Chapter 17 16. The Future and the U.S. Navy

One of the most critical factors in determining the perfect execution of policy is military power.We have the potential to build a strong military force, but we do not currently have a mature, well-organized force. The U.S. Navy should have been fundamentally remodeled over the past decade to more modern designs.As such, it should not invite discussion or raise questions about the future direction or scope of operations of the U.S. Navy.If the country needed or should need a navy, it certainly would have been in 1883 that the big wrecks that were old by then mostly honorable but decrepit Civil War survivors were out of rank, or on good retirement, Or inevitably be scrapped and replaced by other ships capable of performing tasks for which they are no longer competent.

So there can be no esoteric reasons behind the rebuilding of the Navy other than the urgent need for tools perfectly suited to the job to be done by warships.If we don't want our fleet to become just a useless naval show, a straw man who will make us pay the price, this thing must be done.But while the Navy is being rebuilt, the development of this new service has attracted some attention, not less than the voracious curiosity of newsmongers and journalists today.Some of these concerns are blatantly annoying and hostile; others are tinged with friendliness and well-wishes.Both scenarios reveal a looming picture of something in common between the emergence of a new type of navy and the era into which we are entering.If there is such a coupling, it reflects not only a certain clear intention, but also changes in the economic and political situation of the whole world.Sea power in the broad sense of the word will be closely associated with this change.Indeed, sea power will become the dominant feature in itself, rather than its cause or effect, of activities that are no longer primarily domestic in nature but encompass broader interests affecting the relations of nations to the world at large.It is at this point that the opposing cognitions are differentiated.Those who believe that our country's political interests are confined within our own borders, and who are unwilling to acknowledge that situations may prompt us to take political action beyond them, view with disgust and suspicion the growth of a thing whose very existence demonstrates that States have international responsibilities and international rights, and there are bound to be complex international situations from which we are no more able to escape than those of our predecessors or contemporaries.Others, on the contrary, took note of the circumstances and character of the times, and of the overseas activities of other nations so actively and extensively, that Americans could intervene in those controversies not of the kind that gave rise to serious conflicts in the mid-nineteenth century Controversy, but of the kind that the generation at the turn of the century might have considered too remote from their concerns to naturally be entirely outside their influence.

Religious creeds of eternal truth may be proclaimed for a considerable length of time.Still, we are witnessing an embarrassment to some religious claims today.They arise from a traditional adherence to the formulas of human life that reflect the perceptions of truth by those who formulated them in the distant past.Political creeds, which deal primarily with the fleeting and changeable circumstances of an ever-evolving world, cannot be consistently observed unless they embody not policies of one moment and one place, but eternal laws of justice.Expediency, quick fixes, and the lesser of two evils will sway people all the time so long as the path to the desired state of justice is not always smooth or feasible.Like among men, nations do sometimes have irreconcilable differences on some issues, and disputes do arise about which they cannot agree and must resort to force, which is more meaningful to the security of domestic societies. more decisive factor than its impact on inter-state relations.The all-talented Washington saw this all too clearly in his day, and Jefferson was unwilling or unable to see it.That there should be no navy at all was a central assertion in Jefferson's political thought, born out of an exaggerated fear of organized military power as a factor of political influence.Although he too possessed a passion for territorial annexation that governed much of his political conduct, he set limits to the geographic expansion of the United States so that it should not necessitate the possession of a navy.Yet the irony of fate, like other aspects of Jefferson's presidency, prompted him to admit that, unless a policy of total isolation was pursued, territory would have to be acquired across the sea in order to deal with international intricacies.This complication might be avoided quite easily if a strong armed fleet could be used to give weight to American claims, and to induce the adversary to admit its own failures and the improprieties which the United States pointed out to it.

