Lucas de Gamboa
When American leaders think about deterrence, they usually cite the strength of the military. “Our number one job, ” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently told a gathering of generals, “is to be strong so we can prevent war.” This philosophy, echoed by Republicans and Democrats alike, holds that, when the military is at its most capable, adversaries will not test us.
The logic of this view is sound, but it misses a fundamental aspect of deterrence: credibility. We may have the strongest military, but having a strong military does not mean adversaries believe it will be used. In other words, military strength alone does not prevent aggression; credible threats demonstrating America’s willingness to use force, and its resolve to see the task done, are just as important.
For a variety of reasons, America today faces a credibility problem in its deterrence strategy. Starting in the 2000s, the American public became disillusioned with intervention abroad. That reluctance, tied explicitly to misguided nation-building in regions of secondary concern, has extended to other commitments in areas more vital to American interests. This aversion to “forever wars,” though understandable, has thereby eroded Washington’s credibility and may tempt an adversary to test it abroad. To achieve peace through strength, then, Washington must urgently work to calibrate its messaging to adversaries and further encourage its allies to spend more on defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment