By Doug Bandow
``Peace on Earth," people ritualistically intone every Christmas. It's a wonderful platitude. But utterly meaningless, at least in the United States. The American government is the most aggressive, belligerent, and warlike on earth.
That doesn't mean Washington is the worst, most murderous regime in existence. There are wars like America's invasion of Panama, and then there are wars like Iraq's invasion of Iran. Moreover, governments can kill promiscuously without invading other nations such as North Korea.
Yet no other country so frequently attacks other states or so ostentatiously claims the right to invade other states as the U.S. Consider the American government's record since 1980.
It has used, backed, or threatened force more than a dozen times: Nicaragua, Grenada, Libya, Lebanon, Panama, Haiti (twice), Somalia, Iraq (twice), Bosnia, Serbia, and Afghanistan (twice).
One can justify one or another of these actions, but most were relevant to no American interests and promoted no vital interests. Lebanon? Serbia? Somalia? Haiti?
The bankruptcy of Washington's position is evident in how U.S. officials routinely change their justifications to fit the circumstances. Iraq had to be invaded. After all, there were weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to seize. Oops.
There were 9/11 terrorists to punish. Oops. There was democracy to promote. Oops. It turns out Washington doesn't need to have reasons, let alone good reasons, for invading other states.
The militaristic perspective of America's policymakers is reflected in U.S. ``defense" spending. Only one country, Russia, has a nuclear force comparable to that of the U.S., and Washington's arsenal remains far superior.
No other nation has the devastating mix of conventional quality and quantity that characterizes the U.S. military. Terrorist networks pose a more active threat, but are best met with good intelligence, special forces, and allied cooperation rather than carrier groups and armored divisions.
In short, the U.S. is more secure than at any point during the last half century. Nevertheless, Washington accounts for half of all military spending on earth.
The U.S. now devotes more money, adjusted for inflation, to the military than at any point during the Cold War, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War.
``Defense" outlays are completely disproportionate to the global threat environment. In fact, most of that spending is for attacking other nations rather than for defending Americans.
It makes sense to maintain a strong military. But America's principal foreign policy goal should be to defend itself, not promiscuously meddle in international affairs, engaging in social engineering around the globe.
Washington's policy of endless intervention is dangerous, since it involves Americans in multiple conflicts of no concern to the U.S. It also is extraordinarily expensive.
Attempting to maintain the overwhelming superiority necessary to project power into other regions will grow ever more expensive as China, Russia, and India spend more.
It will be far easier for them to create modest deterrent forces than for Washington to deploy the ever-larger military forces necessary to overwhelm that of other nations.
Wasting endless billions on unnecessary arms and personnel makes even less sense today, with the economy in freefall and the Treasury empty.
The loss of global dominance will be slow, since America's lead is so vast. But the U.S. eventually will have to accept a China and India on the rise, a Russia on the rebound, and a Europe moving toward more consolidated government. America will remain special, but will become a more normal country in its dealings with the rest of the world.
One result will be that Washington no longer acts like ``globo-cop," bombing and invading countries, hither and yon. A militarized foreign policy will become far more difficult to sustain as America slips to be first among equals.
Even then, no one else will be able to defeat the U.S. or threaten its core interests, but it will lose its ability to coerce other nations. The world will still be a turbulent and often ugly place. But such a world is likely to be more peaceful for Americans.
The temptation for Washington policymakers to meddle around the globe is strong. However, the overwhelming presumption of U.S. policy should be for peace.
The horrific dissolution of Iraqi society, with tens or hundreds of thousands of dead, even more wounded, and millions displaced, should forever destroy the myth that Washington is capable of using war as a beneficent tool of social engineering.
Peace on Earth: The phrase may never accurately describe our world, but it is a worthy goal.
Achieving it will never be easy. But the new administration coming to Washington creates new opportunities for change. Americans should demand that their government gives peace a chance.
Doug Bandow is the Robert A. Taft fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of ``Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire" (Xulon Press). He can be reached at ChessSet@aol.com