Would the American public support a modern version of D-Day, an amphibious assault on a well-defended coastline to liberate foreign territory?
I ask this in light of the more than 4,000 Allied, mostly American, soldiers who died on June 6, 1944. They didn’t die to defend U.S. territory, they died to liberate others and end a global threat. Theirs, then, was a most exceptional sacrifice. Yet Americans back home supported their sacrifice for two reasons: they understood the moral necessity of victory, and they trusted their leaders to carry us to that cause.
But would that be the same case today? It’s worth asking.
After all, what if China seized the Japanese Senkaku islands? Those islands are tiny, but were China to seize them from Japan, retaking the islands would require an amphibious element. But how would Americans feel about U.S. Marines again storming Pacific coasts so far from our shores?
How about if Russia invaded and seized the Baltic states? Retaking those nations would require a major NATO deployment. But it would also likely entail amphibious landing operations. Would Americans support U.S. action in such a mission? Or would we believe that the costs should fall to European powers?
Or what about a U.S. action to recover Taiwan from Chinese invaders?
The hypotheticals go on. Still, I ask these questions because in the first two cases, the U.S. would be obliged by treaty to act. In both cases, the U.S. would have specialist capabilities that no other ally could match. We would thus be under great pressure and expectation to act. As we celebrate the heroes of D-Day, we must think about our strategic interests today.
Defending our international order and our allies, I believe the U.S. would be right to act in the first two cases. I just wonder how many of my fellow citizens would agree with me.
