Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the late 1980’s, the United States has been widely viewed as the last remaining superpower. America’s military strength undoubtedly provides its people some comfort with respect to their country’s defensive capabilities. In contrast, many societies view America’s desire for military strength as a means to impose its will on others and to freely enter into conflict in order to preserve its dominion over others. Critics believe this was the case in the First and Second Gulf Wars. However, most Americans support a strong military with a more altruistic motive than status or power over others. They fully support America’s response to events such as the Haitian earthquake and the Indonesian tsunami. Americans view their military power as an important aspect of society to insure safety, world stability, fairness in the global market, and the advancement of humanitarian activities. Critics of America believe that American leaders are obsessed with strengthening their military in order to strengthen their own power. They feel that America wishes to use its military might to coerce other nations to follow American edicts. They attempt to support their contentions, regarding America’s thirst for military dominance over others, by asserting that America enters into wars, such as the First Gulf War in 1990-1991, in order to dominate other countries. In the case of the First Gulf War, America’s critics state that America sought to preserve Kuwait’s oil fields for American consumption. It is a likely assumption that Kuwait’s overall friendly relations with America, including trade relations, helped their military relationship. However, the assumption that this factor was the primary motivation for war is far too simplistic. A more thorough analysis of America’s motivation for the First Gulf War reveals that America has never imported much oil from Kuwait. America came to Kuwait’s defense in order to promote stability and fairness in the region. The Department of Energy reports that Canada has long been the largest importer of oil to the United States. Kuwait has generally accounted for less than 3% of America’s annual imported oil (“Crude Oil” par.3). At the time of the First Gulf War, several countries, such as Japan, were very dependent on Gulf oil supplies, but chose not to enter the war. Other countries, such as Great Britain, entered the war even though they were exporters of oil (Nye par. 2). Therefore, the need for Gulf oil was not the main motivation for countries to help defend Kuwait.
Global stability was a much more important factor than oil in the First Gulf War. Post-Cold War international relations (no rivaling superpowers) have been characterized by a greater reliance on the interdependence of countries, which has become know as the “world order” (Ismael 1). At the time of the Gulf War, America’s national interest of global stability was served by having a dependable friend in the Gulf. If the unpredictable Iraqi regime had taken control of Kuwait, the region could have become unstable. The Iraqi regime had a long history of human rights violations and savage rule of its people. If Iraq had conquered Kuwait, it could have affected global economic markets, international social interactions, and ecological factors. America’s national interest could have been adversely affected by loosing an important friendly nation in the area. America chose to defend its national interest by helping Kuwait and thereby protect the welfare of American citizens. The First Gulf War demonstrated America’s desire to prevent disruption of the world order. In contrast, the Second Gulf War exemplified a more concrete defense of our national interest: to prevent further Taliban-sponsored terrorist attacks on America. The Taliban had sponsored a devastating attack on the World Trade Centers in New York City. Therefore, the immediate goal of protecting the lives of America’s citizens was the overriding goal of the Second Gulf War and not a desire for power or conquest of other nations. The goals of America’s military have also been criticized based on the relative magnitude of resources that America devotes to defending national interests compared to other powerful nations. America spends 4.3% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense. Other strong nations such as France and Great Britain spend far less; 2.3% and 2.5% respectively (“SIPRI”). There is the contention among America’s enemies that this seemingly excessive spending is focused on overthrowing foreign regimes that do not conform to America’s expectations. These critics feel that America spends more on the military compared to other countries in an effort to be the most powerful and imposing nation. America has made military mistakes that could be misconstrued as power-seeking efforts; however, America does not have a pattern of mistakes. More importantly, America has a pattern of substantial military spending, compared to other powers, related to humanitarian concerns and help for other nations, whether they are friends or not. America is usually the first country to offer assistance to other countries in need, and these efforts are expensive. America almost always uses its military to lead these assistance efforts. In 2010, a horrific earthquake devastated Haiti. The United States quickly deployed more than 3,000 military soldiers along with helicopters, airplanes, and the 894-foot Navy hospital ship, USNS Comfort, which contains all the medical equipment and facilities of a large hospital (“Navy” par. 4). President Obama announced, “Responding to a disaster of this magnitude will require every element of our national capacity. This is one of those moments that calls for American leadership” (Cooper par. 8). The United States spent more that $100 million on relief efforts in Haiti, and there were no reports of Haitians who refused help because they did not want the U.S. to spend too much money on the military. America’s help (military resources) for the Indonesian people following a deadly tsunami in 2004 is another example of America’s use of military resources for the common good. “One thing the Indonesians are never going to forget is who was there first,” said U.S. Ambassador Lynn Pascoe of the relief efforts (“Wall” par. 4). American military aid arrived in Indonesia just days after the devastating tsunami that killed more than 300,000 people and displaced even more. Military members offered essential relief supplies, search and rescue assistance, and medical assistance: performing 19,512 medical procedures (par. 9). They were happy to be able to help. “My single biggest gratitude is rescuing people,” said an aviation warfare systems operator. “I’d much rather do that than (be) shooting people” (par. 14). Commenting on the initial U.S. pledge, President Bush said the United States is a “very generous, kind-hearted nation, and you know, what you’re beginning to see is a typical response from America” (“Bush” par. 13). America did not offer aid to Indonesia for any type of personal benefit. They offered aid because Indonesia needed help. Strong nations have long been criticized as power hungry. Americans are driven to keep a strong military in order to maintain security, a stable world order, and the ability to help others. These priorities have been illustrated by the consistent actions of our military forces throughout the years and across many administrations. Despite much criticism, America has demonstrated great generosity throughout its history.
Works Cited
"Bush Announces Tsunami Aid Coalition - CNN." Featured Articles from CNN. 29 Dec. 2004. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. .
Cooper, Helene. "Pledging Aid, Obama Tells Haiti, You Will Not Be Forsaken." The New York Times. 27 Jan. 2012. .
"Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries." 29 Nov. 2011. Web. 29 Jan. 2012. .
Ismael, Tareq Y., and Jacqueline S. Ismael. The Gulf War and the New World Order: International Relations of the Middle East. Gainesville: University of Florida, 1994.
"Navy Medicine Responds to Haiti Earthquake Disaster." The U.S. Navy. 16 Jan. 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. .
Nye, Joseph. “Why the Gulf War Served the National Interest.” The Atlantic Monthly July 1991. 27 January 2012. .
"The SIPRI Military Expenditure Database." SIPRI Publications. Web. 29 Jan. 2012. .
“Wall of Water: U.S. Troops Aid Tsunami Victims.” United States Department of Defense. 28 January 2012. .