Figuring out how to win in a complex world starts with a couple complex questions. First, what is the definition of a complex world? For some people the complexities of life end at walking and talking on a cell phone at the same time. For others, a complex world can be juggling a multimillion-dollar business across global borders while dealing with strategic threats from business competitors. Finding the answer to the definition as it applies to United States Homeland Security (HLS) is step one. The second question that needs to be answered is what exactly does winning look like? Can we just put a ‘W’ in the win column for homeland security and move on to the next global issue for the United States? Defining a complex world and winning will help bring clarity to the solution as it applies to homeland security. But there are certainly some major topics that we can justly assume will be part of the answer to this question. NY native Philip McTigue believes the first major topic that will play a role in this solution is the application of soft power. As the old saying goes, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. In other words, you can make more friends being nice than by being mean. Another way to say this might be, you can make allies in an international environment instead of global enemies by helping emerging countries rather than attacking them. A second major topic that Philip McTigue believes will play a role in winning in a complex world would be the obvious proverbial phrase made famous by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt when he said, “Speak softly but carry a big stick”. Very simply put, the U.S. needs a powerful and dangerous military that installs fear in our enemies in the event we need to call upon their services. Last, the U.S. can find part of the answer to winning in a complex world by exploring the economics of peace and strong relationships. We all know that financial issues are a top stressor to personal relationships and global economic relationships are in many ways no different. These major issues will all play a role in winning, and winning can loosely be defined as increased safety within the borders of the United States. The United States can increase homeland security through the international use of soft power tactics and a powerful military coupled with strong economic policies.
The first topic for discussion is the concept of soft power. If hard power is the use of the military and the war machine, then simply stated, soft power is the opposite. Soft power can be defined as having influence over others actions by the application of our values, ideas and practices which encourage our adversaries to not resist, but cooperate with our objectives. One crucial advantage to this concept is that it tends to be significantly less expensive than hard power. This is not hard to imagine as the cost of war has historically been extreme in both property and lives. In 2013 a report called the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University stated the combined cost of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were estimated to be nearly $4 trillion with another estimated $4 trillion in interest and benefits being paid to veterans over the next 40 years. This same report has suggested that the cost of human life during these two wars, including civilians, reporters, soldiers and non-combatants could be as high as 250,000 dead. Given these statistics, the benefits of saving human life as well as the economic relief from implementing a policy of soft power over hard power is abundantly evident. This is not to suggest that soft power alone is the answer to a problem. As Colin Gray suggested in an article for the Army War College, soft power is a potentially dangerous idea, not because it cannot work, but instead because it can be too heavily relied upon. The application of soft power does not have to be a stand-alone option, nor does it have to come before the use of a military intervention. Soft power can be used in conjunction with hard power, before the application of military power or after a conflict has occurred. One shining example of the use of hard power followed by the exceptional implementation of soft power, and probably one of the best soft power case studies in history is the end of World War II. Both Japan and Germany lay in ruin and were the enemies of the United States. Worse for both countries, not only had they been defeated by the U.S. and the Allies, but they were now governed by occupational forces of the U.S. The United States generosity towards these countries in helping them rebuild their infrastructure, educate themselves and eventually run their own economy and countries put them both among the world’s strongest economies only twenty years later. This soft power success story does not come without monetary cost, but the long-term effects of the goodwill shown to these countries by the U.S. led to significant less economic burden than continued war would have.
