What, Who is an Enemy?

I listened to a member of Congress declare that we must know who our enemies are and boldly confront them. He was speaking about countries like China, Russia, and North Korea. He wasn’t saying anything new.  I’ve heard the same from many politicians and pundits.  We have to be concerned about national security in such a dangerous world, which we cannot do, if we do not understand that our national security depends on the national security of other nations. The idea that the U.S. can stand alone as a fortress unto itself unconcerned about the security of other nations is a chimera, however promising the idea sounds to people suspicious of foreign entanglements. 

What should concern us are the words and deeds of national leaders that pose a potential threat to our security. It is the words and deeds that must be confronted and condemned. Keeping the word enemy out of the rhetoric provides an opportunity for conversation. It reduces the likelihood of verbal escalation of tensions. It does not give the public cause to dehumanize an entire nation of people. It also enables us to do what is necessary to strengthen our own preparations for national defense without appearing to threaten war.

Declaring another nation an enemy has some uses. It delegitimizes any criticism of our own words and deeds that may appear threatening and it fortifies a patriotic  sense of national self-righteousness. It was a necessary way to strengthen national resolve during WWII.  It worked less well during the Korean conflict and not much at all during Vietnam. Labelling a nation, an entire people, as an enemy has the side effect of generating emotionally driven bigotry toward anyone who might be linked to the enemy nation in any way: names, looks, dress, accent, and rumor for instance.    Labeling a nation as an enemy may be standard political rhetoric, but I don’t believe it is wise. Enemy is a tough word. It offers few opportunities for cooperation or rapprochement. It puts an entire nation and all of its people in a box that demeans their humanity.  The natural reaction is for the ‘enemy’ to return the favor, creating two sides separated by fear and hatred.

The U.S. has enemies, about that there is no question.  For the most part they seem to be leaders and members of radical movements that blame the U.S. for every ill they have ever suffered or who believe our ways of life, including our democracy, are evil in themselves.  There are others, national leaders and those who prop them up, who do everything they can to make themselves an enemy.  Why?  Is it fear, over compensation for insecurity, envy, a megalomaniacal lust for power? Who knows what they think and who knows what they might do?  Was Putin’s invasion of Ukraine a trial run at reestablishing the Russian Empire? Or perhaps, it was a test of western resolve. Little Putins dot the global landscape. Maybe they get swagger rights out of being labeled an enemy.  Swagger is sometimes all that is needed to prop up a regime that has no foundation and no future.  In any case, there is no point in labeling an entire nation and all of its people as an enemy.

It is better to name and condemn the language and deeds of national leaders that create conditions, threatening to national security, our own and others. Keeping our focus on them and not stooping to their tit for tat game, strengthens our position and undermines theirs. It is a difficult path to follow. Labeling a nations as an enemy is easier and the complexities of the issues do not have to be explained to a public that may not be following the news. Americans tend to like showdowns where the good guy wins and problems are solved quickly. We celebrate the Jack Reacher types who cannot be pushed around, who substitute revenge for justice and never back down. He and every character like him are fictional. Putin’s macho swagger has done his people no good.  Neither does the  the macho swagger of American political leaders do any good for the American people.

The hard work of resolving issues without violent conflict is less romantic, but it works.  It requires building and maintaining mutually satisfactory relationships with other nations and reminding those whose national interests are in competition with ours that enmity is not a solution.