The Paradox of American Military Power
Afshin Rattansi, host of the podcast "Going Underground," conducted an in-depth interview with Dr. Michael O'Hanlon, a distinguished figure with extensive experience in U.S. defense policy. Dr. O'Hanlon, a former member of both the Pentagon Defense Policy Board and the CIA External Advisory Board, joined Rattansi to dissect the historical legacy and evolving nature of United States military conflicts. Their discussion on "Going Underground" provided a comprehensive examination of American defense strategy, tracing its trajectory from the nation's foundational conflicts to the complex geopolitical challenges of the present day.
Dr. O'Hanlon, also the author of "To Dare Mighty Things: US Defense Strategy Since the Revolution," offered critical insights into the pervasive role of asymmetric warfare throughout U.S. history. He elaborated on how this form of conflict, characterized by significant disparities in military power, strategy, and tactics between opposing forces, has been a persistent feature of American engagements. The conversation highlighted its presence from the irregular tactics employed during the American Revolution against a superior British force, through various indigenous conflicts, and continuing into modern-day counterinsurgency operations and global counter-terrorism efforts. This historical persistence underscores a fundamental challenge in defining military success.
A central and compelling theme of the interview was the enduring paradox of American superpower status. Rattansi and O'Hanlon delved into how the United States has managed to maintain its preeminent position as a global superpower, exerting significant geopolitical influence, despite a documented history of experiencing numerous military defeats and stalemates. This pattern has been evident in major conflicts since the conclusion of the Korean War in the 1950s and the Vietnam War in the 1970s, extending to more recent engagements. Their analysis critically questioned the conventional correlation between tactical military outcomes—such as battlefield victories or territorial gains—and broader strategic geopolitical influence, suggesting a more nuanced relationship exists in the modern international order where military might does not always translate into desired political ends.
Evaluating Recent Interventions and Extremist Networks
The dialogue between Rattansi and O'Hanlon extended to a critical assessment of recent U.S. military interventions, focusing particularly on the long-term consequences of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. They examined how this prolonged military presence and subsequent withdrawal impacted regional stability, governance, and the broader security landscape of Central and South Asia. The discussion moved beyond immediate tactical results to consider the enduring legacy of the intervention, including its societal, political, and economic repercussions for Afghanistan and its neighbors, and how these outcomes shaped future U.S. foreign policy considerations.
A significant and often contentious portion of the interview focused on the United States' perceived role in the rise of extremist organizations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. Dr. O'Hanlon provided his expert perspective on how certain U.S. actions and strategic decisions, particularly within the Middle East, may have inadvertently contributed to the emergence and subsequent expansion of these militant networks. The interview explored the complex causal links between American foreign policy choices—including interventions, alliances, and post-conflict stabilization efforts—and the subsequent formation and growth of extremist groups that have since posed substantial challenges to global security and stability, leading to further international interventions.
The Myth of American Isolationism
Within this broader context of foreign policy and intervention, the conversation also touched upon the historical concept of American isolationism. Dr. O'Hanlon addressed what he described as the myth of American isolationism, challenging the notion that the United States has ever truly withdrawn from significant international entanglements for extended periods. He analyzed whether U.S. foreign policy has, in fact, consistently maintained an interventionist or globally engaged posture, even during periods often characterized by domestic retrenchment or a perceived focus on internal affairs. This perspective suggests that American involvement in global affairs has been more continuous and deeply embedded than popular narratives of isolationism might imply, with periods of apparent withdrawal often being strategic shifts rather than complete disengagement.
Geopolitical Tensions and the Ukraine Conflict
Shifting to contemporary geopolitical tensions, Dr. O'Hanlon offered his considered view on the root causes and escalating dynamics of the Russia-NATO proxy war in Ukraine. He outlined the multifaceted factors that, in his analysis, led to the intensification of hostilities, involving Russia's strategic objectives and NATO member states' responses within the Ukrainian theater. This included a discussion of historical grievances, security concerns from both sides, and the evolving geopolitical landscape that predated the full-scale invasion, highlighting the complex interplay of national interests and alliances.
The interview also directly addressed the grave risk of a direct NATO-Russia conflict, a scenario with potentially catastrophic global implications. Dr. O'Hanlon discussed the delicate balance of deterrence currently in play and evaluated the efficacy and limitations of existing diplomatic channels in preventing a broader confrontation. He analyzed the mechanisms through which the proxy war could escalate into a direct military engagement between the two major military alliances, emphasizing the urgent need for careful strategic management and de-escalation efforts to avert a wider European or even global conflict.
O'Hanlon's Framework for Strategic Analysis
Throughout the extensive discussion, Dr. O'Hanlon consistently drew upon his deep and extensive background in defense policy, strategic studies, and international relations to contextualize these complex events. His analytical framework connected historical precedents from centuries of U.S. engagement with contemporary strategic challenges, offering listeners a comprehensive and nuanced review of how U.S. defense strategy has continuously evolved since the American Revolution. This approach allowed for a consistent thread of historical understanding to inform the analysis of current crises, from asymmetric warfare to superpower rivalries.
Defining Success and Failure in Modern Warfare
The overarching framework that structured the entire debate between Rattansi and O'Hanlon centered on the fundamental question of how to determine whether America's wars have genuinely been successes or failures. Rattansi challenged Dr. O'Hanlon to move beyond simplistic metrics, urging him to define these outcomes not merely by traditional measures such as territorial gains or losses, or even immediate tactical victories, but by broader, more complex strategic objectives and their impact on long-term geopolitical stability. This perspective sought to understand the true cost and benefit of military action.
Dr. O'Hanlon’s responses provided a detailed and critical critique of American military engagements, arguing forcefully that the definition of success in modern warfare must inherently account for the complex and often unpredictable realities of asymmetric warfare. Furthermore, he stressed the crucial importance of considering the myriad unintended consequences of interventionism, which frequently reshape the post-conflict environment in unforeseen ways, often leading to outcomes far removed from initial strategic goals. The interview, therefore, served as a profound examination of how historical military decisions and their multifaceted outcomes have profoundly shaped the current international order and continue to influence global security dynamics, demanding a re-evaluation of how military effectiveness is measured.