The recent global economic downturn has generated doubts about American resilience and our ability to lead in the world. Far from being a nation in decline, however, the United States’ global standing remains unmatched and the imperative for it to lead in today’s tumultuous environment is clear. Those who assume that in order to recover economically the United States must close its overseas bases and bring its military forces home misunderstand the role the U.S. military plays in promoting global prosperity. The United States has benefited enormously from a highly interdependent and globalized economy – one that has relied on the security and stability underwritten by our armed forces and our alliances for over 70 years. In this context, we simply cannot divorce “American” interests from “global” interests or otherwise opt out of the system economically or militarily.
As the U.S. military downsizes following a decade of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we face a strategic inflection point with respect to how we restructure and re-posture our forces abroad. The United States has an opportunity and a responsibility to shape the global environment through its leadership, global reach, and ability to catalyze positive multilateral activity that enables and encourages others to share the burden of global stability and security. This means being present in key regions of the world where threats are likely to emerge and focusing our military activities on prevention and preparedness.
Our military posture should thus be tailored in a strategic way that reflects the imperatives of regional threats and respects the interests of partners and allies. In places such as the Korean peninsula, the Straits of Hormuz, or Malacca, a clear, visible U.S. posture is required; in other regions a less visible, over-the-horizon presence may be more appropriate. In some places, part-time use of shared facilities and flexible access agreements may constitute the extent of U.S. military presence. In all of these regions, the United States can and should continue to build and lead powerful partnerships and alliances founded on shared norms such as freedom of navigation, peaceful resolution of disputes, respect for the rule of law, human rights, and civilian control over the military.
Key to our global rebalancing is President Barack Obama’s renewed focus on the Asia-Pacific. Militarily, this means the United States will sustain a robust presence with our long-term allies while enhancing our military activities with other partners across the region. Our posture from Hawaii to the Indian Ocean will be more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable. Our bases in South Korea and Japan will remain the cornerstone of our presence in Northeast Asia, where we will enhance our cooperative planning and military exercises. We will leverage the geo-strategic value of our U.S. territory by moving a few thousand marines to Guam, and we will forward deploy new littoral combat ships in Singapore. Up to 2500 marines will be scheduled to rotate in and out of Darwin Australia for bilateral training exercises and we will ramp up our utilization of other Australian ports and airfields as part of a wider re-commitment to this key ally. Such moves, along with increased military cooperation with the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam demonstrate the U.S. commitment to sustaining our leadership while assisting others in meeting the most pressing challenges, from terrorism and piracy, to freedom of navigation or humanitarian disasters.
This re-commitment to Asia should not be interpreted as our abandoning our leadership role elsewhere in the world. In the greater Middle East and Central Asia, our military activities will continue to support multilateral solutions to shared security threats. Following our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we will transition to a lighter, but scalable footprint focused on countering terrorism, deterring the destabilizing behavior of Iran, ensuring the free flow of commerce, and checking the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Instead of maintaining permanent installations, U.S. air and naval forces will likely rotate in and out of countries such as Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and, potentially, Afghanistan and Iraq. In the wake of the Arab Spring, our military-to-military engagements with the region’s rising democracies can help promote the development of civilian-led security forces, respectful of human rights and the rule of law.
Our military posture in Europe reflects the fact that NATO, through American leadership, remains the indispensible global military alliance. We have fought hard and learned valuable lessons together over the past 10 years, from the major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to our multilateral operations in Libya, to operations against pirates in the Red Sea. Our U.S. military posture in Europe will leverage these lessons to ensure that the alliance remains capable of responding to emerging threats in and outside of the European theater. We will retain two modernized brigade combat teams along with seven other enabling army brigades and air forces optimized for global reach and partnership. We will build a robust missile defense architecture sustained by forward-based Aegis cruisers and maintain a network of bases and agreements that ensure our ability to train regularly with allies and respond to crises.
This emphasis on partnership and multilateral activities is also reflected in our posture across Africa and South America. In regions where few U.S. forces are permanently stationed, the United States’ day-to-day military posture should remain tailored toward the needs of our partners, focused on high-priority activities such as countering violent extremism, halting illicit trafficking and support to law enforcement. A focus on building partner capacity will enhance their abilities to meet local and transnational challenges before they become larger crises.
