining chemical, biological, and especially nuclear weapons as well as cyber techniques that can disrupt US warfare dominance. The 2008 NSS outlines the development and proliferation of anti-access technology and weaponry is worrisome as it can restrict our future freedom of action. These challenges could come not only in the obvious forms we see today but also in less traditional forms of influence such as manipulating global opinion using mass communications venues and exploiting international commitments and legal avenues (2008NSS).
US Power as it relates to Realism and Pluralism
The conflict that is presented on pg of Jentleson “American Foreign Policy” is that he ties Realism to the use of “Power” as though a pluralist state can not be motivated to use “ Power” as effective as one based in realism. It is known that realism as based on four elements, the first being that states are the primary actors or the most significant actors. Great emphasis is the fact that the importance of the state is primary in realism. The progress and success of the collective state almost lends itself to nationalist ideology in the sense that policies are generated and pursued based on the needs of the state rather than various entities within the state. The second factor is the unitary actor or “facing the world from the outside” . The third factor of realism is that of unitary state as actor or “the state is essentially a rational actor”. Viotti & Kauppi define this as a calculated and formulated decision making process by decision makers with in the governing body. The fourth and final point focuses on the point that international issues that take priority in the “hierarchy” . Based on these qualities, it can be said Jentleson was wrong in his assessment. In fact it could be said that pluralism better suits the United States. Pluralism is created on a different set assumptions than a realistic form of government in pluralism we see that this form uses a multiple bodies working cohesively to produce policy rather than one solitary entity(Viotti & Kauppi 1998).. No one body actually rules yet they rule by consensus of the cooperative bodies. This is present most of in the representative republic and parliament style body coined by western societies. In this form of government power is shared and decisions are processed through a series of bodies lending itself to democratic measures e.g.; votes, vetoes etc. Non-government organizations have influence on policy such as environmental organizational, workers unions and other “special interest”. Certain Agencies can act automatously to enforce or create policy and example is the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Department of Justice, and (EPA) Environmental Protective Agency with delegated pre authorization from the various governing branches.
The trouble created by Power used for interventionism
Two factors define how and when the US projects Power or “Interventionism which is discussed on pg 13 of Jentleson. The first factor is exporting democracy they argue that countries citizens are the only ones who can promote democracy. The desire for and struggle for has to come from within. Christopher Coyne establishes that cooperation and self governance is a habit. Citizens volunteer cooperation around liberal democratic institutions as well as self-sustaining. One can stress the point that without independent development constant coercion and intervention will be needed i.e “nation building” or the use of “Power”. This position of intervention is simply motivated not mainly by the desire to spread democracy but on behalf of more self-interested objectives. Sometimes the motivating force is national interest, and promoting democracy is how policymakers sell the war-and subsequent occupation- to the American public.
When considering the current state of the global threats and the national security capabilities and ability to project power, one must consider the goals of our nation and those of a state and the intricate way in which they are interwoven. For example growing European economic crises will affect nation’s stability, energy shortage will affect national security and its ability to function and respond to threats. Fragmentation or failure of states will occur, with destabilizing effects on neighboring states. There has to be a non military alternative to these types of problems. There is a myth of super powers in this globally connected world. After the cold war there was a global consensus not to return to the post WWII form of diplomacy where one simply roles a battalion of tanks and commence with mutual destruction. Rather there was a development of political posturing that took shape. The International community’s migration to a capitalistic cooperativeness that doesn’t allow for military conflict. An example is US-China relations and there economic codependency. The US nor China would never take a chance to destroying its economies by taking unilateral military action against each other.
So now one must ask what and how does the ultimate objective of peace affect issues such national security or “power” and how if any way does it play a part? The answer is very simple; it is Diplomacy and the development of strong codependent and economic ties rather than the development of Jeffersonian democracies. Remember All Liberal theories seek the spread of liberal, democratic values to ALL countries and all international institutions. We see this happening in the form of the United Nations. Through this body there is strong democratic institutions were member states can resolve issues unilaterally and bilaterally
Peace as articulated in US foreign policy objectives through Democracy
Peace as a counter weight to power is optimal due to the proven fact that Leverage does not work in the long term promotion and sustainment of democracy. Leverage is used to target external exposure and is defined by non interventionist like Coyne also argue that the method in which the promotion of democracy occurs is a paramount as the motivation, and can yield more counterproductive results to a nation state. Goldsmith argues that the use of leverage or “gun barrel” diplomacy or “military interventionism” is the proposed policy of nonintervention and free trade does not work in the case of failed states. On page 12 of “Making the World Safe for Partial Democracy? Questioning the Premises of Democracy Promotion” Arthur Goldsmith states that the relative absence of pluralistic political systems in the Greater Middle East thus also works against the emergence of additional institutionally consistent democratic regimes across that region (Arthur).
Those who support nonintervention also base their arguments that the promotions of peace add, that a democracies are not necessarily peaceful in their relations with other kinds of political systems. Owens argues that peace is vulnerable in three areas: Still, they insist that sovereign stable democracies such as the U.S have never waged war with each other in the modern international system. There are two inherent ambiguities, peace is immeasurable, peace is undefined and lastly peace lacks a convincing theoretical foundation (Owen). The ability to conjugate democracy will determine the effectiveness of democratic peace. Democracy and Peace is more likely to emerge in countries whose neighbors are democratic, presumably due to the cross-border exchanges and peer-to-peer learning that close proximity allows between nations.
External sources and non internationalist argue that the peace between democracies is based on shared democratic norms or political institutions. The relationship of relative peace among democracies is a result of some features of democracy; and it is not caused exclusively by economic or geopolitical characteristics of the state. The first is that the origins of relations between democratic nations exist only in a global context. The second assumption is all international relations between democratic nations are viewed from historical context, and last coalitions between democratic nations focus on the mechanism of domination. Under the primary assumption the “big picture” ideology is paramount and primary to the approach to actual governance. The idea that the parts are less important to the whole is the mission and objective of peace. This assumption makes no room for nationalism or protectionism.