The difference between the situation in America today and that of America at the beginning of the nineteenth century naturally shows how necessary it is for us to avoid the unthinking acceptance of precedents which have become dogmas, and how necessary it is to seek a wise principle to test those which stood for a generation. A policy that man created, but whose application in a later age would lead him in a very different direction of action.At the dawn of the nineteenth century, the United States was not the only land power in North America, but one of several roughly equal in power.It shares differences with all other great powers arising from conflicting interests, and is in direct geographical contact with them, the latter a factor generally considered to increase the likelihood of political friction, since both countries may also be at odds with each other Although conflicts of interest arise in regions that are far apart, the frequency and severity of confrontations are much higher when disputes exist close to home, especially over a man-made border.So it was a natural and correct intention of the American government at that time to eliminate the source of the trouble by bringing all the disputed lands under its own control.We have thus chosen a course of action that would be followed by continental European countries in similar circumstances.In order to get the land in our interests, we bargain with others, use tactics, and issue threats.Although Jefferson used a fairly peaceful approach, few would argue that they were overly cautious or too specific to Jefferson's personal political beliefs.On a higher moral standard, the United States acquires Louisiana. The United States purchased it from a government that had no right to sell the land, and bought it from a government that had given it up on the condition that it could not be so sold. Protests from another major country were ignored.This protest is too weak to have any effect on Napoleon and ourselves. It is largely equivalent to choosing the less conflicting method between blackmail and violence to achieve what we want and like. Goal; we don't make the deal look good for West Florida by misinterpreting it and forcing it on the table.However, from a policy point of view, the Chinese government at that time was undoubtedly quite wise; moreover, the sparse population of the above-mentioned areas at that time also facilitated the transfer of these areas and their incorporation into the United States.Since we all love freedom, there was no need to worry too much about the change of loyal objects that would have adverse effects on the political orientation of the people in these lands.On major issues related to the country or the world, the wishes, interests or general rights of the minority should not be given priority. There is no necessarily injustice in this, just like the minority should obey the majority when voting.

While the need for continental expansion was deeply felt by Jeffersonian statesmen, questions of longer-term interests were of course postponed.At that time, when matters of immediate importance were urgently to be dealt with, consideration of matters of little concern would only distract attention and strength, and this was as great a taboo in governing a country as in engaging in war.But while the U.S. government of the time could have happily avoided the troubles described above, it found that, like statesmen of any age, when external interests existed, they could not be ignored, nor could they be ignored. Take necessary protective measures.As a result, while our people at the time had little political ambition for the world beyond the continent, their commercial activities brought American interests into sharp collision with the key interests of other nations at war.We would woefully misread the Anglo-American War of 1812 and the resulting Lessons taught by the events of this war.At that time my government was trying to come to terms with the UK on the dispute, by peacefully exerting pressure to avoid the use of violence, rather than by building a navy strong enough to play a respectable role in international affairs.In this way, we are drawn into an inevitable war.

The factors that make up the political situation in America today, and to some extent in the world at large, are fundamentally different from those at the beginning of the nineteenth century.It is not just the speed of development and the size of the country that matter.We are big and strong and grown up and capable of going out into the world, but it doesn't determine everything, and every bit of it changes the degree, not the nature, of the problem.The great difference between our past and our present is that we were once indeed politically isolated in terms of distance and connection with the major powers of the world, which is practically non-existent today.The geography of our country and the serious attention of foreign statesmen to issues of unprecedented importance on the European continent contributed to our isolation, and a policy of isolation was practicable for us.It served our momentary need, when we were small and weak, and needed time to consolidate our independence.At that time, aside from questions about navigation rights on the Mississippi River, friction with other countries could only actually arise from the pursuit of trade opportunities across borders.The reasons that some people use today to oppose our country's political activities outside our own country are equally valid in the past when they were used against our foreign commercial activities.Anyway, let's stay at home, or we'll get into trouble.Truth be told, in principle Jefferson, who loathed commerce as much as war, made sense in imposing an embargo system not only to punish foreigners and reduce the danger of the United States getting involved in international entanglements, but also to keep our own ships safe from harm .Even if the practice hurt trade and caused weeds to take root on New York streets, it made up for it by eliminating dangerous foreign activity.

Today, there are certainly not many people who would take a policy that would peacefully separate the United States from its main commercial shipping lanes with equanimity.In 1807, however, many Americans would rather compromise than engage in a fight, or even create a force that might cause war but more likely prevent it.Yet, ignoring the fact that today we are no longer in the obscure or isolated position that we were in Jefferson's day, the changing situation may bring us a situation similar to that encountered by Jefferson and his supporters. Is it a more prudent approach to deal with the dilemma?Not only have we grown up, but the face of the world has changed politically and economically.Today, the ocean, an important channel for transportation between countries, can be quickly and safely crossed, and the distance between countries has also been greatly reduced.Events which formerly may have been remote from us and of little concern to us are today at our doorstep and have an intimate influence on us.Proximity, as mentioned earlier, is a source of political friction, but proximity is a feature of our time.The world has become smaller.Places that were once far away are vital to us today because of their proximity.However, although the distance has been shortened, the water distance still exists for us; however short that distance, political influence will ultimately rely on the navy to bridge it.The Navy is an indispensable tool for the United States, which the country can rely on to project its power beyond its own coastline when emergencies arise.

