The limits of military power

軍事力の限界

The main concern is that the Bush administration appears bent on ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by force — by a pre-emptive strike if necessary. It is true that the military operation in Afghanistan succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime, but the U.S. strategy of "smoking out" terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda has so far failed to produce tangible results. In fact, there are signs that U.S. military efforts to stamp out terrorism may be reaching their limits.

America's military muscle cannot be made light of. Its $380 billion defense budget accounts for more than 40 percent of the world's total military spending. As the world's sole superpower, America today can be likened to the Roman Empire or the British Empire in its heyday. The irony is that the "American empire" is not as widely respected in the world, largely because of its perceived tendency toward unilateralism.

More specifically, two reasons may be given for this. The first is that the Bush administration, with its focus on military power, has yet to develop a broad-gauged vision for world peace and security. Second, it is not positive about promoting the universal rule of law, as seen in its boycott of several key international treaties.

Military force is not always the best way of fighting terrorists. Acts of terrorism — which involve the indiscriminate killing of innocent citizens — are dictated by the "law of the jungle." Agents of terror penetrate society under cover, waiting for the "right" moment to strike, as evidenced by the events leading up to Sept. 11. Therefore, in many cases, international police action may be more effective than military action in ferreting them out.

The Afghan operation, to be sure, was a success, but it also caused many civilian casualties. There is no assurance that military operations elsewhere will produce positive results. The dramatic victory in Afghanistan has been tarnished by the failure to capture, "dead or alive," Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader who is believed to have masterminded the Sept. 11 attack. Questions still remain about the motives behind that heinous crime and the organizations that sponsored it.

Now, however, the Bush administration is pushing for plans to strike Iraq as if its mission in Afghanistan has been completed. Reportedly, it is even considering a new doctrine of pre-emptive attack that could involve the use of nuclear weapons against a terrorist network or a "rogue state" that President Bush has identified as a member of the "axis of evil." Such a "go it alone" strategy, one not supported by U.N. resolutions, has drawn criticism even from allies and friends, including former members of the first Bush administration.

The Bush administration's rejection of major international conventions — notably, the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the comprehensive treaty banning nuclear testing and the law establishing the International Criminal Court — is also a cause for grave concern. Such unilateral action also goes against the universal rule of law; it is in sharp contrast to the efforts made by former President Bill Clinton's administration to promote the "American standard" through respect for international law.

The U.S. appears determined to drive out President Hussein at all costs. The big question is when and how. One thing seems reasonably clear, however: Even if a regime change is enforced, restoring stability and building a united democratic nation will require Herculean efforts. Experience in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where earlier this month interim leader Prime Minister Hamid Karzai narrowly escaped an assassination attempt, is a shocking reminder of the enormous difficulties involved in nation-building.

Indeed, it is hard to believe that military power alone can root out terrorism and stop the adventurism of "evil" states. It seems unlikely, either, that the Afghan approach of role sharing — Japan and European states taking the lead in recovery and reconstruction following the termination of war — will work as well in post-Hussein Iraq. Military action may be necessary, but it should be only a part of a multidimensional effort to maintain and strengthen the rule of law worldwide.

The Japan Times: September 12, 2002
(C) All rights reserved

      大きな懸念は、ブッシュ政権がイラクのフセイン大統領の追放のため先制攻撃も辞さない構えであることだ。アフガニスタンでの軍事作戦がタリバン政権を崩壊させたのは確かだが、アルカイダなどテロ組織を「いぶし出す」戦略は目に見える成果を上げていない。

      強大な軍事力を誇る米国は全盛期のローマ帝国や大英帝国にも比肩しうる超大国だが、世界の尊敬を集めているとは言い難い。理由はその単独行動主義にある。

      ブッシュ政権は軍事力志向で、世界平和と安全保障に対する広い視野を備えていない。また重要な国際条約をボイコットするなど、世界共通の法支配に対し前向きでない。

      軍事力が常にテロと戦う最良の方法であるとは限らない。社会に潜伏するテロリストの捜索には国際警察の方が効果的なことが多い。アフガニスタン攻撃は成功したものの多くの民間人の死傷者を出し、ビンラディンを捕らえられなかった。

      イラク攻撃を推進するブッシュ政権は、テロ組織や「ならず者国家」に対する先制攻撃に核兵器を使用する政策を検討中と言われる。単独行動主義は多方面から批判されている。京都議定書、包括的核実験禁止条約、国際刑事裁判所設立条約などの批准を拒否していることも懸念材料だ。

      フセイン政権打倒への米国の決意は固い。しかし政権が交代しても、イラクの安定回復と統一民主主義国家の建設が至難の業であることは明らかだ。軍事力だけでテロ撲滅が可能とは思えない。アフガニスタンでなされた復興への役割分担がフセイン後のイラクでも有効かどうかは疑わしい。軍事行動は、国際社会の法支配を維持し強化するための多角的な努力の一環として使われるべきだ。

The Japan Times Weekly
September 21, 2002
(C) All rights reserved