A robust, forward engaged U.S. military is the right strategic investment at this critical inflection point. As we emerge from a decade of war and reduce the overall size of our military, we cannot afford to have our remaining forces inefficiently garrisoned at home training only themselves. Not only does forward engagement allow our forces to train the way they will most likely fight–abroad and with allies–but it is also a more efficient way to ensure they are postured to respond should deterrence fail. As Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta asserted, “We do not have to choose between national security and fiscal security.” Continued U.S. leadership in the world, underpinned by smart forward military engagement, is imperative to our domestic economic prosperity and to shaping the future security environment.
Michèle Flournoy is Co-Founder of the Center for a New American Security and former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Janine Davidson is a Professor at George Mason University and former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Plans. This article is adapted from “Obama’s New Global Fosture,” which appears in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Hume’s Bastard
I get the strong impression from this defense of forward deploment, that Defense Department planners have given up trying to devise a global military strategy. Around the litany of current commitments there's a jarring lack of a goal for expending revenue. The U.S. guarantees the security for an international economic juggernaut that the world has not witnessed since Rome briefly pacified Asia Minor and the Middle East enough to facilitate trade with India and even China. Ther 's even talk of a cultural revaluation of the Eurocentric and Sinocentric paradigm, in which Asia will take the lead in the world. That succession from America to China presupposes that some military power can keep the transportation lines open and that most countries support the United Nations-backed legal order. The litany of current committments the authors list mire the U.S. military, and the lesser contingent of allies that support the main effort in national and local politics and encourage conservative thinking. The litany doesn't even address where multinational corporations fit in. But given how precise the authors present their shopping list, it's probable that the Defense establishment is captured by foreign and dmestic corporate interests with their respective relationships that no one wants to compromise.
Victor D. Cha has argued that American protection has encouraged countervailing entrapment and abandonment fears with the Japanese and South Korean establishments that discourages a settlement of their grievances. Cha argues that the U.S. should threaten pullback to encourage reconciliation. The same realist dynamic could also be at work in other regions, where a heavy American military presence encourages corrupting local elites to pursue their local agendas at the expense of American interests. I think the temptation to intervene and deploy for pre-emptive action is an indication that the U.S. military is corrupted by those who prosper through exploiting the legal order and American control of the sea and air lanes. I think the U.S. needs to remind these elites just how invaluable such protection is by redeploying to the transportation lanes, improving security, but also forcing locals and states to handle their own dirty laundry as long as it doesn't affect the global economy. American power has always rested on economic power through trade, and the military is a servant to the economy not its dictator. But American military forces are unable to serve the U.S. and world if its leadership is corrupted by its success.
Leonard R.
1. Are the Koreans paying for this forward deployment of American military? If no — why not?
2. I'm very dubious about the idea of a littoral ship base in Singapore. And I wonder who's paying for that too.
And who in Singapore is pocketing that money? How secure will that base's operations be?
Otherwise, I agree with the authors. Forward deployment is necessary. The US just seems to be picking odd places to do it. Guam is a natural choice. Maybe Darwin too, but I have to wonder about Singapore. And if the US is a trip-wire in Korea, I hope it is being paid well.
Errol T
Maybe because Singapore is in a strategic location? It's a primary route between the SCS and the Indian Ocean. I'm not sure but it's possible ships will be based from Manila, what with the VFA being expanded and all. I dont' know how likely that scenario is. But if so, the US Navy will have a chain of bases that would straddle the SCS, and even extend northeast towards SoKor and Japan.
Leonard R.
Manila would make a lot more sense than Singapore.
I don't know the details of the deployment. But I see no reason why Singapore is considered geographically well-situated or even trustworthy. I think it's a bad choice if the ships are intended for use in the waters between Manila, Danang and Hainan. It's outside their range for one thing.
