Force of Arms or Diplomacy

           The post- Cold war era saw the United States assume the status of a super power nation and although this was done in order to prevent a recurrence of an economic and political meltdown that occurred during the war; many viewed the United States as reluctant to take the role of a super power and the responsibility it connotes. The main question was how the U.S. would operate on a tactical level to manage a chaotic world. The American militia has a global reach with bases around the world and its regional commander’s sometime act like proconsuls. The economy is also the largest in the world and its pop culture magnetic.

             According to the article by Kristol and Kagan, the authors pushed for a world order conducive to American interests and principles. And also urged a defense against the most immediate and menacing obstacle to achieving that order. This has worked in Afghanistan and Iraq, but military victories don’t automatically mean political achievements. After the conflict stops, it takes hard work which includes both political and diplomatic work to continue and help build a free state. Power is necessary I agree; but the aftermath that occurs when coercive force is used often gives rise to a more complex and less predictable scenario. So it’s best used only when necessary. The use of force too often by a state for less vital interest risks other states mobilizing to join ranks to balance against it.  Those who recommend an imperial American foreign policy based on traditional military descriptions of American power are relying on inadequate analysis and focusing on only one aspect which will create a out of frying pan situation for the government.

                An example is the removal of a tyrant from Iraq, but at the same time, we inadvertently increased the ability of the al Qaeda network to gain new recruits. Excessive force through defense board will prove impossible and chaotic as it cannot be used for everything. In the case of nuclear proliferation, the move by the authors to push for the upheaval of the whole regime and the use of coercive force to do it proves my theory of using both coercive and diplomatic means to achieve ones goal will prove effective. The Albright article suggests several ones to control nuclear arms, which also supports both use of coercive and soft force to persuade the offending state. She suggests simple logic, economic incentives, sanctions and threat of coercive force or a combination for a state leader to use as necessary. I also agree that in no way should a country like North Korea be rewarded but coercive force need not be used. Cooperation is needed among the neighboring states like China and South Korea in order to succeed.

              Although China has increased its international influence, it has not provoked international conflict as predicted. The Chinese people and government nowadays seem more interested in enriching themselves through peaceful participation in the global economy than in embarking on campaigns of conquest, say against Taiwan. The greatest threat to their security and ours is the spread of nuclear power. Nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea would make the international realm far more dangerous.  Because North Korea would have no problems selling nuclear weapons to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. They could potentially kill many thousands of people if they are given access to it. As Albright said, the nonproliferation program cannot be won without Chinese cooperation, as the U.S shares a deep relationship with China, and China has a stronger say in matters of East Asia, due to its primacy as leader and it has signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty so as t o avoid an imbalance of power that would work to its disadvantage. S o with all this going on in the world, we cannot accomplish it by American force of arms, we must be patient and wise and through this we can achieve our objectives legitimately and diplomatically.