-
2. A Short Primer on Domestic Political Realities
- Texas A&M University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
2 t A SHORT P RIM E R on DOMESTIC P OLIT IC AL RE ALI TIES W hile Ronald Reagan and the key leaders in his administration may not have entered office with a codi- fied doctrine regarding when and how to use military power as a tool of statecraft, they did arrive with strong convictions. In addition, they were charged with leading a nation that had taken speci fic steps during the 1970s to codify an approach to the use of military power abroad. In the United States, any approach taken to building and employing military power is not simply a product of beliefs regarding the strategic threat and American power in the world, it intrinsically involves the nation’s political system and laws. Scholars explore these concepts under the purview of civil-military relations. In a theoretical construct, civil-military relations connect the military-security needs of a nation with its social norms governing the use of violence. The country’s values, beliefs, laws, and political system, as they influence when and how military power is used, constitute a nation’s “domestic political realities.”1 In his classic work on US civil-military relations, Soldier and the State, Samuel P. Huntington explained that prior to the start of the Cold War, the primary question Americans asked about civil-military relations was “what pattern . . . is most compatible with American liberal chapter 2 20 democratic values?” Then with the start of the Cold War, that question was revised to “what pattern . . . will best maintain the security of the American nation?”2 After the experiences of “limited war” in Korea and Vietnam, Americans added two additional questions: “What pattern will ensure that American power is used legitimately?” and “What pattern will ensure that American power is used decisively?” Each question is representative of political realities influencing the approach an administration may adopt for using military power. For instance, case studies of events in Central America and the Middle East (discussed in later chapters) show that the approaches adopted by the Reagan administration were influenced greatly by contemporary domestic political realities. Ultimately, the Weinberger Doctrine codi- fied the pattern of civil-military relations Reagan used throughout his first term, one that sought to ensure that US power was not only used in a way compatible with American liberal-democratic values and providing the best security but also used military power in both a legitimate and decisive way. A more-detailed investigation of American domestic political realities reveals a change over time from the end of World War II to Reagan’s inauguration. As political realities changed during the late 1960s and 1970s, born from the nation’s experience with the Vietnam War and Watergate, legislation passed in response would challenge the Reagan administration as it sought to assert its leadership on the world stage. In addition, the lessons the military took away from its experiences of fighting limited wars in Korea and Vietnam proved influential on policy doctrine in the 1980s. The “Age of Consensus”: Domestic Political Realities Following World War II M o s t s c h o l a r s classify the period from the 1940s until the mid-1960s as one of foreign-policy consensus in the United States. That harmony was largely based upon common perceptions of the threat, [35.173.233.176] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 01:19 GMT) A Short Primer on Domestic Political Realities 21 common opinions regarding the purposes for US power in the world, and common beliefs regarding the efficacy of military power. During that time, Americans subscribed to six fundamental propositions regarding the international system, as identified by Richard Melanson: (1) Alone among the nations of the Free World the United States has both the material power and the moral responsibility to create a just and stable international order. . . . (2) In light of the interdependent nature of the world, U.S. security interest must be necessarily global. . . . (3) Soviet and Soviet-inspired aggression and subversion constitutes the primary threat to world peace. . . . (4) The policy of containment represents the best way to stop further Soviet and Soviet-sponsored expansion. . . . (5) The United States must possess nuclear weapons in order to help deter a Soviet attack on it and its allies. . . . (6) A stable, open world economy required American leadership.3 John Ehrman has classified these themes as being part of the “vital center ideology” that emerged in the late 1940s...