Errol T
Perhaps because in Singapore, you have a good coverage on the Strait of Malacca. As much as the SCS is important, you can't get to it from the Indian Ocean without having to pass by Singapore. It's like holding the mouth of the bottle, in a way. And maybe US sailors would like to get some R&R in Singapore in their off-hours
Scott Baillargeon
To put his cogently, what you both suggest as ‘maintaining order’ appears more like maintaining an empire. The US cannot sustain a long-term commitment abroad as peace-keepers or worlds policemen – It’s simply impractical dollars and sense. Who will pay for this new military objective, the middle class? It’s simply not plausible. But I digress from my critique of your plan.
This argument is as old as the nation is itself. I did not find it in your essay, but you make no mention of the separation of government politics and military force; they do not go synonymous with each other, and one who believes that they do, has no business writing columns on international affairs.
Maintaining international military outposts costs a nation an exorbitant amount of money. Since WWII the purpose of leaving a limited military presence abroad was one of psychological means; military force only perpetuates aggression, not cohesion. However, by having a strong political stature, backed up with a strong military, placed somewhere on the horizon, just out of sight, creates an unknown variable where a potential foe might fumble and in doing so might create viable opportunities toward a political resolve, rather than a military one. Furthermore, leaving a ‘beefed-up’ military presence abroad does not symbolize strength, but weakness. Especially when our own economy is in downturn – this looks more like the action of a totalitarian government, rather than a government of peace and prosperity.
When did the US – meaning the people of the US – ever agree to become the world’s police regarding human rights violations? The US, since WWII, has made its policy plain; our goals abroad are only beneficial so long as they preserve the nation’s interests, beyond that it should not be our objective. By trying to take care of the entire world’s problems you run the risk of bankruptcy, negative attention, envy, jealousy, and entitlement. What you have proposed is lunacy, and cannot work in any democracy.
Another of your mistakes is to casually remove the voice of the US voter from your proposal. This nation is filled with conflicting opinions, ranging from extreme right and left wings and those in the middle who would wish to see a tax break and maybe less spending on foreign issues, but would enjoy military expenditures redirected into domestic programs and policies. The American people continue to polarize due to the fact that those that ‘have’ continue to fund social programs, foreign wars, and maintain, and proliferate, a military presence abroad on the backs of the ‘have-nots’. In short, by enacting perpetually higher taxes on the middle class to fund international military or human rights violation “extravaganzas” will never be popular with the American people.
You both sound like globalists and unfortunately your opinions are very one-sided and lack a complete understanding of how the US (its people) conducts business. Furthermore, it becomes very apparent that your line of thinking is indicative to the fact that you dislike Americans, but will drain this country dry in order to fulfill some insecure need to take care of everyone else!
The only way the plan that you’ve suggested here can be implemented without voter interference is to leave the American people in the dark about it – where it’ll go unnoticed which has worked for decades, but recently the American people have become aware of their “Rip Van Winkle” blundering.
Simply put, what does the US stand to gain – where is the incentive – by being international policemen? From where I stand there is none.
Victor
@Scott
Western democracy at home and imperialism abroad
John Chan
@Scott Baillargeon,
Although everything you said is sensible and logical, but it seems you do not know your own nation very well. USA society is made up of three sectors, the top sector is the 1% “important people,” then followed by the 20% “political class” and lastly the remaining bottom “bewildered herd.”
The “important people” decides USA international affairs and national policies, because these matters are too complex and important for the rest of USA population to understand and to participate.
The “political class” is relatively educated, more or less articulate, playing some role in the decision-making, they are in a position to design and implement policies to meet the wishes of the “important people.”
The “bewildered herd” is the spectators of action, they follow orders and keep out the way of the “important people,” their focus is the tabloids, the sitcoms, the Super Bowl and son on. Their social values are passivity, submissiveness to authority, the overriding virtue of greed and personal gain, lack of concern for others, fear of real or imagined enemies, etc.
The authors are the “political class,” the culture of the political class is visionary Globalism, a quest of continually restructure the US and the globe in ways that would ensure American centrality in world affairs. It is their faith to transform local disputes and contexts into “global” issues whose complexity and importance only they could truly understand. American Globalism is a profoundly ideological formulation of Washington’s thinking and strategizing about the world.
