Militarization of US Foreign Policy (edited) - Glenn Rivera

Militarization of United States Foreign Policy
and Its Implications on the Republic of the
Philippines: A Preliminary Institutional
Analysis
(18 March 2007)
BONIFACIO JR.GLENN G. RIVERA
(BA Political Science)

2
Table of Contents
Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………………1
Plagiarism Declaration………......................................................................................................2
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………...........3
Objectives of the Study…………………………………………………………………………..4
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………4
Background and Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………..5
Foreign Policy-Making Arena: The Executive and the Legislative Branches of the
Federal Government……………………………………………………………..6
Role and Powers of the United States Congress as Regards Military Aspects of
Foreign as well as Domestic Policies…………………………………….7
Constitutional or Express Powers…………………………………………7
Unwritten or Informal Roles and Functions………………………………8
Role and Power of the Executive Branch as Regards Military Aspects of
Foreign as well as Domestic Policies………….........................................9
Constitutional or Express Powers…………………………………………9
Unwritten or Informal Roles and Functions………………………………9
Convergence of the Roles and Powers of the Two Branches…………………..11
Overview of American Foreign Policy Mechanisms as Regards Military Issues…...12
Treaties…………………………………………………………………………..13
Congressional-Executive Agreements…………………………………………..13
Executive Agreements…………………………………………………………...14
Declaration of War……………………………………………………………....14
Federal Bodies that Affect American Foreign Policy as Regards Militarization…...15
Executive Departments………………………………………………………….15
U.S. Department of State………………………………………………...16
U.S. Department of Defense……………………………………………..16
Legislative Bodies………………………………………………………………..17
House Committee on Foreign Affairs……………………………………17
House Committee on Armed Services…………………………………...17
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations…………………………………18
Senate Committee on Armed Services………………………………......18
Independent Body……………………………………………………………….18
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)………………………………………18

3
Isolationism vs. Internationalism (Concerning Military or Security Issues)……….19
Isolationism and emphasis on domestic policy-making………………………..20
Internationalism and emphasis on foreign policy-making…………………….20
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………………21
Central Research Question and Task…………………………………………………...21
Rationale of the Study………………………………………...........................................22
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………..22
Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………………………22
Militarization…………………………………………………………………………….22
Militarization as a political process……………………………………...............23
The International Dimension of Militarization…………………………..23
Theoretical Tensions between the US Legislature and
Executive Branch...........................................................................24
Militarization as a strategic measure to provide security………………………..25
United States of America’s Militarization Policies and Their Implications on the
Republic of the Philippines……………………………………………………..26
Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and Visiting Forces Agreement………...27
Balikatan (Shoulder-to-Shoulder) bilateral military exercises…..27
“War on Terror”………………………………………………………….28
Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines (OEF – P)………...30
References…………………………………………………………………………………….... 31
Endnotes………………………………………………………………………………………...33

4
Plagiarism Statement
I, the undersigned do hereby state that this term paper, titled “Militarization of United
States Foreign Policy and Its Implications on the Republic of the Philippines: A Preliminary
Institutional Analysis,” which I submit to Dr. Natalia M.L.M. Morales in partial fulfillment of
the requirements in Political science 171 (American Government and Politics), is a purely
original work and that no part or portion thereof had been plagiarized from any existing literature
on the subject and that all sources of information, through the use of the APA citation format,
had been properly acknowledged.
Any idea, clause, or sentence thereof that had not been properly acknowledged shall be
deemed the original idea of the writer or researcher and any similarity to existing literature on the
subject shall be recognized as purely coincidental.
BONIFACIO JR.GLENN G. RIVERA

5
Objectives of the study
The paper aims to discuss “militarization” as a recent “brand” or “phase” of American
foreign policy-making. This general objective involves two specific goals. One is to situate
militarization within the United States foreign policy-making arena, that is, within the executive
and legislative branches of the United States federal government along with several government
institutions that affect “militarized” foreign policies and the other is to define “militarization”.
In addition, the paper aims to describe the contemporary actions pursued by the first two
branches of the federal government through military means. This second major objective
includes two specific goals as well. One is to describe at least two military engagements in
which the Philippines and the United States are signatories or mutually committed and the other
is to qualitatively evaluate and/or explain the impact of militarization on the Philippines.
Introduction
The paper argues that the foreign policies pursued by the United States nowadays are
inclined to internationalism, especially of the unilateral type. Moreover, these policies are
becoming “militarized” in a sense that more foreign policy mechanisms such as international
agreements between the United States and other countries are now based on security or military
issues aimed at addressing “terrorism” and the proliferation of nuclear arms and other weapons
of mass destruction (WMDs). Terrorism and the proliferation of WMDs are thus seen as the
exogenous factors that trigger the executive branch of the U.S. federal government to undertake
militaristic actions that in many people’s view undermines the constitution and the formal
powers of Congress in the areas of foreign policy and national defense. These actions affect the
Philippine government and politics in certain ways.

