Is the Strategy for Peace is Realistic in Today’s World?

Is the Strategy for Peace is Realistic in Today’s World?

The world exists in divisions of countries, societies and communities that have different values and belief systems. Even with the advent of globalization, the world is still arranged in this manner. People in different societies and countries across the world live and think differently because of the values they have and the problems they experience. A problem experienced by people living in the North could not be the same problem experienced by those living in the South. However, one issue that cuts across through the world is the issue of peace. This has forced nations to come up with strategies that would ensure them of peace. The United States of America has been engaging in actions to safeguard not only its peace but also the peace of the world. The strategy that the US has been using has been costly both financially and physically. This is a good strategy but idealistic and unrealistic. Melvin Laird proposed a strategy for peace in which he laid down his insights on how the US should handle its peace strategy. Laird’s insights that are outlined in his strategy for peace are partly applicable and inapplicable in today’s world but are idealistic and unrealistic.

In the year 1970, Melvin R. Laird, the former secretary of defense presented President Nixon with a proposed a defense strategy that would see the US change its defense focus from war strategy to peace. This strategy called for the restructuring of the US forces within financial constraints, but maintaining a strong force that would be able to prevent any threats or attacks. The current pressures that originate from fiscal constraints, security issues and resource expectations make Laird’s insights partly applicable in today’s world but are idealistic and unrealistic (Davis 69).

Today, the United States of America faces almost the same kinds of problems that were present in the 1970s when Laird made his proposal for a peace strategy. Threats to peace with issues, such as terrorism are still existent in today’s world where the United States is in. however, the scenario in the environment in today’s world is remarkably different from the 1970 world that Laird considered when making his insights (Coffey 54). Today, the world has developed more superior in terms of technology, instruments of war, ideologies and even the social life that people lead. This means that despite the fact that Laird’s insights can be applied to today’s world scenario, they would be less efficient in addressing the current problems as they are because of the changes that have occurred.

It will be unrealistic to state that those insights would be efficiently applicable in today’s world. For instance, Laird’s insights on deterrence of nuclear aggression cannot be applied today because the nature of nuclear threat has shifted from a bipolar nuclear world into a more diffused one. Laird states that the nuclear deterrence strategy applied by the US today is unrealistic because at that time, the US was struggling against a single competitor. However, he does not mention the nuclear proliferation by other states or potential non-states, yet this is what the US is facing today from countries, such as Iran. Lairds proposal is idealistic and unrealistic because as it stands, the US  faces a non-peer-to-non-peer threat where good relations is impractical by unknown nuclear empowered states or non-states such as Hamas and Al Qaeda. Therefore, Laird’s insight into this is idealistic and unrealistic because his deterrence strategy is directed towards one competitor, yet in the current world situation, there are several competitors (Atta).

Laird’s insights were formulated based on a budget policy, foreign policy and domestic policy by looking at the Vietnam War. This is similar to what the US is facing today because the war on Iraq and the participation of the US in the Middle East has been costly in financial and physical terms. Laird came up with his insights at a time when questions on how the military should be used and resourced were being asked. Americans are still asking these same questions. In the face of these Laird argues that the wartime strategy should be changed and states, “It is not a policy of war fighting; it is not a policy of status quo; it is a policy to move this country and the world towards a generation of peace based on three principles – partnership, strength, and willingness to negotiate”(Laird 2). These principles are applicable in today’s world

Laird states that, despite the fact that the US should have a strong military; it should be done through restructuring that has a cost reduction and flexible perspective (Laird 5). Laird mentions the changing threat landscape and emphasizes on a policy of deterrence that is put on the threat of the force as opposed to the use of the force. However, this is idealistic and unrealistic. The US is the world’s superpower and as such, it should act in this power to help the world achieve peace even if it means military engagement. The superpower cannot be seen to be weak when peace issues call for more attention (Davis 69).

Despite the call for a budget conscious military funding, as Laird proposes, the military cannot be made weak through meager allocations in order to favor a deterrence strategy. Laird proposed that the GNP rate of defense spending in 1970 should be reduced to 7 percent or a lesser percentage (Laird 10). In the 1970, the US had financial constraints that were a resultant factor of the previous years of war, something that is relatively similar to today. Even with the economic constraints, security is an important aspect that should be put into consideration, as it is a priority even for economic development. The rate of defense spending in GDP is less today compared to 1970, yet the US still faces a serious defense budget cut. Therefore, while Lairds insights on this are more or less applicable, they are idealistic and unrealistic in today’s world (Coffey 186).

In conclusion, Laird’s insights proposed in his strategy for peace are idealistic and unrealistic for US, in the current world situation. It is imperative to state that some of his insights are applicable to today’s peace and security issues as mentioned above. However, the changed landscape, the increase of competitors and other factors, such as the existence of non-state forces that are a threat to security make Laird’s insights ineffective to deal with peace and security issues in the current world. Laird’s insights lack a critical look into the current world situation that has become complex and require a strong military force, both for threat and its use when possible. Therefore, Laird’s insights are nice but idealistic and unrealistic to deal with nuclear threat and other security and peace concerns.

Works Cited

Atta, Dale Van. Melvin Laird in War, Peace, and Politics. 29 December 2012. http://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/4444.htm. 8 February 2013.

Coffey, J. I. Strategic Power and National Security. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Pre.,, 1971. Print.

Davis, Robert T. Challenge of Adaptation: The U. S. Army in the Aftermath of Conflict, 1953-2000. New York: DIANE Publishing, 2010. Print.

Laird, Melvin R. “Strategy for Peace: A National Security Strategy of Realistic Deterrence.” Memorandum for the President from the Secretary of Defense (November 6, 1970.): 1-15. print.

 

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]