The Commitment of Power: Avoiding Failure

THE COMMITMENT OF POWER: AVOIDING FAILURE David T. Fuhrmann D, 'iscussions about international relations would not be possible without referring to the concept of commitment. In fact, a nation's foreign policy is in large part comprised ofits commitments, and national security rests in large measure on the ability of policymakers to make wise choices. Unfortunately, U.S. policymakers have not always been adept at this. International commitments can range from declarations of support to formal treaties, from economic aid to military assistance. For the United States, the deployment of its military power abroad, especially on the ground, is a strong indication ofcommitment. A military intervention creates a physical link between a particular crisis and American security interests by demonstrating the United States' willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure. Although this essay primarily addresses instances of U.S. commitments oí military power, the conditions given below may be applied more generally as a set of interrelated considerations that are useful in evaluating foreign policy challenges or opportunities. Generally , major security commitments are likely to succeed over the longer term under the following conditions: (1) a correlation ofends and means; (2) a favorable balance of interests relative to those of the other significant actors; and (3) a high degree of consensus within the policymaking elite and the general public. Of course, favorable relationships among these conditions benefits the process of making commitments. No commitment can succeed unless policymakers are willing and able to provide the means commensurate with the ends established. Ends are the specific objectives that policymakers set as the desired result to be David T. Fuhrmann is a Ph.D. candidate at SAIS. 229 230 SAIS REVIEW gained from involvement. Means are the tools—diplomatic, economic, military, etc.—that can be brought to bear in pursuit of the desired ends. If means are available, are suitable for the purposes at hand, and commensurate with the intended objectives, there is a favorable correlation of ends and means. If, conversely, the means are incapable of obtaining the desired results, if there are constraints on their application, or the objectives to which they are applied are unrealistic or unrealizable, the correlation of ends and means is unfavorable. It is important to note that policy objectives may change as a result of new circumstances or opportunities. Such shifts, which may be sudden or gradual, are the consequence of the press of events and the momentum of involvement. As objectives are reevaluated and altered to fit changing conditions, the means utilized must also be adjusted. When, for example, U.S. interests required a strong pro-American Western Europe in the late 1940s, the Marshall Plan was sell-suited to accomplishing the initial objective of fostering economic recovery. As growing concern about Soviet intentions led to a reappraisal of the threat, this objective was no longer seen as adequate. The new goal, a political-military alliance, entailed a deepening American involvement and the permanent deployment of U.S. forces in Western Europe. The means were thus altered to fit the new objectives, and resulted in a successful long-term commitment . The interests that objectives are designed to serve are frequently a matter of intense debate, and the perception of what constitutes such interests may vary widely over time. Nevertheless, it is possible to calculate, at least roughly, the general nature of a country's interests, and the relative importance of these interests compared to those of other actors. Interests, of course, range from the specific (e.g., access to or denial of resources or bases) to the more abstract (e.g., prestige or credibility). On the whole, the more important or "vital" interests are perceived to be, the greater a country's willingness will be to assume risks and bear costs. If the balance of interests favors one party over another— that is, if a nation has more vital interests at stake than anyone else—then a favorable asymmetry of interests exists. Unfavorable asymmetry occurs in situations where other parties have greater interests at stake. On rare occasions, as in Korea from 1951 to 1953, the interests of rival parties may reach a kind of equilibrium. In the event, however, that an asymmetry exists, the...