6
Background and Definition of Terms
Foreign Policy-Making Arena: The Executive and the Legislative Branches of the Federal
Government
The constitution of the United States of America contains the official rules of overall
American politics; establishes the three branches of the federal government and the states’
political role; restrained the government by expressing the inalienable rights of the people; and
distributes the power among the branches and institutions of government. The three branches of
the federal government are recipients of three broad functions or powers of legislation (for the
legislature composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives), execution (for the
executive branch headed by the president and includes the executive departments, the White
House Staff and the line agencies) and adjudication (for the judicial branch also known as the
Supreme Court). All three branches of the government participate in the policy-making process
in that, the legislature passes the bills; the president signs the bills into law (or vetoes them)
while the bureaucracy carries out the decisions; and the judiciary reviews the constitutionality
and/or legality of certain policies. In this sense, policy-making is seen as a process involving the
formal institutional actors having the task of pursuing a certain set of decisions known as a
policy. The term policy is one of the ambiguous terms in the social sciences that have multiple
meanings, which depend on who is using the term and in what context (Turner and Hume, 1997:
58). To avoid confusion, policy is hereby referred to as a product of interdependent government
decision-making within a particular context, such as domestic or international. Policies pursued
by the United States government in the latter context shall be defined as “the general set of
principles that its decision-makers adopt towards the outside world” (Nicholson, 2002: 21).
These policies are therefore the United States foreign policies. The term foreign policy is
formally institutionalized herein by emphasizing its origin in the formal political institutions of

7
the federal government, particularly the legislative and executive branches as well as the
independent or advisory government bodies. This analytical concern implies that the role of
social forces such as interest groups and political parties in shaping foreign policies are given
less emphasis or altogether ignored since these informal institutions may constrain the main task
of doing a formal institutional analysis of foreign policy-making as regards “militarization.” The
word “militarization”, in this case, which is simply described as a “brand” or “phase” of foreign
policy, signifies a dimension of foreign policy that is inclined to the provision of security
(national and international) through military means, be it defensive, offensive or “preemptive”.
Role and Powers of the United States Congress as Regards Military Aspects of Foreign as well
as Domestic Policies
Constitutional or Express Powers
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants the Legislature the power to
“provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;” “to declare War,
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
“to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer
Term than two Years;” “to provide and maintain a Navy;” “to make Rules for the Government
and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;” “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute
the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” and “to provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress.”

8
Furthermore, Section 10 provides that “no State shall, without the Consent of Congress,
lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any
Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless
actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
All of these constitutional powers allow the U.S. Congress to have legitimate decisions as
to how foreign and domestic policies, especially those that concern militarization or the use of
military means, shall be determined.
Unwritten and Informal Roles and Functions
Reference to the constitution alone will not suffice a systematic description of
congressional policy-making. Times have changed and the constitution does not have a futuristic
statement of the complex powers and practices of the United States Congress. Aside from the
constitutional provisions, self-enacted statutes also govern the conduct of the members of the two
houses of Congress including other government institutions. Through the so-called congressional
elaboration, the Congress participates in the changing of what Burns, Peltason and Cronin
(1987) call the “informal unwritten Constitution” that keeps the American system up to date even
though the formal Constitution does not undergo regular or annual amendments. Specific roles
may thus be arrived at.
Aside from appropriating defense funds, the legislature “also plays a crucial role in
approving or disapproving major weapon systems” (Burns, et. al, 1994: 421) Congress can also
overrule the president (Nicholson, 2002) particularly in times of overt executive usurpation of
defense and military power. It also requires the president to get its approval within sixty (60) to
ninety (90) days before deploying military troops.

9
Role and Power of the Executive Branch as Regards Military Aspects of Foreign as well as
Domestic Policies
Constitutional or Express Powers
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states, “the President shall be
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several
States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” In addition, “he shall have
Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds
of the Senators present concur;” “he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;” and “all other
Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and
which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such
inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the
Heads of Departments.” No further constitutional provisions reinforce these formal constitutional
powers of the president as the nation’s commander-in-chief and chief diplomat.
Unwritten and Informal Roles and Functions
Despite the fact that the Congress has more constitutional functions relative to the
presidency as regards military or defense matters and considerable foreign policy powers,
contemporary presidents like Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Theodore
Roosevelt, George Bush, William Clinton, and George W. Bush, Jr., find certain ways to expand
their “armed” powers and foreign policy-making influence. There are at least two manners of
viewing how the presidents have expanded their policy reach. The first is associated with the
“imperial presidency argument.” It provides conjunctural reasons for the president to exercise
extra-constitutional yet expedient powers (a.k.a. implied, inherent or emergency powers). For
instance, such exogenous crisis as wars, terrorism, revolutions, macroeconomic depressions and

10
environmental disasters (especially those with international significance), call for speedy
counter-measures. The president’s role is crucial during these national security threats and
situations since he alone has the mandate of a larger constituency, at least those who voted for
him, who can act without too much bargaining from other elected government entities. Truly,
“[in] the twentieth century presidential power has expanded as a result of wars and domestic
crises, such as economic depression” (Wasserman, 1985: 48). Furthermore, “[proponents] of the
‘imperial presidency’ view contend that the difficulty stems in part from ambiguity concerning
the president’s power as commander in chief: It is an undefined office, not a function” (Burns, et.
al, 1987: 345). In addition, “the growth of executive authority may be part of a worldwide trend”
(Burns, et. al, 1994: 263). For instance, the emergence of global or inter-governmental
organizations (IGOs) like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United
Nations (UN), facilitate the extension of presidential or executive powers. “These bodies provide
the representatives [usually coming from the executive branch or the President himself] who
attend IGO meetings and conduct negotiations” and the legislature “may only learn of an
international agreement after the government has signed up to it” (Hague and Harrop, 2004: 27,
28).
Another view is that the extended powers of the president stems partly from his formal
constitutional powers to appoint government, especially military, officials, ambassadors and
consuls, with the confirmation of the Senate, and to ratify treaties, with the advice and consent of
the Senate. These powers widen the influence of the President over the military and foreign
policy-making including ordinary international gatherings. “Despite the Senate’s power to
approve treaties and Congress’s power to appropriate money for foreign aid and to declare wars,
the checks on the president’s power over foreign affairs are fewer than those on his conduct in
domestic matters” (Wasserman, 1985: 57). Moreover, because of his power to appoint well-