To understand how the changing circumstances of Jefferson's time affected Jefferson's perception of the Navy requires examining facts that no longer existed, or even were fleeting at the time.The war of 1812 showed the value of a navy, not through the admirable but insignificant victory of a single ship, but because of a navy suited to the needs and exposure of the nation. The lack of the navy caused the paralysis of our coast and external communications.At that time, the U.S. Navy undoubtedly won the honor for its excellence in combat at sea, but the honor belongs to itself alone; the politicians only disgraced themselves. humiliation.On the other hand, however, there can be no more vivid example of what Jominy calls the all-for-nothing glory of fighting just to win than the U.S. Navy's victories.And without considering the credit the United States Navy has earned itself for finally allowing this nation to see the efficiency of this small force and showing what the seas can be to us, no sacrifice is more than the clippers and sloops that are spilled on the Navy The blood on the sailboat is worth less than that.The operations of the United States Navy at that time could not be compared with those of outpost fighting, scouting fighting, and various services that are both indispensable and infinitely important to maintaining the morale of an army.They are just some scattered actions, and there is no connection between each other, a single action and the overall action that can determine the outcome of the war.

Not long after the end of the War of 1812, an epoch-making event occurred in the history of our foreign policy and had a crucial impact on our navy. This was the proposal of the Monroe Doctrine.From time to time, there have been elusive twists on the statement, from its scope to its purpose.Some claims have been made in the name of the Monroe Doctrine, and their relation to the state is so ambivalent that it is conceivable that their proponents would have given them some other name if it were to be more accurate.However, as with any other political belief, it is not necessary to give the Monroe Doctrine some final certainty against using the term for assertions that have nothing to do with its original meaning.But we should be aware that names can be misleading, especially where such mistakes might lead the public to believe that a foreign country is deliberately undermining the principles of defense to which our country stands.Our adherence to the basic spirit of the Monroe Doctrine is expressed not by formally assuming certain inescapable obligations, but by setting certain precedents, showing that all the people have always followed, and we cannot silently abdicate without risking the country. The pervasive position of the danger of humiliation.We may need to accept some inferences that seem to flow naturally from the Monroe Doctrine, but we need not adhere to the Monroe Doctrine at all by following certain recent assertions embellished with the Monroe Doctrine name.These arguments may embody a sound policy that is more applicable to the situation than the Monroe Doctrine itself, but they are not the same as the Monroe Doctrine, although there are some things in common.Stripping away all acquired play, in its original meaning, what the Monroe Doctrine expresses is a vision that can only be realized with the help of the Navy, because its basic point is that the fate of the areas outside the US borders rests on the responsibility for the United States. extremely important political interests.Its distinctive feature is the navy, and only the navy can provide protection for it.

Although the Monroe Doctrine was emanated from a specific political event, it is not unrelated to the past history, but only a development of it.We can find its essence in the idea that had been born before the War of Independence and was expressed by us in 1778 on the condition that France should not attempt to retake Canada from England despite our urgent need for an alliance with France. trail.However, this consciousness was not extended by us to Florida in 1783, which was soon ceded to Spain by Britain; default is given.From then until 1815 we expressed no objection to the passing of some lands in the West Indies and Caribbean from one belligerent to another.Even if the area concerned is not of much importance in the first place, such indifference would hardly occur today, since what is involved is a matter of principle and great significance.