It seems you are taking on unnecessary trouble to know what’s is really happening to the USA and in the world, step into a rim that you shouldn’t have to, and put undue burden on the authors’ conscience.
Errol T
This is funny. You don't allow non-Chinese to comment about China because doing so is smearing China because we non-Chinese are jealous, resentful, and fearful of China.
And yet you claim knowledge of America and would comment about it?
Some of us may be resentful of China's unfair practices, and fearful of China's hawkish aggressions, but jealous? LOL Why would we want to be in your shoes? Pollution is worse compared to a lot of countries, your censors ban anything meaningful, Big Brother is in your lives in a bigger way. Why would we be jealous of those?
Scott Baillargeon
You, John Chan, lack a sufficient understanding of how the US works and your ignorance here is made plain in your response to my comment. You fail to understand that the US is not a communist country; the people here have the right to vote and express their political opinions regardless of their economic class without censorship. In short, sir, stick to matters of China where your overall concern right now should be regarding China’s failing economy; worthless inferior military which will only weaken your economy by creating exorbitant expenditures; and the failing ideals of communism which serve to only stifle its people while enslaving them.
Thanks for your rebuttal.Good day.
viva
Is it unmatched in debts???????????
An article on hubris.
Dan
This is the right thing to do safeguard the US' & its allies national interests as well as to preserve the regional security, peace & prosperity. Like it or not, that's the stark reality China must accept & try to live with it! Better worry about your own Chinese economy. It's faltering, don't you know that?
John Chan
@Dan,
The Wall St. said China’s economy seemed bottoming out, it is on the way up again, meanwhile USA’s economy will continue in doldrums due its relationship with Europe, and the Fed is preparing for QE4, Operation Twist, etc., and India’s economy will continue to go down due to its internal structural inefficiency and bad weather, don’t you know that?
USA’s military forward occupations in the Asia is to safeguard its hegemonic interests only, it is harmful to the security, peace and prosperity of Asia –Pacific. Yes USA’s forward military occupations in Asia is a stark reality, but it must be overturned one way or another; bit by bit the destructive predatory imperialists were kicked out of Asia in the last 200 years, the USA is just the remaining one. The USA can either leave gracefully or it can exit like in Korea War and Vietnam War.
a_canadian_observer
@John Chan:
"@Dan,
The Wall St. said China’s economy seemed bottoming out, it is on the way up again, meanwhile USA’s economy will continue in doldrums due its relationship with Europe, and the Fed is preparing for QE4, Operation Twist, etc., and India’s economy will continue to go down due to its internal structural inefficiency and bad weather, don’t you know that?"
– I wonder why you bother trusting the "Westpac's black media source" at all.
"USA’s military forward occupations in the Asia is to safeguard its hegemonic interests only, it is harmful to the security, peace and prosperity of Asia –Pacific. Yes USA’s forward military occupations in Asia is a stark reality, but it must be overturned one way or another; bit by bit the destructive predatory imperialists were kicked out of Asia in the last 200 years, the USA is just the remaining one. The USA can either leave gracefully or it can exit like in Korea War and Vietnam War."
– Keep on barking, but the Asian nations (except those few in the axis of evil, aka, china, NK Iran…) are welcoming the US' presence in Asia.
Dan
You're still daydreaming, John Chan. Without the US' strong presence in the region, all countries there will gang up against China (Japan, India, ASEAN, Australia, etc.). There'll be fierce arms races there & armed conflicts will easily break out at any time due to miscalculations & mistrusts of one another. Your dream of a sino-centric world will never come true. An authoritarian regressive regime disregarding any bit of human rights & international law, an aggressive assertive foreign policy obsessed with expansionist hegemonic ambitions frightening all other countries in the region, a faltering economy with no hope of recovery, a political crisis & growing social unrests etc., all together will bring an ambitious revisionist China down for good. Like it or not, that's the stark reality you should live with!
vic
Panetta – "We do not have to choose between national security and fiscal security".