11
favored executive staff, department heads, among other officials, the President has the chance
and incentives to solicit loyalty to his programs from these bureaucrats. This loyalty is buttressed
by the fact that the United States is not a parliamentary form of government, where the prime
minister and his cabinet usually come from the legislature and retain their loyalty to the latter
because of the threat of censure or vote of no confidence. The final result is that, the American
President has at his disposal a wide array of well-funded and bureaucratic departments, councils
and agencies, which are willing to act in accordance with his policies.
Convergence of the Roles and Powers of the Two Branches
The constitution allows the president to appoint top government officials, but with the
confirmation of the Senate. This constitutional safeguard avoids the absolute discretion of the
President to allocate government seats to well-favored persons for private interests. Treaties are
also required to pass the halls of the Senate and these treaties may be declared unconstitutional
by the Supreme Court. In addition, defense budget and spending require congressional approval
though some supplemental appropriations can be requested through less formal and strict means.
The federal budget mirrors the policies of the administration and highlights its main priorities.
Burns (et. al, 1994) calls it the “policy blueprint” and discusses how it reflects the growth in
public policy in the United States along with the rise of certain government institutions that
receive bigger chunks of the federal government fiscal pie. For instance, the total requested
military and/or defense budget of the United States for 2007 was $699 billion, thus giving the
Department of Defense the single largest budget of any government agency. The budget
seemingly tells a story behind congressional approval of U.S. “militarized” policies. It also
serves as a go-signal for the American President to extend his foreign policy and war-making
scope. In times of war, the President plainly extends his authority to uphold national security and

12
secrecy (Burns, et. al, 1987, 1994; Grant 1994). “In this extension of the executive power,
Congress and the courts have often been willing partners” (Burns, et. al, 1994: 295).
Aside from going directly to Washington and bargaining with Congress, the President
also has the informal power of persuasion through the route of “going public” which means that
the President exploits his unrivalled access to the mass media to affect public opinion in an effort
to convince the Congress to support his policies. (Hague and Harrop, 2004: 270). Furthermore,
Burns (et. al, 1994: 300) has this to say about national security policies:
The framers [of the Constitution] foresaw a special need for speed and unity in
our dealings with other nations. As a result, presidents generally have more leeway in
foreign policy and military affairs than they have in domestic matters.
Thus, the legislature “granted presidents discretion in initiating foreign policies, for
diplomacy frequently requires quick action” (Ibid.: 300). Also, the “Supreme Court has upheld
strong presidential authority in this area” for in “United States v. Curtiss Wright, in 1936, the
court referred to the exclusive power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government
in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise
an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be
exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution” (Ibid.). Despite these
sweeping legal statements, the U.S. Congress still maintains, for each house, two committees that
deal with foreign relations/affairs as well as armed services. The Senate has oversight powers to
make the executive accountable for its militaristic foreign policies (Nicholson, 2002).
Overview of American Foreign Policy Mechanisms as Regards Military Issues
Foreign policy mechanisms are equivalent to international agreements and international
declarations such as the declaration of war. International agreements are of two sorts: multilateral

13
or bilateral. Multilateral international agreements, as the name suggests, usually involve more
than two signatories while bilateral international agreements typically include not more than two
parties.
Treaties
A “treaty” formally refers to an international agreement “whose entry into force with
respect to the United States takes place only after two thirds of the U.S. Senate has given its
advice and consent under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution” (U.S. Department of
State website, n.d.). Generally, arms control agreements are ratified by the treaty mechanism
because it is simpler to go through one house of Congress, the Senate, than two (as required by
congressional-executive agreements) (Wikipedia, n.d.). Treaties are not necessarily binding upon
the United States once it becomes signatory to it because many treaties such as the Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) Treaty allowed the United States President to withdraw from or abrogate them.
Congressional-Executive Agreements
Although the constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative procedure of
engaging in international agreements other than through a treaty, the Supreme Court of the
United States considered congressional-executive agreements to be valid. “In Missouri v.
Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is
a power separate from the enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal
government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the executive
authority of the states” (Wikipedia, undated). If the President presents a negotiated instrument to
each house of the legislature, for majority approval, that instrument is called a “congressional-
executive agreement.” This form of international agreement can be seen as equivalent to
legislation because of the congressional procedure that it goes through.

14
Executive Agreements
Congress has allowed the President to avoid the formal treaty-making provision in the
Constitution by the use of “executive agreements” (Grant, 1994). This form of international
agreement is made solely by the President and requires no approval or ratification by any of the
two houses of Congress. It is oftentimes employed by presidents in pursuing foreign policies that
need quick dealings with a certain country or group of countries. War coalitions, for instance, are
entered into by the chief diplomat through this form of international policy instrument. Grant
(1994) observes that “summit diplomacy” these days requires top level meetings between heads
of governments (i.e. Presidents and/or Prime Ministers) and it has been recognized that the
President of the United States must have a degree of flexibility and manoeuver when negotiating
with the former Soviet Union or other major powers.
Declaration of War
A war declaration is a mechanism of foreign policy, in fact it is the extreme form of
foreign policy mechanism. History is full of accounts of both declared and undeclared wars
between states. By definition a war “is a condition of open armed conflict between two or more
parties (usually states)” (Heywood, 2002: 379). Perhaps, recognizing the disastrous nature of
instantaneous ancient as well as modern interstate wars, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution
reserved the power to declare war to the Congress where chances that a war could still be
prevented are higher than in the executive branch of the federal government. Despite the
constitutional expression and the War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in 1973 over
President Nixon’s veto in an attempt to limit the President’s ability to act unilaterally in waging
wars, still, the use of American military power by U.S. presidents such as Reagan (when he
decided to invade Grenada in 1983 and launched a bomb strike against Libya in 1986), Clinton
(when he ordered a missile attack on Baghdad and Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters

