Goodwill Is the Mission, Too

The agreement signed by Defense Secretary William Perry with Japan keeping American Marines on Okinawa but shifting certain air operations to an offshore base illustrates the continuing benefit, to both nations, of retaining forward-based ground forces. The current national security strategy of the United States, known formally as “Engagement and Enlargement,” is designed to enlarge “the community of market democracies while deterring and limiting a range of threats to our nation, our allies and our interests.” Maintaining a strong defense, promoting cooperative security measures, working to open foreign markets and promoting democracy abroad are the policy initiatives intended to secure these objectives.

Despite the elegant phraseology, the real American strategic objective can best be summed up in one word: stability. Recent history is loaded with examples indicating that where stability is threatened, American interests are as well. So the question is, what instruments of foreign policy are the most useful in creating, sustaining and spreading stability? Clearly, one of the most useful is through focused, American military engagement overseas.

The principal locations outside of the United States that enjoy a stable climate of democracy and economic vitality are Western Europe and the Pacific Rim. Both regions--Japan and South Korea in particular--saw a substantial American military “engagement” on the ground. This intensive, lengthy engagement allowed the conditions of stability to take root. Although the engagements in Germany and Japan evolved from compulsory and coercive to cooperative and collegial, the result was the same: stable countries supporting American interests and sharing American values and perspectives.

Clearly, the days of expansive forward-based formations are coming to an end. America has withdrawn its largest troop concentrations from those areas where their presence symbolized the effects of an uncomfortable past, no longer served a clear strategic purpose or ran the risk of generating frictions because of cultural differences or, as in the recent case in Okinawa, unacceptable behavior. But engagement is most effectively carried out when individuals on the ground share hardships and overcome common challenges. Given the central role that armies around the world hold in local governments as well as local military establishments, American ground forces are those best suited for undertaking engagement missions that enhance the chances of stability because of those forces’ capabilities, from fighting to infrastructure support.

This is particularly true in those areas where engagement and enlargement have the greatest potential and carry the greatest risks: Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states. Noting NATO’s role in restoring stability in Western Europe, President Clinton has advocated expanding the alliance to include some states formerly dominated by the Soviet Union. Since NATO remains principally a military alliance, this means increased involvement between NATO and East European military forces. If the United States intends to lead and shape this process, then we will have to retain significant American ground forces in Europe.

Involving Russia in new NATO functions such as peacekeeping will serve to inform the Kremlin and the still potent military that there is much to be gained and little to be lost in NATO expansion. The inclusion of a Russian brigade as part of the U.S. Army’s 1st Armored Division in Bosnia illustrates the potential benefits from such an effort. The result of that “engagement” has been increased stability in Bosnia, in Europe and, it is hoped, in Russia.

Around the world, American ground forces can serve to demonstrate both our resolve and our goodwill. Army engineers who recently built a school in Mongolia have left behind a symbol of goodwill that will last for years. The basing agreement with Japan indicates the same engagement principles apply worldwide. Furthermore, the nature, duration and scope of many engagement exercises are such that they can best be met by reservists, taking advantage of their specialized skills and freeing active units for training and crisis response.

Recently, a senior American general landed in the Czech Republic to observe a military exercise conducted under the Pentagon’s Partnership for Peace program. As he emerged from his helicopter, he was welcomed by a Czech colonel who announced that he was a recent graduate of the U.S. Army War College and was applying the skills learned in Carlisle Barracks, Pa., to the combined exercise on former Warsaw Pact territory. “That,” the American general later recalled, “is engagement.” It also is a basis for enlarging stability.