When times are good, there is a human tendency to take for granted a stable security and a durable peace, with national values intact. But these are not the best of times. The level of concern has risen in our country on precisely these matters--keeping our nation secure, the peace lasting, and our national values whole. Perhaps the events in Iran and Afghanistan triggered this concern, but I believe that our people sense a deeper cause for worry behind those events. I believe that they rightly sense a growing threat to our safety and our well-being. In American newspapers one reads of cracks in the NATO alliance, the cornerstone of strength and security for the West and for all free nations. Moreover, those cracks are products of internal pressures as well as external ones. As the interests of the United States and it allies diverge, so do the cracks spread. And the resulting grave situation cannot be left unattended. In the spring of last year, President Carter characterized the moment as potentially the most dangerous ... since World War There was some skepticism over that statement, but if we reflect on real possibilities, we will see the essential truth of his comment. If the Soviets were to move toward the Persian Gulf and the sources of oil that lie there, I believe that we would have no choice but to oppose them, and the outcome of that opposition and the extent of its possible escalation are hard to predict. If the Soviets were to intervene militarily elsewhere--in Africa or Latin America, for example--and apply the Brezhnev Doctrine to the fruits of that intervention, we could soon be confronted with a similar crisis and the same need for decision. The times have not been good, in part because our influence in the world has lessened in relation to what it was in the first decade or two after World War II. This decrease in stature may be only a temporary aberration, but it has unquestionably brought with it serious stresses and strains, and from it has grown the uneasy feeling that we are failing to define and fulfill the role that we can and should have in the world. We hear many complaints, from within our borders and without, that we lack a clear picture of what we should do and how we should go about it. Our national strategy must be credible, consistent, and rational. Only with such a strategy can we be confident as to what our military force structure should be and when and how we should be prepared to use those forces. With a new administration having just assumed the reins of government, perhaps now is a propitious moment to glance at the security environment we will face in the early years of the 1980s. Four factors compose the key to understanding this environment. The first of these factors is that we face higher levels of risk and danger. This increased danger can be observed, for example, in the fact that our economic lifeline has become so exposed. The flow of oil needed for the industries of the Western democracies to survive and prosper lies vulnerable to outside interference, and both the dependence of the West on that oil and the oil flow's vulnerability to interference are increasing. Furthermore, the Soviets are on the move. They have demonstrated by their action in Afghanistan that they are prepared to accept a higher degree of risk and pose a more activist challenge to the West. They seem to have been seeking military dominance since the mid-1960s, and they have built up their strength to the point that they now move from a powerful military base. In the strategic nuclear field, as in other military areas, their massive research, development, and production efforts have given them a tremendous destructive capability. During the period since World War II, it has been noted that we can discern multiple Soviet thrusts of major proportions. The first, under Stalin, was projected against the Soviet Union's immediate neighbors to the West--creating satellites of the nations of Eastern Europe--and also in Asia against South Korea. …
Read full abstract