15
in 1993), George Bush (when he deployed troops during the Persian Gulf War in 1991) among
many others (most, if not all, U.S. Presidents have their own wars anyway) seems to have no real
institutional or legal limits (Burns, et. al, 1994; Grant, 1994). So far, there are only five “wars”
(those formally declared by Congress) in U.S. war-making history. They do not include the
Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Iraq War or the “War on Terror” because
scholars such as Burns (et. al 1994) and Grant (1994) articulate that the 1941 Congress
Declaration of War against Japan was the last declaration of war ever made by Congress.
Federal Bodies that Affect American Foreign Policy as Regards Militarization
“Presidents can share with Congress the responsibilities for making overall foreign policy
decisions, yet the operations of foreign policy are directly under the President” (Burns et. al,
1994: 411). “He (all Presidents have been male so far) and his advisors essentially take the
initiative in foreign policy and are the first to respond to major events coming from outside, such
as the outbreak of a war” (Nicholson, 2002: 24). He appoints the department officials and the
White House staffs who are responsible for certain foreign, particularly security-related, policy
areas and remain loyal to him. These bureaucrats, however, together with the agencies and
departments that they manage developed outside the Constitution as a matter of practical
necessity.
Executive Departments
By and large, it is the cabinet that handles the execution and progress of foreign policies
upon the command of the President. “The primacy of the executive in foreign policy is a fact of
the political life of all nations, including constitutional democracies” (Burns, et. al, 1994: 411).
To make sense of it, one has to look at how the executive branch is structured and tasked to
tackle and solve foreign policy issues. Oftentimes, as shown by Graham Allison and Phillip

16
Zelikow (1999) in their well-known book, titled The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban
Missile Crisis, the executive departments, line agencies, advisory councils and independent
bodies hold different positions regarding a particular military and foreign policy issue (such as
the Cuban Missile crisis of 1962) and pose varying, sometimes contradicting, ways of
approaching and responding to it. Nevertheless, they form an elite circle of crisis decision-
makers and security enthusiasts. The U.S. Departments of State and Defense represent the areas
of policy choices upon which a president must weigh foreign and diplomatic interests of the
nation against militaristic decision or non-decision.
U.S. Department of State
Established in 1789, the State Department is headed by the Secretary of State who serves
as the “president’s principal foreign policy advisor” (Burns, et. al, 1994: 411) and is not a
member of the legislature. This department, presently managed by Condoleezza Rice, “is
regarded as an élite branch of government” (Nicholson, 2002: 24) and is responsible for national
security. Specifically,
It maintains contacts and relations between the United States and foreign countries,
advises the president on recognition of new foreign countries and governments,
negotiates treaties and agreement with foreign nations, and speaks for the United Nations
and in other major international organizations. The departments maintain more than [two
hundred fifty] 250 diplomatic and consular posts around the world. In 1999, the
Department of State integrated the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the
U.S. Information Agency into its structure and mission (Targonski, USIA, 2000: 59).
It also serves as the mother department of the American Foreign Service which is “the eyes and
ears of the United States in other countries” (Burns, et. al, 1994: 412).
U.S. Department of Defense
Created in 1947, the Defense Department is responsible for four (4) separately organized
branches of the United States Military: the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps as well as
the four military service academies (the United States Military Academy, United States Naval

17
Academy, United States Air Force Academy, and United States Coast Guard Academy) and the
National War College, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (commonly known as the JCS), which serves as
the principal security advisor to the president and other specialized combat commands
(Targonski, USIA, 2000: 54). Headquartered in the Pentagon, this department consists of about
one million persons on active duty backed, in case of emergency, by one and a half million
members of state reserve components, known as the National Guard. In addition, about 730,000
civilian employees serve in the Defense Department in such areas as research, intelligence
communications, mapping, and international security affairs. The National Security Agency,
which coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized intelligence activities in support of
U.S. government actions, also comes under the direction of the Secretary of Defense (Ibid.: 54).
Currently headed by Robert Gates, DOD also keeps overseas forces in order to meet U.S.
treaty commitments to provide air and support forces, and to secure America’s faraway
territories and trade.
Legislative Bodies1
House Committee on Foreign Affairs
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs is a standing committee which is in charge of
bills and investigations related to the foreign relations of the United States. So far, it has seven
subcommittees.
House Committee on Armed Services
The House Committee on Armed Services is a standing committee which is responsible
for funding and oversight of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the United States armed
forces, as well as substantial parts of the Department of Energy. It currently has seven
subcommittees.

18
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is a standing committee of the United States
Senate in charge with leading foreign-policy legislation and debate. Having eight existing
subcommittees, this committee is generally responsible for overseeing (but not managing) and
funding foreign aid programs and training for national allies as well as arms sales. It is also
involved in treaty or ambassador confirmation.
Senate Committee on Armed Services
The Senate Committee on Armed Services is a committee of the United States Senate
empowered with legislative oversight of the nation's military, including the Department of
Defense, military research and development, nuclear energy (as pertaining to national security),
benefits for members of the military, the Selective Service System and other matters related to
defense policy. It currently has six subcommittees.
Independent Body
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is responsible for the coordination of intelligence
activities of various government institutions, especially executive departments and line agencies.
It makes security proposals to the National Security Council and the Office of the President. The
CIA also became involved in international data and information gathering, often through covert
means, and wiretapping services for President Richard Nixon, whose other illegal use of his
office and other government institutions led to the celebrated Watergate Scandal.
Aside from the aforementioned formal government bodies, the federal government has
other groups of foreign policy and security zealots. The executive branch, for instance, has “staff
organizations grouped into the Executive Office of the President” that “include the White House

