Odom Advocates Military Maintenance

Author: Gregg Eriksen Staff Writer

Lt. General William E. Odom, former director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and proud former Middlebury parent, offered his thoughts last Monday in a lecture on United States foreign policy in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead of focusing on terrorism itself, he decided to address terrorism in terms of its possible effects of America's place in the world.

Odom observed that since the end of the Cold War, America's foreign policy has paradoxicallyreflected both an overestimation and underestimation of United States' power, and that these conflicting ideas manifested themselves in the haphazard policies of the Clinton and the George W. Bush administrations. He explained that Clinton emphasized economics in international relations to the detriment of the military and relied too heavily on the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to solve issues abroad. According to Odom, the former president also sought too actively to reduce military activity, with a few small exceptions in which he was dangerously inconsistent in his use of force. Odom suggested that Clinton's questionable decisions regarding United States' involvement in Somalia, Bosnia and Iraq indicated that he had no clear line that once crossed meant that he would use force. The former NSA director was also critical of the unfocused manner in which Clinton used funding for the missile defense program.

Odom explained that the United States' incoherent foreign policy has not been remedied. Bush began his term by advocating isolationist policies and ignoring the potential gains that cooperation with international organizations offers. His decisions to scrap the Kyoto Protocol (which aimed to combat global warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases) and the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty fostered a worldwide resentment of American power. He noted that the Bush administration's bullheaded unilateral policies caused as much anger as Clinton's indecisive multi-lateralism.

In the end, Odom felt that the fundamental change that United States'. foreign policy will undergo is the development of an increased awareness of the armed forces in international relations. He suggested that while globalization and the continuing growth of economic interdependence may prevent wars to some degree, the government should not return to the lax military policies of the 1990s.

Moreover, he stated that as the wealthiest country in an alliance of democracies that account for 70 to 80 percent of the world's Gross Domestic Product America has a great responsibility to defend its allies and its ideals. This alliance must have substantial physical protection, lest a series of attacks destroy the governments or economies of this financially successful empire. Odom concluded that by placing more emphasis on the armed forces, America can best maintain its worldwide ideological empire of liberal democracy as well as the stability of the global economy.

Regarding the war in Afghanistan itself, Odom was quite positive, although he warned against expecting a certain result. "In wars, more than any other activity, the unexpected happens," he said.

He suggested that the United States' effectiveness in felling the Taliban has earned the respect of pseudo-foes such as Russia, which was ineffective in its own involvement in Afghanistan. America's success has also had a sobering effect on the unstable situation in Pakistan, since General Pervez Musharraf, who took control in 1999, is more likely to retain power now that his enemies have seen the skill of the United States military. Iraq and Iran are equally unnerved by America's fighting ability and therefore less likely to add to America's troubles.

America's greatest danger, Odom stressed, is the possibility of incompetent leadership. While Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have done well since Sept. 11, many leaders have historically been afraid to face the results of their actions and have made critical mistakes in an effort to avoid blame. He explained that although this is not a problem now, it could be one in the future.

Another obvious issue is how to go about establishing a stable government to replace the Taliban. Odom seemed to favor following the same occupational plans that the victorious allies used in Germany and Japan (the United States' two greatest nation-building successes) in the aftermath of World War II.

Ultimately, he said, the other difficulties reside in completing Bush's goals of eliminating terrorist organizations worldwide and defeating the governments that aid them. Odom observed that our generation may inherit this task, but if we learn the proper lessons from Sept. 11, we will also inherit an unprecedented empire of international democracy.