As Gray notes in his comparison of soft power and hard power, soft power alone is fool’s gold when considered a stand-alone policy. Military force “is and will long remain an essential instrument of policy”. There are simply some international situations that cannot be resolved with politics, diplomacy or sanctions. There are no compromises that remain to sufficiently satisfy either side of an issue and the result is that warfare will become a necessary option against unacceptable actions by enemies of the U.S. But the threat of military force, or hard power must be backed up with proven results or the enemies of the U.S. will not fear the outbreak of war, thus rendering military force a useless option or tool of policy. Fortunately for the U.S., history favors our military records and as one of the largest superpowers remaining, we have the comfort of our past laurels to rest on. Philip McTigue currently works for a technology driven company in upstate NY and sees one way to ensure our military remains a dominant force is to continue our employment of cutting-edge technology. Another way to ensure our dominance militarily is to use violence of action when imposing our military will on our enemies. Former U.S. Navy SEAL Cody Courtley talks about the art of violence of action by explaining that when the time is appropriate for the use of force, be committed to violence and hit first, hit hard and hit often. In the U.S. Army doctrine for winning in a complex world the use and employment of technology in the future of warfare is clearly acknowledged. The Army doctrine states there is a need for integrating advancing technologies to provide the military with a ‘comparative advantage’. These activities include the increased use of Special Forces, developing flexible and adaptive commands and stressing the importance of innovation and adaptability as important as lethality and mobility. Philip McTigue has seen the advantages of this doctrine directly while serving the U.S. government in both the Iraqi and Afghani theater of war. As technology grows so does the need for the military to remain constantly upgraded and updated. To win in a complex world the military must continually implement new technologies and find a way to ensure they remain useful to the warfighter and allow them to concentrate on the battle and not the complications of technical products.
Having a strong economy is the last element Philip McTigue stresses to winning in a complex world. A strong economy will lead to increased homeland security by virtue of domestic tranquility. Threats to homeland security are not restricted to foreign state actors or terrorist organizations. The U.S. also faces threats from within to include domestic terrorism, insider threats and lone wolf attacks. In addition to a strong domestic economy, having strong global financial ties with other nations can also help increase the homeland security as these nations may invest in their own economies keeping their citizens employed, educated and focused rather than being driven to attack the U.S.
At the end of WWII, the world economy was struggling and the U.S. wanted to increase their exports. The U.S. employed a soft power policy with both Germany and Japan but they also invested money into their markets to revive their economy thus creating trade with these countries. Following 1947 the U.S. gave $13.3 billion dollars to Germany and 15 other European countries and another $2.44 billion to Japan to re-establish these regions economy. This investment of financial assets coupled with the soft power policies of building infrastructure assisted in the revival of these countries and their economies. By rebuilding these countries, the U.S. put the people back to work and rather than leaving a void filled with hostile feelings, the U.S. left these countries arguably better than they found them. Philip McTigue hopes that the U.S. will have similar success in Afghanistan and Iraq as these countries begin to emerge from under the U.S. and allegedly begin to stand on their own. This is representative of the power of a strong economy and good foreign relationships. In an article for Homeland Security Affairs Bijan Karimi described the U.S. economy as “an engine for global economic growth and a source of stability for the international system. In addition to being a key measure of power and influence in its own right, it underwrites our military strength and diplomatic influence”. Domestic economic tranquility is equally important. The economy acts as an element for the well-being of U.S. citizens as well as a tool for sanctions that lie directly between diplomacy and outright war. Philip McTigue from NY subscribes to the theory that if U.S. citizens are in a strong and affluent economy they will likely be less apt to become angry with their government and attack it. For those who are irreconcilable, there is always the application of hard power.
Philip McTigue projects an increase in U.S homeland security can be accomplished with a combination of these three policies, soft power, a powerful military and strong economic policies. In order to do this, the U.S. should evaluate the threats they face today from each known risk and determine what course of action is best suited for overcoming the risks. For example if the U.S. borders an economically weak neighbor like Mexico, then perhaps the U.S. should avoid a military confrontation, and rely more on financial assistance and soft power tactics. This may not only help create a more economically stable neighbor, it may decrease the amount of individuals trying to cross the border into the U.S. A country like Syria that is supportive of terrorist groups and does not have the potential to be a successful soft power interdiction may require more of a military solution than any other option. Philip McTigue understands there are endless examples of how either of these elements, or several coupled together over time may be a winning combination for decreasing the external and internal threat to the U.S. and therefore increases homeland security. By using all three of these concepts in concert with each other the U.S. can increase homeland security through the use of soft power tactics, a powerful military and strong economic policies.
The preceding is an excerpt from a scholastic essay authored by Philip McTigue for Northeastern University. For a full copy or references for this article please contact Philip McTigue at mctigue.p@husky.neu.edu