The question of how far a further awareness and articulation of the national interest would develop the Monroe Doctrine, and how the necessary range of influence in our country's politics should be defined, is clearly outside the professional field of a naval officer.However, it is enough to take the Monroe Doctrine as a fact, to realize that it embodies a major national interest and not just the sympathy of the American masses for the South American revolutionaries.If the Monroe Doctrine were only in the latter sense, it would no doubt prove to be a thing of little practical significance and momentarily forgotten.Statements based solely on sympathy have never been so.From generation to generation we have been touched by the suffering of the Greeks, Bulgarians, and Armenians under the Turks; but, since we ourselves were not harmed, our emotions never translated into action and thus exist only for a moment. between.We are no less dominated than other nations by the profound truth which Washington articulated, seared into Washington's consciousness by the rather bitter effect of the Franco-American alliance in 1778 and thereafter: Acting without profit motives is absurd.The reason why the Monroe Doctrine has retained its vigor, and has been at ease with the expression of the instinctive concern of our people with events in the land beyond the sea, is that it expresses an immutable principle of self-interest.In its infancy, this principle addressed the feared possible European intervention in the Americas.This possibility at the time depended not only on the real interests of Europe in the region concerned, but also on a purely political arrangement between the several European powers, which itself was a manifestation of the then dying idea of ​​colonialism.Thus, when the Monroe Doctrine was first employed, it represented an acknowledgment by the Americans that there was a real danger of European involvement, although the situation contained less real incentive for Europe than it does today factor.Since then, the Monroe Doctrine has been used in many different ways, and the factual background on which these applications are based has grown in importance and culminated today.The United States has become a Pacific power and may in the near future depend on the Isthmus Canal for communication between its two coasts.Thus, the Monroe Doctrine was modified according to changing circumstances.It is in this flexibility, rather than the literalness of the original Monroe Doctrine statement, that the essential character of this living principle can be seen: the recognition of overseas territories not under U.S. political control concerns not only the interests of individual U.S. citizens but also the The interests of the United States as a nation are at stake; so, under certain conceivable circumstances, we may be compelled to act in these areas. Recognizing this is important because it helps to counteract the misconception created by an oft-spoken and somewhat misleading claim.The argument is this: America needs only one navy for defense.Often appended to it is the explanation that defense means the defense of our own coast.Today, at some point, all we all need is a navy for defense.I hope America never seeks war except to defend its rights, its responsibilities, or its essential interests.In this sense, our policies can remain defensive, although sometimes we must act, justified not simply by the lesser of two evils maxim, but by our indisputable rights .If, however, we have interests abroad which may have to be defended by the Navy, the natural conclusion is that our Navy has more to do in time of war than defend the coast.In addition, as an accepted military principle, if we hope to win wars, we must take the initiative in wars, no matter how morally justified that may be. What counts for national security is the will and the ability to translate that will into reality.A nation can be prepared for war if it has both clearly articulated national goals and adequate means to achieve them.However, this does not mean that there are no domestic disputes, and there is a lack of sincere and reasonable consideration of the rights and concerns of other countries.One of the most dangerous situations is that the public is silent at ordinary times, and acts rashly when they have a whim, but there is no organized power to support it.Nations, especially free ones, are often least prepared for such emergencies, but even democracies, owing to the inevitable frequent changes of government, are deficient in clarity of vision and consistency of action. In compensation, they are endowed with an instinct to comprehend the truth unconsciously and subconsciously and to prepare partly for the day of action.It may be true to say that the American public does not consciously recognize that the United States has key political interests abroad, but it may be more correct to say that they do not associate themselves with the rebuilding of the Navy.However, US overseas interests still exist, and the US Navy is still developing.The latter will provide the strongest guarantee that the maintenance of the former will not lead to a breach of peace. So, from my point of view, recent developments in the U.S. Navy indicate neither that we have a formal political purpose nor that we feel threatened.It is a law that the foresight and firm purpose of a few do not move the whole country forward.Nations do not stand within range of a bullet to challenge; if they were all within range, there would be very little war, as evidenced by the present New Peace in Europe's long-standing