In the old days, when Democrats were known as the adventurous party and Republicans known for caution abroad, Senator Robert Dole called Democrats “the war party.” That was standard rhetoric: If you want to go to war, vote Democratic.
Sometime after Vietnam, and particularly in recent years, the parties seemed to trade places. Republicans became the war party and Democrats the party of caution in the deployment of military forces abroad.
A responsible national security policy for Democrats will do two things: It will lay out the conditions for the use of military force, and it will define what security means in a new century. Military force should be used when our objectives are clearly defined, when other efforts to resolve conflict have failed, when there is substantial evidence that our legitimate interests are threatened, when our objectives can be achieved with the forces deployed, when the command structure is clear and civilian leaders do not control military operations in the field, when the American people support the deployment of their Army, and when our plan of operation is achievable in its execution.
I set out these standards in 1986, and versions very close to these were later proposed by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and General Colin Powell. But the 21st century is not the simpler age of the 20th century where enemies were Hitler, Tojo and Stalin, and the Cold War provided the clarity of “containment of communism.” Threats to our security have changed. They include not only the threat of terrorism but also climate deterioration, viral pandemics, mass migrations, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, failing states and other new realities that cannot be solved by military means alone and that require us to form lasting coalitions with other major nations.
Senators Obama and Biden and other Democratic leaders must make clear that we are as willing as anyone else to use military force, but we will do so not as a first resort and only when it will be effective. But we also understand that America has other arrows in our national security quiver and will use them as readily as needed to make our nation secure.
Our military structures must adapt to new challenges. Jihadists do not wear uniforms, attack civilian targets or form in large units. Highly trained special forces conducting low-intensity operations often in urban environments and with allied special forces, not big divisions, will defeat terrorist cells. This is the warfare of today and possibly tomorrow.
Deposing evil dictators is not a national security policy. A seven-year war with 40,000 U.S. casualties has not made us stronger or more secure. Throughout our history Americans have known that there is trouble enough in the world without us going to look for it.
Years ago the thoughtful commentator Walter Lippman laid down the central principle of both a foreign policy and a national security policy: “A policy has been formed only when commitments and power have been brought into balance.” National defense and national security are about more than having the largest military in the world. Genuine national security will be achieved when we understand the new threats and the new opportunities of a new century and use the opportunities to reduce the threats. National security will be achieved when we understand we share that need with others living in our global commons. And national security will be achieved when we do not manufacture threats to achieve other ambitions.
Former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart lives in Kittredge.