19
staff, the National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of
Economic Advisers, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy” (Targonski, USIA, 2000: 49). The list also includes the Council on
Environmental Quality, the Office of National AIDS Policy, the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the White House Office for
Women’s Initiative and Outreach (Ibid.). Of all these, the National Security Council and the
President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board apparently have something to do with military
policies directed towards other nations. Created by Congress in 1947, the National Security
Council is the “key coordinating agency for the president” and is “intended to help him integrate
foreign, military, and economic policies that affect national security” (Burns, et. al, 1994: 411). It
is legally composed of the president himself, the vice-president, and the secretaries of Defense
and State departments, but contemporary presidents have even included the CIA director, the
White House Chief of Staff, the attorney general, and the national security adviser as ex officio
members (Ibid.).
Isolationism vs. Internationalism (Concerning Military or Security Issues)
Foreign policy issues are the concerns not only of federal government officials. Ordinary
citizens need to have their say as well. However, as this study focuses more on the formal
government mechanisms and institutions, the citizens’ opinion on world affairs are not
thoroughly discussed. Nevertheless, Brewer, Gross, Aday, and Willnat stress the importance of
assessing the two major opposing principles of foreign policy-making based on people’s beliefs
and opinions. In their study, titled International Trust and Public Opinion about World Affairs
(2004), they define the principle of isolationism as “the belief that the United States should avoid
getting involved in other nation’s problems” and the principle of internationalism as “the belief
that the United States should play an active role in world affairs” (Brewer, et. al, 2004: 94).

20
When translated to the jargon of institutional analysis, these principles will certainly adopt
different although related meanings.
Isolationism and emphasis on domestic policy-making
Isolationism is defined by Heywood (2002: 135) as the “policy of withdrawal from
international affairs and, in particular, avoiding political or military commitments to other states.”
In terms of institutional activities and matters, this would mean fewer international agreements or
foreign policy mechanisms, fewer activities for the federal bodies focusing on foreign policy-
making to undertake, and little amounts of government funds spent on foreign policy and
international security endeavors such as foreign aid and joint military exercises. Isolationism is
also seen as a presidential or leadership tendency associated with American President Andrew
Jackson. Jacksonians “are closest to what we normally think of as isolationists – they seek to
avoid involvement in world affairs as far as possible, although it should be noted that when US
territory or US citizens are attacked they respond with righteous fury, demanding total war and
unconditional surrender” (Brown and Ainley, 2005: 238).
Internationalism and emphasis on foreign policy-making
Internationalism is defined by Heywood (2002: 128, 424) as a “theory or practice of
politics based on transnational or global cooperation”; “the belief that nations are artificial and
unwanted formations.” Contrary to isolationism, this would mean more international agreements
or foreign policy mechanisms, more activities for the federal bodies focusing on foreign policy-
making to pursue, and greater amounts of government funds spent on foreign policy and
international security endeavors such as foreign aid and joint military exercises. Same with
isolationism, internationalism is also viewed as a presidential or leadership predisposition, this
time related to President Woodrow Wilson, who pushed forward his Fourteen Points during
World War I and signed various “peace treaties”, which helped establish the League of Nations

21
after World War I (Groisser, 1971). Wilsonians “believe that US values such as democracy and
the rule of law are universally applicable and seek actively to promote them in the world, in the
process challenging the old rules of European statecraft” (Brown and Ainley, 2005: 238).
Internationalism, per Brewer (et. al, 2004), based on people’s trust and public opinion,
has two “faces”. One is “militant internationalism (i.e., support for intervention through military
force), and [the other is] cooperative internationalism (i.e., support for intervention through
cooperative methods such as foreign aid)” (Brewer, et. al, 2004: 94). Brown and Ainley (2005)
present a different set of subcategories based on the International Relations discipline. They
distinguish between unilateralism (a.k.a. “hard” Wilsonianism) and multilateralism (a.k.a. “soft”
Wilsonianism). The former aims to spread American ideals without the need to form alliances or
establish international institutions while the latter aims the same but with the support of other
countries through international institutions, organizations or alliances.
Statement of the Problem
Central Research Question and Task
The central research question that the paper attempts to answer is “What is
‘militarization’?” Since it is seen as an institutional phenomenon in the area of foreign policy-
making, the most appropriate way of describing it is using an institutional approach, which
focuses on how formal political institutions (or sets of rules embedded in an organization or
group of people) function and determine policies. The paper initially describes “militarization”
as a “brand” or “phase” of foreign policy-making. The term is used in its international context
and manifests through the military and foreign policy mechanisms.

22
Rationale of the Study
The study aims to tackle the nature of “militarization” of American foreign policy. The
researcher wants to impart his research findings and personal interpretations about the
phenomenon, to give a clear and coherent definition of it drawn from various sources and to
address its effects on the Republic of the Philippines specifically on the country’s security-
related activities.
Significance of the Study
The study is set out to contribute a small amount of information to the knowledge base of
American studies. The author maintains that this study provides the bare bones of the road map
for an institutional approach to “militarization”. In spite of this enthusiasm, he still believes that
this study is lacking because of time, technical, financial and academic constraints.
Limitations of the Study
The main discussion on the subject covers the period between the September 11, 2001
bombing (marked by simultaneous terrorist attacks carried out by banging airplanes on the
World Trade Center twin towers, the Pentagon and another area near the White House) and the
earlier part of President George W. Bush’s war waged against Iraq.
Militarization
There are only two points that are raised. These include the argument that the main
driving force of “militarized” foreign policies of the U.S. is “terrorism” as well as the further
threat posed by non-democratic regimes (like Iraq), which allegedly harbor nuclear weapons.
Another point is related to the presidential usurpation of the war powers. Exaggeratedly
exercising such powers, the current President of the United States called for additional funds for
his activities against the so-called “enemies of democracy” or the “axis of evil.” The resulting
increase in government spending coupled with a loose fiscal (or revenue-raising) policy

