The Democratic National Convention wrapped up a couple of days ago, bringing the curtain triumphantly down on a week of amazing excitement, path-breaking and historic moments and joy, so much joy. Yet, as Kamala Harris delivered her speech accepting the nomination and laying out her vision of tomorrow, beyond the happiness and pride, one interesting note struck me more than any others. Unsurprising, perhaps since this was a moment of affirming a muscular approach to the world outside, and that is not an idea one associates with Democrats, much less with a liberal from San Francisco, as Harris' opponents would like to describe her.
In some ways, the idea of a Democrat arguing that she will ensure America's military remains the most lethal force in the world should not be a surprise. It was Roosevelt who led the USA through World War 2, it was Truman who willingly stood up during the Cold War, it was John Kennedy who remained steadfast through the Cuban missile crisis, Bill Clinton intervened in Yugoslavia to protect Albanians from genocide and it was Obama who reminded the world while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize that he would never flinch from defending American power and interests. While the Democrats may have many voices that speak in softer language and advocate for less violent realpolitik, the leaders have rarely shied away from projecting American power abroad. It is also true that no Democrat nominee for President would use their moment in the brightest spotlight to suggest a new approach.
And, yet, a new approach is exactly what we need. Speaker after speaker echoed the cliched "God bless our troops!", a line that has as much meaning as offering "thoughts and prayers" after yet another mass shooting. I am not naive enough to suggest that America should disengage from the world and withdraw into isolation - a policy more associated with the American right-wing than the left - nor that we should send our forces to act as the world's policeman in troubled corners of the world, from Haiti to Yemen to Niger. Above all, what I hope is that our leaders recognize the difference between force, strength and power.
At first glance, it may seem that the terms are largely interchangeable, especially strength and power, and there is no doubt that they are deeply connected. Yet, as we can see around us all the time, force and strength are not the same, and strength and power are likewise quite distinct. We know now, after three bloody years of war in Ukraine that Russia was never militarily strong. Their open invasion of Ukraine showed that they could not sustain a military operation just across their border in an area deeply connected to their own logistical network; what chance do they have of fighting further abroad then. Yet, till the moment that their army rolled (metaphorically) across the border, few people doubted their strength, and that illusion of strength gave them power. The moment they employed force however, it stripped away the curtains and showed that they were nothing but a toothless tiger - dangerous, cruel, ruthless, still and able to inflict tremendous pain on a smaller neighbor, but quite incapable of matching their actions to their bombastic words. Indeed, their deployment of super weapons like hypersonic missiles proved as much a game changer as the V-1 and V-2 flying bombs of Hitler, again able to hurt but far less overwhelming than promised and it is almost beyond question that the Khinzal enjoyed far greater status before it was used. In a similar way, the Ukranian counteroffensive of last year revealed weaknesses in American and West European armor - perhaps as much a function of expectations, conditions and operational mistakes - that deflated the power they had enjoyed before the limitations in their strength were exposed.
It should not be thought that this loss of power is peculiar to Russia and its ilk either. The USA enjoyed its own moment of seemingly incredible power in fall of 2002 - a terrorist attack on New York had destroyed the Twin Towers and America came together in righteous anger, determined to unleash unprecedented retribution on the men who had planned and enabled the attack, and for good measure. And that power would fall upon others with far less connection to the attack but deserving of suffering our wrath because we could. The world watched with bated breath and mostly silent awe as US special forces swept the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, then America toppled the Iraqi dictator with almost ludicrous ease, killing thousands of Iraqi soldiers for a near negligible cost in American blood. And having seemingly demonstrated its strength, America believed its power to be near infinite when it brushed off Iranian overtures. In hindsight, we can see that we had reached the apex of our power and that the use of force was about to undermine our strength and eventually reduce our power, as low-level insurgencies in both Afghanistan and Iraq sapped our wealth and will. We eventually withdrew from both countries with most of our stated aims defeated. The Iranians realized that they were no longer under threat of invasion and began to make their own miscalculations of strength and power.
Over and over, we can see that the use of force reduces our power. An interesting case is playing out in Israel and the Middle East - Iran and Hezbollah have stayed largely on the sidelines and appeared stronger as a result, while any move to engage Israel tends to undercut that power when their actual strength is revealed to be less than it was supposed. Israel sadly is facing its own dilemma - the terrorist attacks belied Israel's seeming invulnerability and it is now expending a massive amount of firepower to try and restore its position. The jury remains out on whether Israel will emerge stronger or weaker from its operations in Gaza, but it shows the delicate balance between projecting power and using force, with the latter inevitably undermining the former. A slightly different scenario was seen in Europe, when Russia seemed to hold the power over Western Europe through control of Europe's gas supply. Yet Europe's economic strength, with help from the US, soon negated Russian power, while in turn Russia was able to find customers elsewhere and thus weather the West's attempts at using their power to chastise Putin; in both cases, strength on one side overcame power exercised by the other, even without the use of force. Examples can be found is so many places: the Houthis have shown the limits of Western power and continued to attack civilian shipping with impunity, despite punitive strikes by American and allied air forces, yet their own power is built on weak foundations and will vanish if and when the world decides to return to the longer, more expensive route around Africa, leaving Yemen mired in poverty and violence and no better than it was a year ago.
Turning back to Harris, who I hope to see as our next president, I hope that she understands these subtle differences. America is strong, a country blessed with so much natural wealth and resources. The USA is powerful, too, but it is important that we keep that power through wise alliances, for power is multiplied when we act in concert with our allies. We must also always recognize the link between our strength and power - our strength, as the disruptions of the Covid epidemic showed, is not without weakness and we would do well to address the chinks in our armor. And above all, we need to avoid the gratuitous use of force. This is not to say that force may never be used, for their are threats that can be handled only through force, but we should remember the keys to successfully employing force - keeping it calibrated to the provocation, ensuring that we have a clearly defined and achievable goal and above all remembering, that the threat of force is often more effective than force itself. Bismark and Sun Tzu would both recognize the wisdom of the words, "speak softly but carry a big stick". I hope Harris ensures we have a big stick, but I also hope we never have to do more than tap it lightly on the ground at a reminder.
