What’s the Matter with Martin Dempsey?

Over at Foreign Affairs, Micah Zenko and I have a new piece that makes the somewhat obvious and yet counter-intuitive point that for all the doom-saying and threat-mongering of foreign policy elites . . . the world today (and the United States) is actually pretty safe:

The world that the United States inhabits today is a remarkably safe and secure place. It is a world with fewer violent conflicts and greater political freedom than at virtually any other point in human history. All over the world, people enjoy longer life expectancy and greater economic opportunity than ever before. The United States faces no plausible existential threats, no great-power rival, and no near-term competition for the role of global hegemon. The U.S. military is the world’s most powerful, and even in the middle of a sustained downturn, the U.S. economy remains among one of the world’s most vibrant and adaptive. Although the United States faces a host of international challenges, they pose little risk to the overwhelming majority of American citizens and can be managed with existing diplomatic, economic, and, to a much lesser extent, military tools. 

And yet for a variety of reasons this singular reality of global affairs in the twenty-first century is pretty much not reflected in our foreign policy and national security decision-making. If you want a good explanation as to why this is, I present to you the words of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, who in testifying before Congress earlier this month said this: “I can’t impress upon you that in my personal military judgment, formed over thirty-eight years, we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime, right now.”   

Now keep in mind, Martin Dempsey wasn't born yesterday. While this might seem obvious, it's also relevant. You see, Martin Dempsey was born in 1952 and lived through 39 years of the Cold War. He lived through the end of the Korean War, the Berlin crisis of 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War (which almost sparked a superpower conflict) the first few years of the Reagan Administration, and yet in Martin Dempsey's personal judgment the most dangerous moment in his lifetime . . . was February 15, 2012.

Not only is this quite clearly and empirically incorrect—it's also completely insane. To believe that February 15, 2012, is the most dangerous moment in Martin Dempsey's lifetime is to have a stunningly poor grasp of international relations, history, and common sense.

Someone who holds such views would barely be qualified to teach undergrad IR, no less be the highest ranking officer in the American military. To be sure, I don't know if Martin Dempsey actually believes what he is saying here. It may be that he is engaging in the endless bureaucratic activity of protecting his budget (i.e., if the world is really dangerous then the military needs even more advanced toys that blow s**t up) or perhaps he simply skipped over the Cold War in his academic training. (And in fairness to Dempsey, he certainly has some positive attributes, like believing that an Israeli attack on Iran would be "destabilizing.")

Whatever the rationale, however, the far bigger problem is that such statements can be made and not be dismissed as complete balderdash and gobsmackingly uninformed about the world we live in. Either way, it's a problem—and that's a big part of the reason Micah and I wrote this piece (and why you should read it!).

TCF fellow Michael Cohen  is a writer and commentator on American politics and U.S. foreign policy. This piece was cross posted from Democracy Arsenal.

 

Comments

[mike shupp]

You don't become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs by sheer chance or simple rule following. I.e., General Dempsey is a bright fellow trying to express complicated thoughts in a succinct manner, for other bright people.

The rest of us have to translate. So my take -- my translation, my guess -- is that Dempsey is saying:

--------------------
While the USA has experienced stress in military matters since the end of World War II, it hasn't faced life-or-death situations. or successfully brazened its way through those that did occur (the Cuban missile crisis, f'rinstance). Now we're in new circumstances. On the one hand, we're a major power, in some respects, the only real Great Power in all the world. On the other, the last decade shows that being a Great Power doesn't show that we get all our wishes delivered automaticaly. As a consolation, we haven't had an enemy prepared to drop a thousand ICBMs on us for the last decade or two. But nobody looking forward can guarantee -- not to mention China, of course -- that this happy state of affairs will continue forever because the future is unpredictable. Not to mention China, of course. And here we are, on the verge of making decisions about how many brigade combat teams the Army should retain; how many ships the Navy should have; whether the Air Force should build a new manned bomber; whether the Marine Corps should continue to prepare itself for invading occupied territories; whether national intelligence gathering of the future should be aimed at assessing military strengths, plans, and goals of our opponents, as is traditional, or should be focused on non-state actors such as Al Quida.

We're making decisions NOW, not always for purely impartial reasons, which will shape the character and ability of our armed forces for the next half century or longer. The consequences of bad choices may be irrevocable. But the odds that American political leaders will rise above superstition and partisan bickering is almost vanishingly small.

So, yes, our peril is unprecedented. Things have never seemed so dangerous in all my previous life.

------------

I think that's what he's saying, and I wouldn't disagree. Should he have said it as explicitly as I did, so Congressmen and the average internet reader of blogs could get his meaning... that I don't know. You tell me.

[Kathy Burba]

One thing that the CJCS has that most don't is access to the highest levels of intelligence and I would think that might inform his stance. But, putting that aside, the issue of threat is separate from our ability to counter it. It is not by accident that we are the most powerful military. Guys like him have made the case to budget a force that can react to the unknown, the 9-11s, etc... It is not by accident that you feel so safe. If we don't continue to keep budgets appropriate to the myriad of threats you will likely be writing a similar piece on why GEN Dempsy did not anticipate the danger that lurks. Can the military take some cuts? Yes, and that is exactly what the military is doing but we are not going to throw caution to the wind. Be grateful you are in a position to feel you are too safe.