23
generated economic problems such as budget deficits and reduced health and welfare program
allocations.
Militarization as a political process
Militarization is best understood as a “brand” or “phase” of foreign policy-making.
Understanding such a complex phenomenon entails the consideration of at least two things: its
international dimension and the superficial tension between the US legislature and the executive
branch.
The International Dimension of Militarization
Whereas domestic policies of the United States have witnessed shifts in the roles of the
state: from a “nightwatchman” (i.e. less state intervention in the economy) to a welfare state and
then to a regulatory state (Hague and Harrop, 2004); the international realm of the United States
policy-making involves a cycle where there exist apparent shifts (in terms of dominance) in the
four main aspects of global relations: (i) economic globalization, (Brown and Ainley, 2005) (ii)
political (‘soft power’) influence (Smith, 2002), (iii) cultural imperialism (Nicholson 2002), and
(iv) military internationalism/interventionism (i.e. “militarization” of foreign policy) (Brown,
2005; Goodman, 2004; Smith, 2002). Scholars such as Brown and Ainley (2005), Goodman
(2004) and Smith (2002) tackle the dominance of the last aspect of global relations in U.S.
foreign policy-making. They have identified the withdrawal of the U.S., President Bush Jr. in
particular, from international agreements that seek to regulate the use of military means in
addressing certain issues in the international realm such as the rise of terrorist organizations and
the proliferation of nuclear weapons. “Military force is now looming larger than ever as the main
instrument and organizing principle of U.S. foreign policy” (Goodman, 2004). “In part this is
because the US has considerably increased its military and intelligence expenditure, but it also
reflects the ability of the US to impose leadership on allies under the theme of a war on terrorism”

24
(Smith, 2002: 173). Two “coalitions of the willing” have been formed. One suited the US desire
to take revenge on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the other, composed of a new set of
allies, supported the Anglo-American drive to attack and eventually invade Iraq (Brown and
Ainley, 2005). These ad hoc coalitions whatsoever did not qualify any form of international
agreement described above and it seems that these engagements were unilaterally pursued by the
U.S. since it did not really matter whether legitimate international organizations such as the
NATO and the UN approved of it or not (in fact the US failed to get the approval of the United
Nations Security Council) (Smith, 2002; Brown and Ainley, 2005; Goodman, 2004).
Theoretical Tensions between the US Legislature and Executive Branch
Many scholars who emphasize the domestic dimension of policy-making point to how the
foreign affairs prerogatives of the President have undermined the formal constitutional and
statutory powers of Congress with regard to declaring or engaging in wars and deployment of
military troops. As a political process, militarization entails the political struggle on who should
have the legitimate function to determine such a policy process or “brand”. Questions arise
whether the “War on Terror” and the “War in Iraq” have legitimate constitutional basis or any
valid international legal justification. In terms of congressional approval and declaration, the two
wars engaged in by the executive branch have no valid constitutional justification and, of course,
congressional authorization. The last war hitherto authorized by Congress was waged against
Japan in 1945.
Aside from these institutional considerations, there are also some moral and economic
ramifications. It is argued that the war in Iraq, as well as the “war on terror,” has no valid
justification (in terms of whether or not Iraq really had the WMDs) and precision (in terms of
who the real “enemies” are, whether they be the Muslim societies, the authoritarian states or
particular “terrorist groups” including their supporters) (Nicholson, 2002; Brown and Ainley,

25
2005). As a result, the Muslim world, especially the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) is becoming anxious that the US is waging a war against Islam. Economic
consequences of the two wars include the skyrocketing of oil prices that led to the increase in
production costs as well as budget deficits in U.S. due to increasing government spending.
Militarization as a strategic measure to provide security
As discussed earlier, the executive branch undertakes most part of providing national
security. It is important to highlight at least two points regarding this task: how it is economically
determined through the fiscal power (i.e. government fund-raising and spending) and what is the
current exogenous factor that affects the institution of budgetary allocation.
The task begins with the executive budget proposal that is presented to the House of
Representatives for approval. This budget or financial plan, referred to as a blue-print of policy-
making, mirrors the security-related priorities of the current Bush administration. The prevailing
view held by scholars who criticize US military engagements is that scarce resources of the
nation are not allocated fairly and efficiently to the leading government priorities – the “warfare
vs. welfare” argument. The defense budget for instance has been growing from year to year
during the term of President George W. Bush. Goodman (2004) states:
Reversing a trend that pre-dated the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has
increased its military budget to more than $400 billion and its intelligence budget to more
than $40 billion. Current projections point to a defense budget of more than $500 billion
before the end of the decade, with another $50 billion for the intelligence community.
Led by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Department of Defense has moved
aggressively to eclipse the State Department as the major locus of U.S. foreign policy,
arrogating management of the intelligence community, and abandoning bipartisan
policies of arms control and disarmament crafted over the past four decades. Funding cuts
have prompted the Department of State to close consulates around the world and assign
personnel of the well-funded CIA to diplomatic and consular posts. Though current
defense costs represent nearly 20% of Washington’s expenses, less than 1% of the federal
budget is devoted to the needs of the State Department.