If by national security one means taking on the world by military means, then one has to make sure that there is fiscal resources available for the military to fight endlessly. America has been doing this for quite sometime, eventually it will come up against fiscal limitation. Whether Panetta wants it or not, he will have to make the choice between endless wars and fiscal security.
vec
@vic
15 trillion dollars debt is chcken feed.
Nothing wrong with more borrowing
John Chan
@vec,
I agree with you, Americans should tell Obama, Ronney and the Tea Party to listen up, they must abolish deficit ceiling, just keep on printing treasury notes at will; since 15 trillions is chicken fee, the Fed better makes it 150 trillions a year, and stop paying interests on all the treasury notes is even better idea, it surly will make China lose shirt.
Tell Obama, Ronney and the Tea Party that if they don’t do what you say, they are traitors, and will be arrested by Homeland Security and sent to Guantanamo Bay for waterboarding.
Dan
How about China, John Chan? Where does your CCP get the Yuan to buy up the dollar everyday? From thin air, right? Actually, China's debt-to-GDP is at least 150% ( vs. US:100%)!
(…Despite that, the People's Daily said S&Ps downgrade of the U.S.'s credit rating "sounded the alarm bell for the dollar-denominated global monetary system. China owns an estimated $1.16 trillion in U.S. debt. China prints yuan to hold down its value so as to keep its exports dirt cheap. It then uses that extra printed currency to buy U.S. debt.
…Moody's said it discovered more potential loans after it found discrepancies in figures given to it by Chinese authorities. China's central bank alone holds an estimated $1.16 trillion in debt, and the government has already increased credit in the system to a reported 200% of GDP.
China's debt problem worse than Portugal–Elizabeth McDonald-FOXBusiness)
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/07/chinas-debt-problem-worse-than-portugal-1014895568/#ixzz20QNrWsP0}
John Chan
@Dan,
China does not print Yaun to buy up USD, it uses goods to exchange USD which is printed thru the thin air by the Fed. USA does not accept Yaun.
China government prints Yaun to finance its debt, not borrowing from outside; but USA borrows to finance its debt, therefore USA has the defaulting crisis, but not China. Japan finances its debt internally, therefore even its debt/GDP is few times higher than USA, its credit rating and Yen is still stronger than the USA.
Please study financing and economy before blabbing senselessly.
Dan
Thanks for your advice. One more thing very important you should know, ' No country in this world will default on its national debts denominated in its own currency unless it chooses to.' China and US all are monetarily sovereign, do you know that? In fact, China needs the US much more than the latter needs China . Mexico, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand etc. all are ready in line to take over China's current place in manufacturing the cheap goods for Western markets. If China had its own domestic consumer market, then that'd be another story.
John Chan
@Dan,
USA will default on its national debts denominated in its own currency when the interests on its debts is beyond the US government’s mean to borrow, because USD is a note issued by a private banking cartel, the Fed. USA must issue bond to borrow USD from the Fed and pay interests on the borrowings. China government does not need to borrow from its central bank, which is merely an agency of the government.
Your ignorance about China, its economy and industrial capabilities is just like your ignorance about the US currency and its debt. If China is like those nations, USA won’t take the trouble to pivot to Asia-Pacific with such vocal fabrication to smear China.
Keep on dreaming that “only the West can invent and only the West can succeed.”
a_canadian_observer
@John Chan:
"@Dan,
China does not print Yaun to buy up USD…"
– Right! china only counterfeit its own Yaun (Yuan)…:)
John Chan
@vec,
I agree with you, Americans should tell Obama, Ronney and the Tea Party to listen up, they must abolish deficit ceiling, just keep on printing treasury notes at will; since 15 trillions is chicken feed, the Fed better makes it 150 trillions a year, and stop paying interests on all the treasury notes is even better idea, it surly will make China lose shirt.
