|
|
|
Map of Europe |
Email this citationCIAO DATE: 02/03
The United States: The Empire of Force or the Force of Empire?
Pierre Hassner
Chaillot Paper 54
September 2002
Has America's attitude towards the use of force changed since 11 September 2001? Is the country being drawn away from the temptations of withdrawal or isolationism towards imperialism, and, moreover, from a liberal imperialism based on economic dynamism to a robust form founded on military power? Is the combined feeling of vulnerability, of being incomprehensibly and unjustly attacked yet at the same time invincible, producing a 'post-11 September syndrome' that is taking the place of the 'post-Vietnam syndrome' yet, like it, may possibly be no more than a phase in an evolution in America that could very well be cyclical?
In an attempt to throw some light on these questions, if not to answer them, this Chaillot Paper has endeavoured to take a historical and sociological approach. It begins by retracing the course of American foreign policy and its contradictions, trying to go beyond the classical contrasting of idealism and realism, and of isolationism and internationalism, to consider rather the concepts of exceptionalism and unilateralism. It analyses the contradictions between American military tradition and the efforts by civilian strategists to take advantage of the possibilities offered by technology in order to influence the conduct of military operations in the direction of limitation, flexibility and control. To give an understanding of present-day American attitudes, it analyses in turn the role played by public opinion as it is perceived through the media and opinion polls, and that played by the military and the political élites of successive governments. It transpires that public opinion is in fact less isolationist and reluctant to accept loss of American lives than has been thought, that those who are most unwilling to accept casualties are the military, who are at once more respected and more dissatisfied in America than elsewhere, and that between them and the politicians there has since Vietnam been a mutual mistrust that has sometimes led to inaction.
However, the changes that have followed 11 September are what is most striking. All the divisions mentioned above seem for the moment to have been overcome. America has found a foreign policy that boils down to one mission: war on terrorism. Yet that raises as many problems as it solves when it comes to defining either war or terrorism. Its experience in Afghanistan and the Middle East should serve as a reminder to the United States of just how complex and ambiguous international realities are, and of the limitations of military power. There is certainly a worrying gap between an America that is fired with patriotic, martial fervour and a Europe that is more hesitant and less dynamic yet more aware of the pitfalls and dangers of military adventurism. None the less, dialogue between them, if they agree to listen to each other, could be fruitful.