26
In addition, the Bush administration allegedly has placed the Pentagon atop the national
security policy decision-making ladder, thus weakening the role of the State Department and
other agencies dealing with foreign policy.
The current exogenous factor that affects the decision of the federal government, the
executive branch in particular, is the “war on terrorism.” Aside from the budgetary funds devoted
to defense spending, there are also congressional appropriations that reinforce “discretionary
spending” and they include those funds allotted to the war in Afghanistan (the starting point of
the “war on terror”) and war in Iraq.
Although the type of “war” that the US president wages is not the same as the “war”
authorized and formally declared by congress, the former nevertheless calls for the utilization of
the U.S. military forces, intelligence communities and other resources. It is one type of
“emergency” situations that the President takes advantage of in order to either bypass the
Congress or obtain its approval by “going public”. Just like the Cold War, the War on Terror
represents another era of the primacy of the U.S. executive in the area of foreign relations and
international security. As stated earlier, wars and other major crises aid in extending the powers
of the President.
United States of America’s Militarization Policies and Their Implications on the
Republic of the Philippines
The paper shall try to explore at least two important foreign policies that the United
States has pursued in dealing with one of its allies: the Republic of the Philippines. The two
foreign policies comprise a bilateral treaty (an international agreement) and an informal
Presidential declaration of his type of “war”.

27
Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and Visiting Forces Agreement
Signed and ratified on August 30, 1951 in Washington, D.C., the Mutual Defense Treaty
is a bilateral treaty involving the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America. It
contained eight articles and dictated that both nations would support each other if either the
Philippines or the United States were to be attacked by an external party and take mutual efforts
to promote international peace and security while still upholding each others’ territorial integrity
and United Nations Charter or responsibility.2
Balikatan (Shoulder-to-Shoulder) bilateral military exercises
Balikatan is conducted to meet RP-US commitments under the Mutual Defense Treaty
and to fulfill RP-US mutual training and readiness requirements.3 The Balikatan resumed in 1999
after being suspended in 1995.
Aside from conducting military exercises and combat simulations, the US troops also
engage in “humanitarian missions” in certain parts of the Philippines, particularly in Lanao
provinces. These missions however are not viewed as entirely humane by the affected population.
For instance, statements from a Filipino militant group’s website contend, “US troops are
benevolent by day and monsters by night”4 because of their alleged sexual harassment and
deliberate killings. Whatever the psychological, social or cultural implications of U.S. military
endeavors in the Philippines may be, the fact that our country has submitted to the institutional
mechanisms being employed by the U.S. federal government stays put. Arguing from an
institutional perspective, the author believes that this bilateral agreement must not only be
viewed in terms of its “good” or “bad” consequences. The entire political process of engaging in
a militarized yet institutionally justified foreign policy is complex. Efforts aimed at assessing the
effects of the Balikatan Exercises on the emerging democracy in the Philippines need to take first

28
into consideration the legal sanctions and or constitutional bases of the military endeavor. These
institutional safeguards pose serious and formal institutional ways on how to mitigate the
spillover effects of the Balikatan exercises as a product not only of U.S. foreign policy-making
but of Philippine policy-making as well. This stance was demonstrated by the Senate decision to
close (permanently) the U.S. military bases in Subic, Zambales and Clark, Pampanga for the
main reason that the 1987 Philippine Constitution does not allow long-term basing by another
country in the Philippines. Furthermore, in 1995, the legislative body ended Balikatan because of
a dispute over certain institutional details of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). The VFA
gives the United States the jurisdiction over crimes committed by military personnel while on
duty in a foreign country. Some critics of the agreement believe that this provision allows for the
insulation of U.S. servicemen from local litigations once they commit criminal or illegal acts
thereby facilitating their acquittal or, at least, special treatment. It becomes more complicated if
we consider the ethnocentric beliefs held by many Americans that the VFA’s host country’s
justice system grants a much weaker set of protections to the accused than that of the U.S. and
that the host country’s courts can be subject to popular pressure to deliver a guilty verdict.
Furthermore, it is believed that American servicemembers ordered to a foreign posting should
not be forced to give up the rights they are afforded under the U.S. Bill of Rights.5
“War on Terror”
This Bush Administration’s campaign is said to be a reaction to the 9/11 event that has
generated so little support in the rest of the non-Western world (Brown and Ainley, 2005)
relative to the World War II, the Cold War and other minor “named-after-a-country” wars.
Notwithstanding, the “9/11 galvanized the American people, and President Bush’s declaration of
a ‘War on Terror’ was widely welcomed in the US” (Ibid.: 242). In terms of institutional
considerations, this war falls short of its congressional and constitutional approval. The War on

29
Terrorism was authorized by the United States Congress only under the “Authorization for Use
of Military Force Against Terrorists” passed on September 18, 2001 and not by a formal
declaration of war.
The use of the term “war” is also questionable since wars usually involve states or
countries and not merely groups or sections of society (Al Qaeda and other “terrorist” groups in
particular). Furthermore, it became clear that this “war” involves not only one country but an
entire set of countries referred to as by President Bush as the “axis of evil.” Should the Congress
have declared the “war”, it might encounter more and more contentions with the executive
branch regarding the deployment of troops, the appropriation of funds and other security and
foreign policy-related issues. Nevertheless, the “War on Terror” including the subsequent
authorization made by Congress unleashed the warpowers and foreign policy functions of the
President and the executive branch as a whole like never before. This entire set of policies and
rules has major effects on the institutions of other countries as it encourages preemptive
responses against alleged “terrorist” local groups. For exemple, in the Philippines, the War on
Terror campaign by the United States led to actions aimed at quelling Abu Sayyaff activities and
even communist and religious (or ideologically-based) rebellions. However, reflecting the
widespread ambiguity of the term “terrorism”, the Philippine government still has neither a
universally accepted definition of it nor any mechanism to curb certain activities labeled as
“terroristic”. The Philippine Congress has already passed the Human Security Act of 2007
(Republic Act 9372) commonly known among critics as well as members of the academe and
media as the “Anti-Terror Law.” It was signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
and eventually took effect on February 8, 2007. This law is still controversial however due to the
resistance mounted by militant groups, such as AKBAYAN, that are usually assumed by the
government as formal political wings of the ‘Left’ and the New People’s Army (NPA), which is

