Out of Order Podcast
Military Might…?
Hard Security’s Role in a Soft Power World
So far, the Out-of-Order Podcast has focused on specific countries and the role they play in trying to stabilize, uphold, change, or transform the current international order. In the fifth episode, we take a different approach as we look at what role the military and hard power plays in shaping the international order. To discuss this and related issues, host Peter Sparding and guest-host Amy Studdart are joined by GMF Visiting Senior Fellow Shawn Turner and GMF Executive Vice President Derek Chollet.
During the Cold War, the role of the military in underpinning the Western international order seemed clear. After the end of the Cold War, however, the mission of Western militaries seemed to change as NATO was looking for a new role and Western militaries primarily focused first on humanitarian interventions like in the Balkans and then, following the attacks on 9/11, on targeted military action fighting against terrorism and broad-scope wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, as the new U.S. National Defense Strategy (NDS) outlines, the focus of U.S. military policy seems to turn back to questions of strategic competition with other powers and the larger international order like we saw more so during the Cold War.
Shawn and Derek lay out how the strategic environment has changed to necessitate these developments — changes that were well underway during the previous administration. In fact, they say that despite some of the changed rhetoric, there is a lot of continuity with regard to U.S. military posture under the Trump administration (which sounds like a bipartisan opinion given Jamie Fly’s take in our last episode). The question is raised as to how sustainable the current discrepancy between the policy priorities set in documents such as the NDS, which emphasizes the need to work with allies, and President Trump’s more brash approach to coalition building, including repeated clashes with allies.
As Derek lays out the relative loss of superiority of the U.S. military vis-à-vis actors like China in areas such as AI, the discussion turns to the questions whether authoritarian powers such as China or Russia are helped in their ambition by their lack of adherence to certain liberal ideals which enable them push forward all-out-efforts in technology and certain policy areas.
Naturally, the focus then shifts to Europe, as we analyze the important contribution of some European countries, while also pointing to the increasing divergence in capabilities between the transatlantic partners.
Finally, we discuss whether too much is asked of the military as the it is increasingly put forward as a solution to more problems and the answer to ever more questions. Given the growing sentiment to focus on “nation building at home” on both sides of the Atlantic and the reluctance of Americans to engage in new large scale military interventions following the experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, how sustainable is the current approach? Is there a risk of losing public support at home for international engagement?
Things that make you THINK
Amy recommended The Rise of the Anti-Liberalism Essay in The Atlantic by Shadi Hamid because of its focus on the liberal part of the Liberal International Order and how different people approach — positively and negatively — the “limitless” options of choice and freedom in liberal societies.
Derek recommended The Heroism of Incremental Care in The New Yorker by Dr. Atul Gawand because though it focuses on the medical field, it made him realize (and appreciate) how crucial the “incremental” parts of foreign and security policy are to making the world turn-round.
Peter recommended Why Is It So Hard for Democracy to Deal With Inequality? in The New York Times by Thomas Edsall. A subject the podcast will discuss in the near future, Edsall gives a thorough rundown of why people don’t necessarily speak with their votes to change policies, even when it’s in their own interest.
Things that TANKED
As a former adviser to a previous Secretary of Defense, Derek found it surprising and disappointing that U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis created an optic of U.S. disengagement from global security leadership by not speaking at Munich Security Conference — though he was at the event.
Shawn took on the on-going gun control and school shooting debate happening in the U.S. currently. Referring back to his military training, he made the point that few have mentioned: in a planned attack, armed teachers will most certainly become the first target to eliminate.
Go indepth…
If you enjoyed this episode and want to learn more, then watch our upcoming Oxford-style debate LIVE HERE presented with Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates at GMF’s Brussels Forum on March 9 at 10am ET/4pm CET. You can listen to the podcast after if you don’t catch it live or follow the conversation on Twitter with #BrusselsForum.
We will be debating the motion Humanitarian Intervention Does More Harm Than Good with Frank Ledwidge and Rajan Menon arguing FOR the motion and Bernard Kouchner and Kori Schake arguing against it.
