The Credible Threat of the Use of Force

by Robert J. Romano

June 8th, 2005

In confronting the twin dangers of terrorism and tyranny, President Bush has led America in a struggle which some would hope shall soon end, opening not merely two theatres in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a world war which spans every continent of this planet, using every tool at our disposal in order to eliminate the threat posed by nuclear weapons proliferation and terrorism, wherein state sponsors of murder would be able to kill on an unprecedented scale without leaving any fingerprints. This war is as ideological in nature as it is military, and the President has thrown down the gauntlet, and declared that all in this world are born free, and that neither arbitrary restraints upon an individual’s physical being shall hinder that person’s right to liberty nor shall tyrants be allowed to hold the world hostage through their pursuit of weapons of mass murder, and the threat of proliferation. All persons are free, and have a right to live in safety. Perhaps that would have been enough, that by merely issuing a declaration of independence it would set the world free, if this were a perfect world.
        Instead, America must confront an axis of evil, as coined by former presidential speechwriter, David Frum, in a struggle in which it shall take more than our combined resources of military power, intelligence, diplomacy, and law enforcement to eliminate the dangers we confront. It shall take more than the free world uniting to confront these tyrants who support terrorism, pursue nuclear weapons in haste, and violate all accepted conventions of the law of nations and the free world in order for peace and security to be maintained. It shall take even more than the United Nations resolving to contain weapons proliferation and condemning brinksmanship. Ultimately, it shall take the will to do that which must be done in order not to prevent a potential threat from emerging in the future, but rather to preempt a present danger which may only become clear when it is already too late.
        It has been argued that there are several methods of preempting dangers, including the use of diplomacy. Ultimately, of course, it first requires that the danger be identified and recognized for what it is, and that the policy be set to the circumstances which have arisen. Different dangers shall call for different policies. But, considering the gravity of the threat we now face, is there an urgency which guides our leaders behind the scenes? Are the American people, and the world for that matter, to be left to wonder what became of U.S. claims that Iran and North Korea are tyrannical regimes hell-bent on developing the weapons which could destroy millions? Are we to simply watch as the world’s greatest powers confronted these rogue states, only to see the enemy succeed in their unjust designs? Are we to further believe that utilizing our rhetorical powers would be too dangerous? As if simply reminding the American people that freedom’s frontiers are in considerable jeopardy should these two states become the two next nuclear-armed powers would ratchet up the rhetoric too much, and motivate the enemy to pursue the path of brinksmanship. We must consider whether or not a quieter, more soft-spoken diplomacy, at least publicly, has produced compliance.
        We shall know soon, presumably. One would hope and pray that these states will open up their borders to the world and engage in complete, irreversible disarmament. But without the credible threat of the use of force, will the enemy respond to the free world’s demands for security? Are they not betting that our will is spent, and that they can attain a cold war and thus their regimes’ survival for a generation by producing nuclear weapons? If not, then what alternative are they offering?
        If Iran and North Korea calculate that we do not possess the political will to deal with them by force, why would they ever disarm? Not even the credible threat of the use of force achieved disarmament and compliance by the former Iraqi regime of her treaty obligations, with a massive buildup of military power in the Persian Gulf and the promise of serious consequences from the United Nations. Even to the end, did not Hussein calculate that we would flinch – the UN certainly flinched when it came to authorizing force when it could have prevented the need for war – and that he would keep power for another day? Or worse, did he not care that war would come? And worse still, is the enemy today calculating that political divisions in America and weakness in the United Nations – which has simultaneously resulted in the failure of something as simple as a confirmation of a new UN ambassador when we desperately need to press our interests there, and demonstrated that the international community was incapable of even managing the sanctions which were enacted against Iraq (and instead produced the oil for food scandal) – shall all inevitably cause America to buckle to the dictates of their strategic desires? Or worst of all, even if the credible threat of the use of force were present, would they care?
