Because the United States so dominates the world militarily, our political leaders face the temptation to use force to solve a widening range of problems.  Presidents must relish the option of disciplining rogue states and terrorists by hurling Tomahawk missiles from floating sanctuaries off shore.  However, as the quote above suggests, such simple solutions rarely solve the underlying problems, and often bring unanticipated consequences.  This section will explore both the utility and the limits of force in the post-Cold War world.

Back during simpler days, there was one major threat that drove all our force planningthe Soviet Union, with forces largely a mirror image of our own.  We used complex computer models to predict the results of future war between the superpowers, and tended to dismiss other threats altogether: "If we can lick the cat," as the saying went, "we can lick the kitten." 

Unanticipated Consequences

In Vietnam, unfortunately, we found the danger in such glib arrogance. Weapons and doctrine designed to repel the Red horde in Germany did not prove effective against a shadowy enemy with a long-term planning horizon and a good grasp of the US national psyche.

In Iraq, we subjected the forces of Saddam Hussein to the most intense bombardment since Vietnam.  Yet the bulk of his elite troops escaped with their equipment and have sustained him in power ever since.  In Kosovo, we attacked with an even greater force advantage.  Yet, Milosovic's troops survived practically unscathed, and meanwhile, it is our erstwhile allies in the KLA who are engaging in ethnic cleansing and terrorism.  And exit strategies for NATO are in short supply.

So what are we going to use military force for? And what type of forcespeople, ideas, training, and hardwaredo we need?  Please join us in exploring these vital issues.

(The quotation from the Tao Te Ching is from Stephen Mitchell's translation, Harper & Row, New York, 1988.)