30
associated with, allegedly, “terroristic” activities such as burning telecommunications sites and
threatening civilians. Relative to extremist Muslim rebels such as the Abu Sayyaff, Rajah
Sulayman group, and Jemaah Islamiyah, the communist NPA is said to pursue milder violent
acts since the former are more inclined to mass killing through bombings and ambush and
terrible acts such as mutilating the bodies of their victims and even decapitating them.
Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines (OEF – P)
Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines (OEF-P) is part of Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF), the official name used by the U.S. Government for one of its military
campaigns in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) which was started after the September 11,
2001 attacks on the United States. Wikipedia.org says that about 500 U.S. military personnel are
advising and assisting the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) in the Southern Philippines.
Furthermore,
Special Operations Command-Pacific (SOCPAC) troops are the core of
Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines (OEF-P), an operation which supports the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines counterterrorism efforts. With U.S. advice
and training, the AFP and civilian authorities have improved their ability to coordinate
and sustain counterterrorism operations. U.S. and Philippine forces have also worked
together under the new Security Engagement Board framework – the primary mechanism
for consultation and planning regarding non-traditional security threats – to complete
humanitarian and civil assistance projects and improve living conditions in the southern
Philippines. As a result of their combined efforts, support for terrorists has waned
markedly.
This American foreign policy and security-related endeavor has certain implications on
the capacity of the Philippine government to provide security to its own people. It helps in
addressing the weaknesses of the Philippine armed forces and provides instruments as well as
institutional suggestions (e.g. through the legislative-backed modernization of the armed forces)
to advance our military capability, especially in curbing terrorism. However, this form of
military intervention is questioned all over the world because it apparently violates the
Westphalian system of sovereign states (Nicholson, 2002; Brown and Ainley, 2005).

31
References
Books, Articles and Thesis
Brown, Chris with Ainley, Kirsten. (2005). Understanding International Relations (3rd Ed.).
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brewer, Paul R., Gross, Kijmberly, Aday, Sean, and Willnat, Lars. (January 2004). International
Trust and Public Opinion about World Affairs. American Journal of Political Science
Vol. 48, No. 1 pp. 93-109.
Burns, James MacGregor, Peltason, J. W., and Cronin, Thomas E. (1987). Government by the
People (13th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Burns, James MacGregor, Peltason, J. W., Cronin, Thomas E., and Magleby, David B. (1994).
Government by the People (Brief Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Goodman, Mel. (February, 2004). The Militarization of U.S. Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy In
Focus Vol. 9, No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol9/v9n01military.html
on 1 February 2008.
Grant, Alan R. (1994). The American Political Process (5th Ed.). Aldershot, Hants, England:
Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd.
Groisser, Philip L. (1971). Mastering World History. N/A: Keystone Education Press.
Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin. (2004). Comparative Government and Politics (6th Ed.). New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heywood, Andrew. (2002). Politics (2nd Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Liwanag, Marichu C. (2005). RP-US Security Relations in the Post-Cold War Era: A Study of the
Visiting Forces Agreement. Unpublished master's thesis, University of The Philippines –

32
Diliman, Quezon City.
Nicholson, Michael. (2002). International Relations (2nd Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, Steve. (2002). The End of the Unipolar Moment? September 11 and the Future of World
Order. International Relations Vol. 16, No. 2 pp. 171-183.
Targonski, Rosalie (Ed.). (2000). An Outline of U.S. Government. United States Information
Agency. Office of Internatrional Information Programs. United States Department of
State.
Turner, Mark and Hulme, David. (1997). Governance, Administration, and Development:
Making the State Work. Basingstoke, Hants, England: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Wasserman, Gary. (1995). The Basics of American Politics (4th Ed.). Canada: Little, Brown and
Company Ltd.
Internet Sources
Arkibong Bayan. (February 2008). Protests against the US-RP Balikatan Exercises in Marawi
City and Quezon City. Retrieved from http://www.arkibongbayan.org/2008-02Feb21
MarawaUStroopsOut/manilamarawiusout.htm on 17 March 2008.
Department of Foreign Affairs (Philippines) – http://www.dfa.gov.ph
Global Security – http://globalsecurity.org
United States Department of State - http://www.state.gov
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

33
Endnotes
1 All descriptions come from wikipedia.org. The details were verified by the author through the legitimate
Congressional websites available on the links section of wikipedia’s webpages.
2 The terms of this treaty are available at the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs website
(http://www.dfa.gov.ph), wikipedia.org, and Liwanag’s (2005) thesis.
3 Sufficient information about the annual series of Balikatan Exercises are provided by Liwanag (2005) and Global
Security at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/balikatan.htm.
4 Arkibong Bayan (i.e. arkibongbayan.org), a Filipino militant group has online postings regarding the alleged
abuses of American troops that conduct military operations and training in the Philippines.
5 These controversies are formally raised mostly through the media, such as the television and government websites.

Militarization of US Foreign Policy (edited) - Glenn Rivera

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Similar to Militarization of US Foreign Policy (edited) - Glenn Rivera

Similar to Militarization of US Foreign Policy (edited) - Glenn Rivera (17)

More from Glenn Rivera

More from Glenn Rivera (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Militarization of US Foreign Policy (edited) - Glenn Rivera