The Case for Owls

In the battlefield that is the question of America's future foreign policy, there seems to exist a sharp and clear divide between "Hawks" and "Doves." For those unfamiliar with foreign policy nomenclature, Hawks and Doves are terms that have been used to describe politicians since the early days of American history. Hawks advocate for a hard line foreign policy centered around military force, and Doves typically advocate for more diplomatic solutions to issues. In today's polarized world, there seems to be no room for a middle ground in the foreign policy debate. The peripheries of the political spectrum--which are radical--have become the driving force of all American policies, to great detriment to our nation. You are either Conservative or Liberal; Keynesian or Austrian; Hawk or Dove.

However, I'd argue that both Doves and Hawks hold relatively unrealistic foreign policies. Hawks typically jump towards any sort of chance to flex American foreign policy. Obviously, this is a dangerous mindset. Entanglement, imperial overreach, debt, and a tired military are the results of such a mentality. And we have seen this happen in both Iraq and Afghanistan. What was initially a mission to root out extremists turned into a decade long struggle to build a central government in Afghanistan. Iraq was an ill-conceived war based out of bad intelligence, neoconservative lobbying, and post-9/11 paranoia. At the same time, you do a reemergence of doves within the parties. Notably, Ron Paul advocates the ludicrous position of withdrawing all 900 military bases abroad. Rand Paul, his son, offers similar, if not less extreme, defense policies as well.

Instead of being a Hawk or a Dove, we should strive to be owls (to keep with the bird theme). A magnificent creature, the owl patiently watches the forest. It never unnecessarily gets involved physically, but watches closely to sense impending dangers. When it sees an interest at stake--say, a potential lunch--it ferociously lunges with mighty talons to swoop up its prey. This simple creature can be the example for the future of American foreign policy. Our core defense policies, in my opinion, should be based around three pillars: First, we should not directly embroil ourselves militarily in a situation where the use of such force is either unwarranted or ineffective. Instead, we should look at other tools in a foreign policy box. Such as sanctions, diplomatic engagement, or even covert operations to support an ally (there are military options that do not have to directly embroil us in a conflict; intelligence or SF support, for example). Second, we should maintain a powerful intelligence apparatus to keep track of current and potential threats. Third, we should maintain a powerful military force as to defend our interests as needed.

While the term Owl may not be a politician's first choice for a foreign policy label, it's certainly the best one in today's world. An over-dependence on military resources has undermined American interests abroad, and has made us lose sight of how effective diplomacy, soft power, and economic engagement can be. At the same time, our prior mistakes with military force shouldn't scare us from using it in situations that call for such action.

--Tom