"But what you are seeing are capabilities to, in fact, deny the United States from projecting power in the region," said Dan Blumenthal, a former senior director for China and Taiwan in the US Secretary of Defense's office.
What's this "projecting power" thing all about?
I've given a lot of thought to this phrase since I fist heard it uttered by Donald Rumsfeld. How exactly does one project power and, more importantly, why on earth would one want to?
Since the quote I started out with comes from an analysis that identifies some nation's desire to refuse "access" to U.S. naval ships, planes and other military assets as a denial of something to which the U.S. is entitled, it would seem that "projecting power" simply refers to the ability of the American military to go wherever, whenever they want, making the concept of national sovereignty, like the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners, a quaint notion that no longer applies.
So, on its face, the concept seems rather simple. A couple of centuries ago I think it was referred to as "gun-boat diplomacy." Which suggests that it's perhaps not an appropriate strategy in the 21st Century. On the other hand, the proponents of this way of dealing with the world do refer to themselves as new conservatives--neocons.
Whether there has been any international consideration of this claim on the part of the American military to consider a closed door an actionable offense, I don't know. But, it does strike me as a peculiar position for a nation supposedly committed to national sovereignty, free market economics and the recognition of individual and human rights to take. I mean, how can you justify barging into someone's country when you claim to support homeland security.
In any event, it seems to me that there are only two logical explanations for our country assuming this position: the need to be able to project power as a primary national interest. Either the apparent need to rely on military force as a back-up to insure that other nations let our people and our corporations have free access to their resources and markets indicates a lack of confidence in the "free market" as the absolutely best economic system ever invented (easily recognizable as such by everyone who's introduced to it), or we have a large segment of the leadership of our nation severely addicted to "projecting power" for no practical purpose what-so-ever.
Now, there may well be a rational justification that I haven't been able to think of. If there is, I'd sure like to be informed what it is, because the ones I've been able to come up with so far strike me as piss-poor. Don't you agree.
Posted by Hannah at October 30, 2005 02:09 PM