No one doubted that Israelis (regionally) and Americans (globally) enjoyed unquestioned military dominance. Throughout Israel’s near abroad, its tanks, fighter-bombers, and warships operated at will. So, too, did American tanks, fighter-bombers, and warships wherever they were sent.
So what? Events made it increasingly evident that military dominance did not translate into concrete political advantage. Rather than enhancing the prospects for peace, coercion produced ever more complications. No matter how badly battered and beaten, the “terrorists” (a catch-all term applied to anyone resisting Israeli or American authority) weren’t intimidated, remained unrepentant, and kept coming back for more.
Military dominance -- with respect to the size of their armed forces and the weapons technology available to them. But what of the use of 4GW by their opponents? If these two states are unable to secure victory by military means, do they really have military dominance? It's not merely a question of having the political will.
Professor Bacevich's latest book is Washington Rules. TomCast interview (mp3)
Book Tour
Appearance and book-signing in Boston on August 3:
Brookline Booksmith
In Washington, D.C. on August 5:
Andrew Bacevich - Washington Rules | Politics and Prose
Hrm... He'll be in SF on Aug. 12 and Berkley on Aug. 13. Rather than trying to see him in Boston whenever I visit that city next, I should take advantage of his visit to the Bay Area to meet him.
1 comment:
papabear-
I doubt if you will ever hear Bacevich use a reified concept and confusing label like 4GW . . . he's far to serious for that.
Post a Comment