The Need for Doctrine

What we often overlook and forget, or what is now constantly overlooked and forgotten, is that through the entirety of the 20^th century Cold War and even at this very moment, the global balance of power has long been in favor of Russia and China. America capitalized off of a single Russian mistake for just a brief period of time, soon after the Russians made the mistake of invading and occupying Afghanistan. But soon after the Russians, America made the same mistake of invading and occupying Afghanistan. The Russians stayed in Afghanistan for ten years. America stayed in Afghanistan for twenty years. Thus, things are now back to normal. Everything has reverted to the way they were in the past and back to the way they were historically. What is needed now is a doctrine which would enable us to deal with the global balance of power first and foremost.

To borrow from Henry Kissinger:

“Strategic doctrine transcends the problem of selecting weapons systems. It is the mode of survival of a society, relating seemingly disparate experiences into a meaningful pattern. By explaining the significance of events in advance of their occurrence it enables society to deal with most problems as a matter of routine and reserves creative thought for unusual or unexpected situations. The test of a strategic doctrine is whether it can establish a pattern of response – a routine – for the most likely challenges. If a society faces too many unexpected contingencies, the machinery for making decisions will become overloaded.” 

Thus, what is plaguing and hampering the American system more than anything else is a lack of doctrine, or rather, the abandonment of doctrine for neocon-induced ineptitude and stupidity. Moreover, doctrine is a “basic requirement” for a government and society. To borrow from Kissinger again: “The basic requirement for American security is a doctrine which will enable us to act purposefully in the face of the challenges which will inevitably confront us. Its task will be to prevent us from being continually surprised.”

Without a definite and set doctrine, there is always the risk of Americans running away from the challenges which face them. No one can escape the effects or the consequences of the recent change in the global balance of power. But there is an escapist mentality amongst some in American society. Add the escapist mentality to the lack of doctrine, and you have a dangerous situation. As Kissinger wrote: 

“In the absence of a generally understood doctrine, we will of necessity act haphazardly; conflicting proposals will compete with each other without an effective basis for their resolution. Each problem as it arises will seem novel, and energies will be absorbed in analyzing its nature rather than in seeking solutions. Policies will grow out of countermeasures taken to thwart the initiatives of other powers; our course will become increasingly defensive.” 

One can also argue that the lack of doctrine comes from a lack of “purpose” in the world. Everything in Washington revolves around the futile obsession of “deterring” or “stopping” Russia and China from achieving their goals rather than knowing what our goals and interests are in the world. And despite America’s economic and military strength relative to many other countries in the world, the lack of purpose can set America onto an evolutionary course or path whereby “brute strength does not always supply the mechanism in the struggle for survival.”