"A Gentler Hegemony" the way forward for the US military?

Robert Kaplan published a provocative editorial in the Washington Post today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/16/AR2008121602480.html?nav=hcmoduletmv). He opines that the future role for the military will most certainly involve responding to humanitarian disasters like tsunamis and earthquakes with assistance. In fact he posits that international community will demand that the U.S. military be responsive:

"American military power is not going away. But instead of being in-your-face, it will lurk just over the horizon. And that will make all the difference. " He goes on to say: "As world population rises, and with vast urban areas with tottering infrastructures in the most environmentally and seismically fragile zones, the opportunities for U.S. military-led disaster relief will be legion. The American military remains a force for good, a fact that will become self-evident in the crises to come." However, "Yet American hegemony post-Iraq will be as changed as Britain's was after the Indian Mutiny. It will be a more benign and temperate version of what transpired in recent years. Henceforth, we will shape coalitions rather than act on our own." Kaplan's thoughts are framed by his view of America's decline, and here I am plucking out pieces that relate to the military.

Kaplan's linking of America's decline to the use of the military is perhaps the most provocative thought, among many other provocative thoughts, of this editorial. The military's view is that there is more than one instrument of national power. However recently it has become more than obvious that the military is the most-used, or at least the most-funded and therefore most robust instrument. Regardless of whether America's hegemony is waxing, waning or plateauing, could it be that more use of public diplomacy, the State Department and USAID will better legitimize the actions of the U.S. in the international public view?

Although Kaplan most likely hits the nail on the head that international opinion will cry out for the U.S. military to respond to humanitarian disasters, what he doesn't address is the next logical question: Is it ethically, politically and logically appropriate for the U.S. military to get in to the humanitarian response business when there are many many other more experienced players? Maybe that's actually three questions, but three inter-related questions.

Perhaps the role of the U.S. military is better abridged to fighting wars? By rushing to comply with international opinion, do we lose legitimacy with the publics that we are trying to aid? Not every public is happy to be rescued by Americans or even people in uniform. Think of people who have been living in conflict zones for their whole lives--trust in a uniform might be lower than we expect. As we should have learned in Iraq, the rest of the world does not share our world view.

Further, could it be, as some argue using what ethicists call a distributive justice argument, that by using military capabilities to rescue other peoples we are taking away from our own?

These are important questions that we need to answer, and that we most likely will begin to answer, by trial and error.