US military shifts to "soft power" strategy
Updated
A new American defence strategy in Washington has warned that terrorism will remain a threat for years to come, citing what it calls "The Long War" against violent extremism.
The strategy document calls on the US military to place priority on "soft power" initiatives, such as countering radicalism through economic, political and social development in volatile parts of the world. US Defence secretary Robert Gates also recommended partnerships with Russia and China, and to harness both US military strength and 'soft power' to defeat the complex international problem of terrorism.
Presenter: Sen Lam
Speaker: Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum at CSIS in Hawaii
COSSA: Well I'm not sure it's dramatic, but it certainly puts a different tilt on things, it surely reflects the kinder, gentler Pentagon under Robert Gates if you will.
LAM: Indeed it's main focus is it more on engagement and the so-called soft power option for dialogue rather than say pre-emptive military strikes?
COSSA: Well yes that's true but keep in mind that the pre-emptive military strike idea that came out of the 2002 national security strategy of the United States was one page in a 34-page document, it's just that that was the only thing that was talked about. There was a lot in those initial national security strategies about engagement and cooperation among the major powers. So in many respects this is consistent with that, but it is clear that it puts a focus on engagement. It does however I think very significantly, not only talk about the need to cooperate with China and Russia, but also points to them as potential long-term challenges. So it sort of articulates the hedging strategy against China, a tone down from the Rumsfeld days when China was more clearly branded as a competitor. Here it's just someone you sort of need to hedge against while still trying to cooperate with.
LAM: And yet this new strategy does not rule out military options. Do you think it's a reflection of the complexities of this new challenge posed by the long war, as opposed to the days of the Cold War when the enemy was very clearly defined?
COSSA: Well yes I think that's very true. However no military document from the United States is ever going to rule out the use of force. I mean the whole idea is that you have that capability in the hopes that you won't have to use it. But certainly that's what the whole concept of deterrence is about is convincing the other guy that you're prepared to use it if you have to, and if they're convinced of that then the odds are that you won't have to use it.
LAM: Secretary Gates says in a word it's all about balance, something which some might say the Bush administration sorely lacked. Are you surprised that the strategy has been suggested so close to a presidential election?
COSSA: Well the document is actually somewhat overdue, the document should have come out in 2006 shortly after the national security strategy, the new national security strategy was published. But I think it reflects an attempt by Gates to at least put his impressions down on paper and have that to help sort of guide things. And it'll be useful I think for the next administration regardless of who wins. One of the things that's very important in here and listening to your introduction, when I read through the part about challenges, the word terrorism doesn't exist, it talks about violent extremism. I think there's been a very conscious effort to get away from the term, the previously popular term global war on terrorism, and now to talk about being against violent extremism, which is sort of again a nuance that we've seen with the Bush administration, but particularly since Gates took over.
LAM: Do you think this new strategy, the fact that it doesn't mention terrorism, doesn't specify Islamist radicalism, that it might go down better with the rest of the world, particularly the Islamic Muslim world?
COSSA: Well I think so, I mean clearly this is part of the stress with soft power too, which again is nothing new. The US and the US military has always had a soft power aspect to it; the training, the exercises, the relief like the tsunami operations, etc., etc. It's just that during the Rumsfeld days Rumsfeld pretended he'd never heard of the term, whereas Gates has now embraced it and it's a recognition that you don't win hearts and minds just by carrying a big stick, you also need to be able to speak softly.
LAM: So it would seem to be a softer White House. Do you think the document is likely to be adopted by the next administration be it Republican or Democrat?
COSSA: Well I think it'll certainly serve as a model for them, as a guide for them. And keep in mind that it'll probably be several years, at least a year before they get their own document out on the streets, so in the meantime you have to have something for the military forces to sort of have as their guideline. I would expect that whatever comes next will look very similar to this. They may have to come up with a new few catchphrases or something, but for the most part this is a very balanced document, it focusses on preserving US national interests, and the national interests don't change every four years.