Armed Forces.The popular mood which determines the direction of national action is always gradually and imperceptibly affected by trivial events.The continuation of such incidents slowly changes public opinion and prompts national action until finally a general belief is formed that bears the name of national policy.That is to say, various specific events interact to lead to the generation of a strong political current along a specific political direction.It is not very useful to search for the source of these events.Some find only a mass of contingent facts in the chain of causation; they make for an interesting philosophical study, but no more.Others who believe that the state will not consciously set itself a role in the world will find in a multitude of facts that there is a divine arrangement which will not allow either the individual or the state to evade its duty to the world. responsibility.However, no matter how it is explained, the general experience that history gives us is that, as the situation gradually develops, urgent situations, calls for action often appear suddenly, and the country will therefore be in dispute.It is happy to admit that civilized nations are increasingly inclined to deal with tensions between nations through normal diplomatic discussions and mutual concessions.But another, equally indisputable insight that recent history has given us is that such tendencies do not always guarantee peaceful solutions.The mood of the masses, once sufficiently aroused, disregards any sober reflection and turns a deaf ear to the voice of reason.In addition, as in personal life, considerations of the balance of power undoubtedly have considerable influence on the diplomatic settlement of international disputes.What can and will will always largely govern our day-to-day decisions. Like every man and woman, every nation today does not exist in political isolation.This state of affairs resembles the isolation that has typically characterized China and Japan for a long time.In today's world, all nations, large and small, are members of one community, whether they like it or not; and more and more members of the European family to which we belong are exerting influence on one another on a world-wide scale, and as time goes by This creates varying degrees of friction.It is a fact that the importance of navies has increased with the increase of the points of contact between nations, as the use of steam power has facilitated communications with the power of the seas upon the surface of the earth.Sensitivity to this fact is increasingly apparent in the press of European nations, and even more so in the increasing emphasis placed on navies by foreign governments.On the other hand, the strengthening of the various armies and the certainty of the territorial situation to a great extent on the Continent made each country more apprehensive that a contest would be provoked, and Europe was in a state of political calm.The rest of the world outside Europe is at present the foreign arena of the great powers of Europe; there is little doubt that the struggle between them will affect us ever closer.At the same time, as our influence has spread across the Pacific, this sea has become more and more a center of political change, commercial activity, and competition of all kinds, in which all great powers, including our own, are involved.For these reasons, Central America and the Caribbean, though not of fundamental importance at present, will be very noticeable as the waterway between the Atlantic and the Pacific after the completion of the isthmus, as the area guarding the way to the canal. .Japan's emergence as a powerful and ambitious nation on solid political and military foundations has also amazed the world. All these situations are relevant to us.Under the current circumstances, the idea that we can stay out of those headaches indefinitely hardly holds water.The instability of the international situation may lead to war at any time.And a war between two foreign countries will greatly increase the possibility of a collision between the United States and the belligerent countries, and then our politicians will have to worry about avoiding involvement and maintaining neutrality. While the governments of Europe professed peace, and for the majority of them peace was what they wanted, they showed no aversion to political management and the acquisition of colonies in distant lands.On the contrary, their obsession with expanding their space and increasing their impact is one of the least difficult facts to see today.In one of the countries, this activity was mainly political and driven by its Government.Driven by its long-standing tradition and passion for regulation, it seeks to expand its space of activities to manage and dominate on a larger scale, and it does not seem to care about economic gains or losses.In another country, the impetus comes from the ubiquitous and inexhaustible enthusiasm of individual citizens.Driven primarily by the desire for profit, they follow only commercial goals, and their governments grant recognition and protection to the fruits of their activities.There is also a kind of overseas activity, the motives of which are mainly private and commercial, in which individuals seek only wealth without little or no political ambition, and in which the state intervenes mainly to maintain respect for its subjects in some areas. control.Without such intervention, the latter might be alienated from their country.However, no matter how diverse the forms of overseas activities are, they all have a common