A small war is more than just a petite battle or a smaller-scale war fought by a small number of professional U.S. soldiers; believe it or not, small wars have contributed to the solidity of America’s notable military reputation. With disregard to other theories and beliefs, America has never been an isolationist power– it has “been involved in other countries’ internal affairs since at least 1805”; America’s small wars have played a large part in the development of what author, Max Boot, calls an American Empire.
There are many people who fear American hegemony, most of these fears root from misgivings due to the cold war; unfortunately, these people are a threat to the future success in any conflict the United States may go up against. Most of the opposition consists of people who are anti-Bush, citizens who would deem their beliefs liberal, and the media who is involved in the never-ending attempt to get rid of the United States’ current administration. The United States is almost like a team, the results are positive when it works together, and there is no inner turmoil. If there is all of this upheaval among citizens, no one is going to be satisfied with the results.
The facts, reinforced by Max Boot’s novel, The Savage Wars of Peace, are that small wars are more important than we have ever known, that is if we even knew about them while they were going on; surprisingly, small wars are commonly left out of histories of the United States.
Many critics voice that the United States should mind its own business, but at the same time the whole world expects the United States to intervene when there are international issues, or provide the most aid when natural disasters in places other than the United States territory occur. Is this an equally split argument? Maybe, unless there is a blatant truth to one of the sides.
Historically, Americans have had a responsibility to free foreign nations from any negative positions they have been put in, especially if the result is greater freedom. The United States of America is a true hegemon — the United States is the largest economy and has the most powerful military. In turn, the world expects the United States to battle terrorists, provide aid for natural disasters, and ultimately save the world.
Something that critics seem to ignore is that generally, most of the occasions in of which America has intervened, it has been for idealistic and humanitarian reasons, not for what critics normally assume, big business and corporate interests. Boot identified four distinct types of small wars:
- Punitive, “to punish attacks on American citizens or property, Protective, “to safeguard foreign territory”,
- Pacification, “to occupy foreign territory”
- Profiteering, “To grab trade or territorial concession”.
These small wars have been fought from the Barbary Wars in the early 1800s to the Gulf War in the 1990s, to present-day America, with Iraq.
If a state or country is in need of rebuilding, inevitably, it will get there with or without the help of anyone else. However, one opinion argues that logically, the help of a mother or father nation couldn’t hurt, and the opposition is wholly against the United States intervening. Protesters cross-country in the United States are demanding that we pull our troops out of Iraq. Truthfully, if the United States pulled out prematurely, negative consequences would follow, and no one would be satisfied. Application of Boot’s theory of limited war to the current situation in Iraq could be that of a positive one. It’s time to nurture a mutually friendly, sense of equality, but strong presence in each town. Now the chances of that actually happening currently, is another story!
Max Boot, makes a lot of relevant points in his novel devoted to small wars and the rise of American power, The Savage Wars of Peace. The United States Congress has declared war against other nations on only five occasions: against Britain in 1812, Mexico in 1846, Spain in 1898, the Central Powers in 1917 and the Axis in 1941, however, administrations have committed troops to battle at least double those occasions. Therefore, it would be safe to say the United States knew a thing or two about small wars. In fact, the Marine Corps produced a Small Wars Manual which contained an action plan, using all of the principles that worked successfully in previous small wars. The manual ultimately represents the concept that when a successful project is undertaken in a village, we must spread the word to other villages much more effectively than we have been doing. In plain words, the manual stated this Government has interposed or intervened in the affairs of other states with remarkable regularity, and it may be anticipated that the same general procedure will be followed in the future. The manual, written in 1940 stated that the plan used for the previous successful small wars, would be applicable to those in the future.
Boot claims that the troops need to re-train, learning small war tactics to apply for what is ahead. The United States lost Vietnam because it tried big war tactics in an area that small war tactics would have been more beneficial. Too heavy of a military presence is not the way to go into a country; right away you are invading as opposed to helping.
The American Empire has been built from the ground up, tackling whatever has been thrown its way. Whether it has been small wars, or even civil wars. America has a duty to keep on fighting small wars to contribute to the world’s security. Boot is ultimately writing to the American public outlining what should and should not be done. The Powell Doctrine, a post-Vietnam policy that for more than 200 years, the United States military has routinely violated. After Vietnam, instead of realizing that better strategies and tactics in fighting small wars should be learned, they came to the conclusion that they should avoid fighting altogether. The Powell Doctrine on many different levels makes sense, however, it follows the post-Vietnam mindset of if war must happen, the United States must win with overwhelming force, suffer few casualties and leave immediately. When possible, that is a great theory to go by, however when battle commences, troops must be in the mindset that they are there until the job is done. At the end of his book, Boot concludes, “In deploying American power, decision makers should be less apologetic, less hesitant, less humble. Yes, there is a danger of imperial overstretch and hubris — but there is an equal, if not greater, danger of undercommitment and lack of confidence. America should not be afraid to fight `the savage wars of peace’ if necessary to enlarge the empire of liberty.’ It has done it before.”