Army general: We need to figure out who we are and what we Americans really want

By
Brig. Gen. Kim Field, U.S. Army

Best
Defense guest columnist

As a general officer and a mother of four sons,
I still look back on our entry into the Iraq War with disbelief. There may have
been good reason, but explanations to date satisfy almost no one. I deployed
three times to Afghanistan and better understood our entry, even if the
prosecution of our effort became increasingly baffling. I am dismayed that my
sons are learning in school to lump the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq into the
same causal bucket. What are they learning about who America is, what we stand
for, why we do what we do?

Recently, there was an article in the New York Times about the split in the Republican
Party on the appropriate foreign policy stance for America. To oversimplify,
isolationists are warring with the traditional aggressive foreign policy
advocates under the same tent. Further, the article was a bit shocking in that
foreign policy was equated with use of the military instrument. How can any of
this be?

The Democratic Party is a little more coherent,
but I am not sure that there is agreement with Jimmy Carter's statement: "Human rights is the soul of our foreign
policy, because human rights is the very soul of our sense of nationhood."
Right or wrong, under Democratic leadership, we have done almost nothing in
Syria to protect human rights. Is "human rights" the most important thing to
our country and is this how we should represent ourselves to the world?

Inside the Pentagon, I watch and in some cases
participate as we wrangle over the "rebalance to the Pacific." Should the
military really be the agency doing the most in what was a reasonable shift in
strategic emphasis? Maybe, but the explanations why are not satisfying and Air-Sea
Battle is downright mystifying. Do we intend to "contain" China, and if so, do
we mean militarily, economically, in the information domain? Or do we want to
"shape her decisions?" Something else? These are very different paths with
significant consequence, and to my mind, we should have the answers before we
charge off, possibly committing billions of dollars.

What do we stand for? Many of us think domestic
policies are likely on an inevitable path toward a more European model of
capitalism-social consciousness and think our choices with regard to
international matters are indeed more free and more significant. But watching
the machinations of the Congress over forced across-the-board cuts (sequestration),
feeling confident that DOD could take a cut but not the way we are forced to do
it, it is clear that this problem of identity is foundational to all dimensions
of what we do as a country.

As a soldier, I have nothing to say about
wither our foreign policy endeavors. But I sure wish I understood better what
we could be asked to do and why. How is the military to represent itself
overseas when our muddled sense of American identity is reflected in so many
testy issues, beyond the normal and healthy tensions of party politics?

Having taught international relations theory
for three years, I do believe when the strength of our values coincides with
the level of our national interest, we have the makings of good, sustainable
foreign interventions. But this means understanding what our values are, who we
are as Americans. Do we still believe in American exceptionalism? If so, why? What
makes us exceptional a decade into the 21st century? We should be specific and
clear about this in a necessary debate.

Just as senior military officers should be
professionally guided by the conviction of clear personal values and not just
the Army Values dogtag around their necks, it is insufficient for the
collective American people to point to the Constitution as a clear, present day
expression of who we are. The base case is there, but it's not always helpful
in execution. Sacrilege.

It will be very difficult to avoid diving into
the issues of immigration and healthcare and countless other issues through
which party divides run deep. And a Congress that makes DOD accept
compensations it doesn't ask for even when that means we reduce the training
that will keep soldiers alive in the future, a Congress that makes us buy
equipment we don't want beyond that which keeps the industrial base warm, can't
lead this effort. The Congress is full of smart, well-intentioned individuals
held captive by a system that cannot help us produce a sense of identity that
would then enable meaningful party debates over how to make that identity come
alive. The president is a party member. He can't lead this either, no matter
how good a leader he is.

I believe the American people want this
discussion. I do not believe the military has the market on service. I do not
believe the average American values his or her Nikes and iPhones more than they
do a conversation over what it means to be an American. My sister-teacher, as
well as good friends Paul Yingling and John Nagl, who have chosen to leave the
world of security affairs for the profession of teaching, will be part of this
debate, as will their students. My father and his senior friends who have time,
interest, and continued desire to serve, will be part of this. My boys and
nieces and their classmates, all of whom had to complete community service on
the path to college, will be part of this. Servicemembers will be part of this
as long as the issues do not become partisan. And so many more from so many
other walks of American life. I am tired of hearing that Americans need the
most important of issues dumbed down, that we simply don't care about anything
that does not directly affect the material goods that come into our homes. I
don't believe it. In fact, I can't even contemplate the possibility of leaving
my boys without a mother for years, or forever, if this were the case.

I am so honored to serve the way I do --
representing a people that comprise a country of goodness the world has never
before seen. We have to stop the recent wandering that has confused so many
inside our ranks, within our borders, and throughout the world. As we bring the
face of America home after 12 years of steady war and before we inevitably send
it out again, greater clarity on the question, "who are we, we Americans?" is
essential.

BG Kim Field is deputy director of
policy, plans and strategy on the Army staff. She has served three tours in
Afghanistan, two tours with State, and taught international relations in the
"Sosh" Department at West Point.