Jonathan Paul Loomis

April 9, 1999

World Politics

Dr. Greeg

To: President of the United States of America

Re: Creation of a manageable "New World Order" and a new approach to the use of US military power

Since the passing of the Persian Gulf War the United States has stood as the preeminent power in what George Bush labeled the "New World Order." At the time he coined this new term it was uncertain exactly what the New Order might be or what position it would have for American diplomacy and military power. As the years since that time have passed two dangerous parallel trends have developed.

First, the United States has acted as the world's policeman. Without the presence of another major power the United States has had the capacity, although rarely exercised it fully, to change dramatically nearly any situation in the world. No other major power has stepped up to take to challenge American hegemony nor has any nation taken steps toward playing a local policeman role in such a way that it would be acceptable to the United States or the United Nations. The closest any power has come was when the European Union tried to resolve the conflict in the Balkans, which it failed to do and eventually followed the lead of the United States.

The second dangerous trend that has developed since the Persian Golf War has been a new policy toward the use of American military power. In the cold war era American military might was used sparingly because of the risk of provoking a Soviet response. However, after the close of the Cold War the situation changed and American presidents were able to use military force without such fear. Under President Bush American forces entered Somalia. Under President Clinton they have been deployed in Haiti, along the US-Mexican border, extensively in the Balkans, and in the Taiwan Strait. American military power has been displayed when battling warlords in Somalia, enforcing no fly zones in Iraq, when attacking Usama Bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan, and most recently in Yugoslavia.

There must be some change. The United States can not act as the world's policeman. The American government is designed to most effectively meet the needs of the American people, not to manage the affairs of remote nations. We are alienating former friends and allies because of what has been perceived as a bombastic, overbearing realization of American will in regions of the world with little connection to the United States or American concerns. Furthermore, American military forces have become entrapped in too many catch-22 conflicts. In the case of Iraq, for example, US forces are forced into responding to the most minor provocation (missile lock) with an attack, but the American public is unwilling to commit the necessary force to eliminate the problem all together. The United States faces a similar situation in Haiti, in its war against Islamic fundamental terrorists, and will possible face the same situation in Yugoslavia.

Therefore, the United States must take up a new foreign policy designed to create an appropriate, acceptable "New World Order" wherein the United States does not have to be final authority in all conflicts. At the same time the United States must also become much more selective in its use of military force.

The United States must encourage regional hegemony. The European Union should recover and learn from its experience in Yugoslavia and become a balance to American power in the Western World. In the Islamic world the United States should encourage Egypt and Iran to take leadership roles. Egypt is a pro-western nation that has signed a peace agreement with Israel but is now leaning toward Islamic fundamentalism. Iran is a non-Arab, Islamic fundamental state leaning back toward a policy of being open to the West. China should be encouraged to take up a leadership role in the Far East, while the Organization of African Unity and its past efforts should be recognized as the most logical way of resolving African conflicts. Conglomerates such as the one that negotiated the Esquipulas peace accords for Central America should be encouraged in Latin America. In this way, local conflicts can first be managed by a local hegemon before the United States feels obligated to use its clear military power to separate conflicting parties.

Natually those states and organizations, which take over important positions of regional power, must do so in an acceptable way. It would be unwise of the United States to encourage Chinese hegemony if China did not understand that it needed to respect the interests of its neighbors and the business interests of the United States. In other words, local hegemons must understand that their power is a result of a voluntary retreat of American power. As the United States has demonstrated in Kosovo, genocide like actions can not be tolerated, even if preventing such action is not in a nation's best interests. Regional hegemons must also learn to abide by this new and apparently paramount law in the "New World Order."

Of course, if the United States retreats from playing such an intense political role abroad it will no longer be necessary for it to be involved in so many military confrontations. The United States must be more careful about its use of military power. If such power is to be implemented, the entire resources of the armed forces should be behind the operation and it should be carried out with complete and lasting results. If the United States would like to prevent Iraq from flying in the UN no fly zones it should not fire on missile every few days at SAM targets. Rather, it should bomb the entire air power infrastructure of the nation so that in a relatively short period of time Iraq would be devoid of aircraft to fly or the control systems to direct pilots. In a similar example, if the United States would like to prevent Usama Bin Laden from waging a terrorist war a few missiles will be insufficient, even if they do clear damage to his power structure. The United States should attack him in force and eliminate his entire coalition and capture him.

Natually there will be critics to such a change in foreign policy. Many will interpret such action as a retreat, or a giving up on the part of American power. This is only partially true. By adopting this new policy the United States will force other nations into regional power roles and those nations will help share the criticism and stress of handling international conflicts. The United States will be able to employ its armed forces en masse instead of piece by piece and will meet with much greater success.

In response to those who believe that American interests would not be honored by regional powers like China or Iran, it is important to adopt a system in which rewards are given when nations demonstrate respect for both American and other international interests. For example, the United States could use Chinese membership in the WTO as an incentive for China to be a benevolent giant in its dealing in the Far East.

In short, the post Persian Gulf United States foreign policy has overextended its public support and needs to be altered so that it is more effective. The United States should encourage regional hegemony to take the place of American world hegemony so as to ease the burden of the "World's Policeman," a role which we neither want, nor seem to perform well. American military force should be used only when it is used completely and solves the problem entirely. Clintonesque military action has no been proven to work and will be unacceptable in the future. By adopting this policy, growing powers such as the European Union, Iran, and China would not be pushing against American power. Instead their natural growth would be encouraged and they would become the new members a manageable "New World Order."