feature, that is, they reflect the endowment and creativity of the people of the countries concerned.This also proves that the motivation behind these activities is not man-made but natural, so it will continue until a certain change comes. While it is impossible to foresee the outcome of the above-mentioned process, we can well see that from time to time frictions between nations have reached a level of extreme intensity, sometimes in places so dangerous that they may escape the control of the government and become a public threat. dominated by emotions.If this is taken as a lesson for our country not to be involved in similar ventures, then, on the other hand, we have also been warned that not only an active offense could at some unforeseen moment lead to a future confrontation in many parts of the world, and overseas there is an atmosphere that could challenge our willingness to avoid acting and interfering in any corner unless we are well prepared and strong enough to counter it or take the initiative .More and more civilized populations are seeking to occupy new territories and expand their living space.Like all forces of nature, this one is unstoppable.When it floods into areas where good natural endowments are left unused by the incompetence and ignorance of the inhabitants, the local institutions fall apart.The well-known situation in Egypt in recent years is definitely a typical example.In Egypt, the old institutions could not have been sustained at all, not because of the Egyptians who had lived in them for a long time, but because they involved the interests of several European countries in Egypt.Britain currently controls Egypt politically and administratively. It is meaningless to discuss whether the expansion and presence of Britain in Egypt can stand the judgment of pure moralists. It is like discussing the morality of an earthquake. .Weighing the pros and cons of many parties, the British approach is generally justified. It is beneficial to the whole world, and it is especially beneficial to the Egyptian people, no matter what they think about it. The main lesson of the Egyptian example is that civilized states inevitably take over the rights of the native inhabitants of the area concerned.In most cases civilized, highly organized states have eroded the rights of the original inhabitants of the lands they controlled, as our own dealings with the American Indians provide another example.For a right to be inalienable it must be respected as it should be, which unfortunately is not always the case.A group's use of the land on which it lives is not inalienable if its use of the land on which it resides is detrimental to the world at large, to its neighbours, and sometimes even to its own members.Witness, for example, the angry resistance of Arabs in Jeddah to environmental measures to prevent a deadly disease from spreading beyond its origin zone, and consider the dire living conditions of Armenians under Turkish rule.These circumstances exist either because the example of the general indifference of other nations to Turkey shows this; or because the wrong course has sufficient strength to rely on it, in this case, only if the course leads to ruin. Rights will only be taken away when they are attacked by a more powerful force.Since so many parts of the world are still under the control of savage races or nations whose unsound political or economic development has failed to make them realize how widely their lands can be used; On the one hand, in civilized countries, both the government and the public have little enthusiasm and lack sufficient opportunities and livelihoods, so there is a scene of the latter actively expanding overseas. It is an indisputable fact that the United States is currently not participating in this expansion.Neither the US government nor its people have been largely infected by this trend.However, the situation prompts the United States to ensure that the weak and small countries in the Americas have the right to develop politically freely along their own paths and according to their own capabilities without being interfered by countries outside the continent.The American people should generally realize that this is a responsibility that the United States should take the initiative to undertake.The source of this responsibility is not political benevolence, but the vital interests of our country related to foreign interference.The reason why the great powers have made little trouble to our demands is both because some problems in the Americas are not of vital importance to them, and also because our country has great potential power.This power greatly strengthens our country's position on issues of little practical importance, such as the Gulf Islands in Honduras or the Mosquito coast.It is true that Britain has conceded to us on these issues, albeit reluctantly and dilly-dally.However, it is also true that it was fully capable of destroying our Navy and inflicting serious damage on our country.之所以英國未這樣做，是因為有關的問題從長遠看並不重要，而且它也從政治上的討價還價中比我們得到了更多的好處。話說回來，儘管我國的立場很大程度上已得到了默認，但將來的情形是否會一直如此還需拭目以待。倘若我們要保護其政治自由的那些國家在政局的穩定方面並未取得明顯的進展，而我們的海軍力量還和當初一樣脆弱的話，這就更難斷定了。可以保險地講，如果一個不屬於美洲的國家在西半球試圖進行英國在埃及所進行的那種活動，我們如有能力予以阻止，就絕不會聽之任之，但此外也可以想像，假如我們用以支援自己主張的物質力量強大無可疑問，我們主張的道義力度也許會多少被削弱。 我國的整個歷史以及我國人民的性情表明，我們會尋求和平解決每一個爭端。但是，這樣做將使我們介入新的政治關係之中並可能引發和其他國家的嚴重爭執。決定著政策能否得到最完美執行的一個最關鍵的因素是軍事力量。我們有建立一支強大的軍事力量的潛力，但目前還未擁有一支成熟的、組織得當的力量。華盛頓的避免捲入同盟關係的警告常為我們引用。可是他的要做好戰爭準備的教誨極容易為人們所忘記。世界的一個時代接一個時代的變遷是一部宏大的政治戲劇，而戰爭就是其中一幅暴力性的場景。以戰爭為其表現天地的海軍則是國際事務中有著最大意義的政治因素，它更多地是起著威懾作用而不是引發事端。正是在這種背景下，根據時代和國家所處的環境，美國應給予其海軍應有的關注，大力地發展它以使之足以應付未來政治中的種種可能。