        By firmly keeping all options on the table, and using cautious diplomacy (as opposed to aggressive public diplomacy, revealing the danger for what it is and what it will become if we do not act one way or another), have we done enough to convince these states that the threat of the use of force is even credible? Everyday, pundits and politicians marvel that our forces are stretched too thin and thus our military options are limited. Everyday, political rivals of the President brag that poll numbers are being dictated by an “unpopular” war because, after all, all wars are unpopular. We must demonstrate clearly that we are possessed of the capability to act if we must by force, else we may be sending mixed signals when we cannot afford to. We must demonstrate that politics is not a consideration as we confront present dangers to peace and security, else the enemy may become convinced that for instance a steady stream of casualties (in Iraq for instance) shall cause America to withdraw from the world’s stage. We must be unequivocal, and so must our friends and allies.
        There are a few bold steps which could be taken in the immediate future, should the quiet diplomatic track prove to be futile. A stream of major speeches should outline the danger to the American people and the people’s representatives, and force a public debate on the matter. The Senate ought to without hesitation confirm the new UN ambassador, and give to him a mandate to resolve these developing dangers on the world stage before it is too late. Naval activity ought to visibly increase, both in the Persian Gulf and the Pacific, and culminate in a strategic blockade as well as economic isolation of these rogue states, not to be opened up but upon compliance with binding treaty obligations which have heretofore been ignored and willingly violated.
        Broken promises of compliance, followed by more empty promises, succeeded by denials of treaty violations, premised on a coordinated campaign of deception, and finally concluded with demands to tone down the rhetoric when meanwhile a quiet diplomatic effort has been underway for several months hardly reveals the enemy to be an honest broker, and more importantly, compliant.
        The American people shall not be silenced by threats of noncompliance when these regimes are already noncompliant of their treaty obligations. There is a time for diplomacy, and failing that, there is a time for consequences, and as we proceed towards the latter, we must be honest with ourselves and to the world about not only the danger, but of repeated instances of violations of the law, for without honesty in our diplomacy, and without public pressure being brought to bear, it is likely that the enemy shall sense weakness and an unwillingness to enforce the law of nations. If through muted diplomatic efforts we only encounter further noncompliance, then we must proceed to public diplomacy before the United Nations (despite and in spite of that organization’s past failures) before it is too late and the weapons we suspect are being built and have already been built are tested, used, or proliferated to the highest bidder.
        The free world must live up to its own sovereign responsibilities not to merely condemn brinksmanship, but to prevent and preempt it through the execution and enforcement of treaties made pursuant to the law of nations. The rule of law means that no state may break the law, and in the face of clear violations of that very law, we must be compelled to act with all of the tools at our disposal. For, if the enemy perceives that we will not act, by force if we must, if we send mixed signals about our own reluctance to sacrifice for the sake of preserving peace and security, then why would they ever comply? First, we must be unequivocal about our policy. Then, we must accept the very real possibility that even after we have utilized all of the peaceful methods of diplomatic, economic, and strategic actions that we can conceivably contrive of, and present the use of force as a credible option, that these rogue states will simply still not comply with the just demands of the free world, as happened with Hussein’s Iraq. Even being completely encircled by military forces, and the very real threat of the use of force being brought to bear, that regime still would not comply. When it comes to achieving compliance via the diplomatic route, whether through the subtle or public approaches, we must remember that the goal is not containment of the threat. Rather, it is disarmament and thus the elimination of the threat.
        For, even if the goal were containment, the credible threat of the use of force would still have to be present.
        Irreversible disarmament of these budding nuclear powers is a reasonable demand in accordance with the law of nations, and we must demand clearly and publicly should private diplomacy fail, that we shall not accept anything less. We must be willing to use every tool at our disposal, for the enemy sensing weakness is quite dangerous and could result in an unnecessary military action. In order for disarmament to occur by peaceful means, it must be made clear that further noncompliance shall result in military action. And when the time comes, when the conclusion has been made that further diplomatic efforts will only enable the enemy the time it needs to finish off its nuclear weapons, and potentially deliver them to a target, or allow them the deterrent they need to stay in power, then bold action is both necessary and proper. Equivocating on our willingness or capability to act by force if we must is a very dangerous message for politicians to be sending, for it is that type of message which could create a strategic perception in our enemy which further results in noncompliance, and could lead to the need for the use of force to achieve disarmament. The threat of the use of force must be credible.