CSAF Reading List Reviews: "The Sovereignty Solution" Published May 1, 2013 By Staff Sgt. Susan L. Davis 319th Air Base Wing Public Affairs GRAND FORKS AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. -- This month's Chief of Staff Reading List review is "The Sovereignty Solution: A Commonsense Approach to Global Security," by co-authors Anna Simons, Joe McGraw, and Duane Lauchengco. This book is more than a criticism, but less than an indictment, of current U.S. foreign policy. The authors call American inconsistency and ambiguity, "the banes of current strategy." "Who and what we favor, when, depends. It depends on whether we are talking about a country that has the capacity to acquire and use WMD (weapons of mass destruction). It depends on where else the United States is engaged," the authors state. "It depends on who we think might come to power in an election. Washington's policy decisions depend on so many external factors that we project nothing like strategic clarity." The reason for this, they say, is because Washington never comes right out and says that it will pursue U.S. national interests above those of any other people, which is what all countries do. "One reason Washington cannot admit this is because that would imply we do periodically behave just like any other country, and that is not how we either see ourselves or how we want to be viewed. And yet, by not being more rigorous about matching our deeds to our words..., we give critics all the ammunition they need to shoot holes in even our most selfless acts," according to the book. In essence, the authors argue that the U.S. allows itself to become too ensnared in other countries' problems in all four corners of the globe, with no consistency in our objectives or our agenda. This, coupled with the fact that Americans are openly and bitterly divided into increasingly Left and Right partisan camps about how to handle foreign policy and national security issues, is a perfect foot in the door for adversaries to exploit, knowing they could never challenge us using conventional warfare methods. "Because the United States cannot be destroyed directly, any intelligent adversary would want to undermine us indirectly," according to the authors. "And miring us in untenable foreign entanglements would be one way to do so... From an adversary's point of view, what could be easier, or more frugal, than to divide Americans over foreign policy... If a United States polarized is a United States paralyzed, then nothing should be more useful to clever adversaries than to get us to intervene in messy situations they can prolong and make even messier." The solution, they say, is a two-pronged, common-sense approach that simply says, "To each his own--don't tread on me." This echoes of Theodore Roosevelt's Big Stick diplomacy, which states that the United States should interact with other nations using peaceable means when at all possible, but also be unafraid to resort to violence when necessary. The result: other countries learn how to (or how not to) treat the United States, and are able to predict with a high degree of accuracy how we will respond in a given situation. Take for instance the case of a Qaida, who have ordered and carried out a number of terror plots against the United States both at home and abroad. Were another attack of this nature to occur under the "To each his own--don't tread on me" foreign policy model, we would engage the sovereign state leaders who harbor, finance, train and equip these groups, even if the offenders only bear that nation's passport, and demand that they take action, the authors argue. According to the book, their response would then determine our reaction--fulfilling the "demand-response-reaction" sequence. A partner state would be both willing and able to help; a struggling state might be willing, but not entirely able; a failed state may be neither able nor willing; and a state that either refuses a redress of the subject, or worse, facilitates the attack, would be considered an adversary state. "Not only would sovereignty force non-state actors back into roles that make them subordinate to states, but also it would force war back into a much more explicit and containable form... Sovereignty is not a matter of degree... it is categorical: either/or," according to the authors. The authors also point out that America has not openly declared war on another country in more than 60 years, yet we have been dragged into (or inserted ourselves into) paltry conflicts and scuffles all over the globe since the Vietnam War Era. "The United States has issued formal Declarations of War eleven times and has followed each declaration with a victory. Not a single Declaration of War has been issued in the past sixty years, yet the United States has pursued political objectives through military force almost continuously," according to the book. "The correlation should be striking. Declarations of War appear to be a proven method for reaching political objectives through military means. When Congress has issued them, the United States has succeeded in war. When Congress has not, the United States has reached inconclusive end states at best. This track record alone suggests the United States should return to constitutionally mandated Declarations of War and points to why we should pursue military objectives under only such authority." They conclude with this thought: "The three of us who have written this book believe there are at least six reasons why what we propose is a more viable strategy than any we are familiar with...: - The United States will reach the point of having to be decisively destructive on a large scale at some point in the near future. Better to have worked out why and how ahead of time. - Granting other people the opportunity to remain who they want to be and how they want to be is the principled approach for us to take as twenty-first century Americans. - The only principled way to preserve opportunity, choice and responsibility for ourselves is to extend this principle to everyone. - This is the ultimate liberal agenda--it liberates others to live as they, not we, see fit. - This is the ultimate conservative agenda--it conserves our values undiluted. - This strategy plays to our strengths. In the end, we don't have to be the same, think the same, or practice the same the world over. States just have to accede to the same set of rules for occupying the planet together. And yes, that then makes this the ultimate states' rights argument." As an admitted layman on the subject, I can get fully behind the compelling, comprehensive plan for American foreign relations that the authors offer in this book. It is constructed with the same flowing, easy-to-read, and straight- to-the point characteristics as the foreign policy approach the authors put forth in the text. I highly recommend this book as an invaluable resource for service members, who, more than perhaps any other group of people, are directly affected by foreign policy decisions. Editor's note: In this series, the author explores and reviews some of the 13 titles featured on the 2013 Chief of Staff Reading List. General Ronald Fogleman created the CSAF Professional Reading Program in 1996 to develop a common frame of reference among Air Force members--officers, enlisted, and civilians--to help each of us become better, more effective advocates of air and space power. Each CSAF since then has enhanced and continued the Professional Reading Program.