Is There a New Present Danger?

I recently finished reading a Cold War classic, The Present Danger by Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine. Writing in 1980, Podhoretz wrote of the decline of American power and influence in the world relative to that of Soviet Russia. He claimed that there had been a loss of American national confidence after the Vietnam War, not only in the ability of the US to contain communism, but whether it even had the moral right to do so. Podhoretz compared the national mood in America to that of Great Britain during the 1930s, when thousands of college-aged young men who remembered the carnage of World War I (1914-1918) swore to never again fight for "King and Country." As we now know, such a pledge had no effect in Germany, where Hitler was rapidly re-militarizing in the run-up to World War II (1939-1945). British Prime Minister Winston Churchill considered the Second World War to have been the most preventable war ever if only Britain had chosen not to reduce its military readiness.

Looking at the historical examples of de-militarization in Britain in the 1930s and in the United States in the 1970s (which is documented in detail in my book, Telephone Diplomacy - available at www.createspace.com/4681391 and www.amazon.com) I can't help wondering if the United States is repeating the mistakes of the past. Traditionally, the US has maintained a military sufficient in size to permit it to fight two wars simultaneously, so as to prevent a crisis arising in one part of the world while being engaged in a conflict in another. America has now abandoned that posture, with global consequences. Europe will not confront Russian President Vladimir Putin because it is too reliant on Russian oil. Saudi Arabia is considering its own nuclear program because it no longer feels confident that the US will deter Iran's nuclear development. (The prospect of Iran, a worldwide sponsor of terrorism since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, supplying a nuclear weapon to Al-Qaeda or some other terrorist organization is almost too terrifying to contemplate.) Meanwhile, Japan is considering re-working its constitution to permit it to increase its military so as to counter an increasingly belligerent China which has threatened to take islands belonging to both Japan and Vietnam.

Both history and the present seem to make it clear that a nation must prepare for war in order to preserve peace. Britain ultimately responded to the Nazi challenge by choosing Winston Churchill as Prime Minister in 1940. In 1980 the United States responded to the Soviet challenge by electing Ronald Reagan as President. Will a similar statesman arise to address this, the latest "Present Danger?"