The Surrender of Political andrnMilitary Sovereigntyrnby William R. HawkinsrnSovereignty is a people’s ability to govern its internal affairsrnand protect its independenec against outside interferenee.rnMilitary power has always been the most obvious pillar ofrnsoereigntv. Clausewitz’ dictum that the object of war is “torncompel your opponent to do your will” means that the victorrnsubstitutes his sovereignty for that of the loser. This conflict ofrnwills is not limited to questions of territorial integrity. Nationsrnarc driven by a combination of fear and opportunity to moldrnthe outside world in ways favorable to their interests (howeverrndefined) as far as their strength will reach.rnMilitary power has also been an indispensable tool for nation-rnbuilding. There arc few states that did not emerge fromrnsome caldron of international, civil, or revolutionary war. In thernwords of Charles Tilly, “War made the state, and the staternmade war.” This is as true of the great democracies of the Westrnas of am dictatorship. The Lhiited States owe their independencernto a revolutionary war, their continued union and constitutionalrnsystem to a civil war, and their vast domain to a seriesrnof international wars (or threats of war) combined with thernforceful pacification of the native populations in the acquiredrnterritories. American history is a confirmation of Ernst Kenan’srnobscration that “deeds of violence” have “marked the originsrnWilliam R. Hawkins in the Senior Research Analyst forrnRepresentative Duncan Hunter (R-CAj, chairman of thernNational Security Subcommittee on Military Procurement.rnThe views expressed are his alone.rnof all political formations, even those which have been followedrnby the most beneficial results.”rnPopular support has long been necessary to mobilize the vastrnresources needed for v’ar. What leads people to tolerate conscription,rnrationing, and war finance, not to mention death andrndestruction, is the belief that their societv’ is unique and preciousrnand that its fate is not to be surrendered to the dictates ofrnany outsider. It is this very concept of independent group solidarityrnthat has been, and continues to be, the object of attackrnfrom two sources: intellectuals who object to the view of arnworld torn by perpetual conflict and those special interests whornfeel restricted by state policy. Often the latter have made use ofrnthe former’s Utopian arguments to mask their selfish quests forrnpersonal gain at the nation’s expense. This is not as hypocriticalrnas it may appear. Antinationalist thought has been primarilyrnliberal in content, stressing the moral superioritv of individualrnover social interests. Indeed, classical liberalism can be seenrnprimarily as a reaction to the rise of the modern nation-staternsince the ISth century.rnIn the 17th century, Emeric Cruee opposed Louis XIV’s policyrnto make Eranee the dominant power in Europe. Cruee presentedrnan alternate view, writing in 1623: “What a pleasure itrnwould be to see men going freely from one place to anotherrnwithout thought of country.” Part of this vision was the creationrnof an organization with representatives from Europe, Asia,rnand Africa that would arbitrate disputes and back their verdictsrnwith force. I le thought this feasible because “Human societ}’ isrnOCTOBER 1995/17rnrnrn