Global Security Concerns - Project Gutenberg Consortia Center

have the potential to force the United States into a position where it once again is serving
as the “world’s policeman.” Pursuit of this role’s objectives by the employment of
military force could ultimately overextend the United States fiscally and could require us
to take a position behind the growing economic prowess of our competitors. As a result,
the United States would no longer stand out as the dominant player on the world stage.
Does this present a real security threat? The answer lies in the freedom of the United
States to choose whether she will become involved in one of these conflicts and whether
she has the authority to dictate the parameters of her involvement. If the answer to either
of these questions is in the negative, the ideology upon which the United States is
founded is at stake.
Zones of Turmoil
The above discussion makes clear that a vast majority of the ethnic conflicts will
occur within the zones of turmoil. Even though actions within those regions may not be
of vital, national importance to the United States, we must recognize them and prepare to
react to the broader regional instabilities these conflicts may create. As with any system,
instability emerges from change. While change can be good in some respects, it
frequently creates a more stressful environment for international relations.
A more serious security threat is the one being discussed throughout our armed
forces and in Congress today. It is the drain, whether perceived or real, that humanitarian
and peacekeeping operations are having on our forces’ ability to train, equip, and prepare
to defend the nation against threats to its vital national interests (including allies). As
these ethnic conflicts continue to create conditions wherein our military services will
become physically involved, our armed forces may be spread across too many borders.
Questions regarding the armed forces’ ability to conduct wartime operations while
continuing to feel the drain from humanitarian operations are creating concern amongst
our nation’s leadership, both civilian and military.
Does a Peaceful Resolution Exist?
As a result of this potential drain, the United States and its allies should actively seek
to develop the infrastructure of third world (or the Tofflers’ “first wave”) nations today to
prevent another Somalia tomorrow. Implied herein is the notion of involvement on a
proactive, as opposed to reactive, basis. While the prospect of this type of commitment
does not seem likely, the issue rests with the fundamental position of taking the steps now
(which obviously include a financial price tag) to avert a potential moral, economic, and
political disaster in the future. This concern should prompt the United States (and its
allies) to diligently seek peaceful solutions to these increasingly complex problems of
ethnic nationalism.
How then are we to deal with these situations? Gobel discusses the three most
prominent options. First, he believes we should support self-determination regardless of
its implications. In the second option, conversely, he insists we should never support selfdetermination
regardless of its implications. Third, Gobel insists that we support selfdetermination
in almost all cases. 32 Admitting this is a “convenient out” for those nations
who have already experienced self-determination, Gobel feels each case must be
examined on an individual basis. The consequences of such actions must be fully
41