Dan
Actually, you're that very ignorant person, John Chan. You didn't know anything about the actual role of the Fed. So stop boasting about it. China's economy is on the way down the hill unstoppably: exports faltering, bad debts, troubled fixed-asset investment, rampant inflation, real estate bubble, political crisis, social unrest, etc. all of these will bring China down very soon. Use your common sense & good judgement , my poor comrade. Open your eyes to the stark reality. Don't be in denial & try to delude yourself anymore! Your leaders are trying to kick the can down the road to buy some more time, but it's not any help, sorry!
a_canadian_observer
@Dan: Also, from what I've learned, half of china's milionares are ready to move out of china, people instead of investing in real estate within china are now investing outside of china. I've seen a lot of that here in Toronto as well. These are just to name a few issue within china at the moment.
Nguyen
Forward military engagement is the correct and probably the only sensible option.The pivotal role of the US in this world is great to say the least. Where would this world be today if the US did not defeat imperial Japan or helped defeat the Nazi? This planet would be a different place altogether. Where would this world be if the US failed to confront the Soviet Union? Looking forward, the role the US still need to play is no less smaller. Forward military engagement with its allies is critical to maintaining security and stability around the world. Despite what others may say, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and the likes still pose security concerns to US and its allies. Lunatic ideas like claiming the South China Sea for yourself or that Israel must be wiped of the map still exist. Now it is definitely not the time to stick our heads in the gravel, unless we wish to be buried along with it.
John Chan
@Nguyen,
The US is so great as you praised, then why did the Vietnamese fight the American and its gang members for 10 years to kick them out of Vietnam at the cost of millions killed, untold number of deformed newborns caused by Agent Orange and hundreds of thousands crippled by the cluster bomblets?
Don’t you think the Vietnamese Government and Vietnamese all over the world should ask the American and its butcher gang members to show remorse the wrong they have done to those Vietnamese victims during the Vietnam War and compensate them?
Errol T
Good for you! Your defending the Vietnamese that you so prolifically ranted against. Your finally thinking of Vietnamese welfare. Now why don't you tell that to Hanoi, since Hanoi has been a lot more friendly to Washington?
John Chan
The authors insist the American military must be everywhere all the time regardless the cost; but this is USA’s policy since WWII, USA considers it owns the world, therefore it is indigenous everywhere, everybody else is foreigners; hence bombing and killing hapless nations into total destruction and millions dead is just doing what is necessary to keep its house in order with best intention, the punished should show gratitude to the gift from the Anglo-American culture.
Only authoritarian uses forces to put everybody toes its line and justifies its military occupation in the name of self-appointed leadership and maintaining stability. The article provides good justification for the USA’s smart forward military occupation all over the world all the time and makes the authoritarian happy.
Cyrus
"Contra principia negantem non est disputandum"
John Chan it would be useless to argue with you if you refused to follow the rules of the debate and tell mendacious tales.
Kangmin Zheng
US navies earn respect of people around the world. When can CCP start acting like US navies – rescue people at sea? CCP acts like low life pirates – robbing fish catch from Fillipino.
viva
@KangMin
CCP robs fish
Republican and Democrats (Pax America) robs everything from countries like Iraq,Mexico,Hawaii(Texas) etc.
What is good for the goose is good for gander???????????
Birds of feather flocking together??????????
Errol T
China is a flock of one. It's in a league of its own.
Oro Invictus
May I say kudos to the first person (following this post) not to rant about allegations of racism, denial, and/or being an "aggressive debtor" on the part of the authors. I do this sort of predictive post such that those who are going to post such comments see how woefully trite, predictable, and pointless their comments are and discourage them from doing so, if not because they have seen the self-defeating nature of their exhortations then out of embarrasement about having their predictable and flawed behaviour highlighted as such. I realize there is a risk of some now posting such comments out of childish defiance, but I believed it neccessary to expound on why I have made comments to this effect in the past (and will continue to do so to the extent and as long as proves necessary).
That said I will post an analysis of this article later, I just wanted to get this out of the way first.
viva
It is good to be self reflective and effect some justification to your comments.
Good show again.
Oro Invictus
… And, after a bit of a delay, my analysis.
First off, the article's titular notion that this piece is a "plea" seems erroneous; this article is merely serving to highlight what the US government is going to do and is, essentially, naught but PR rather than an actual argument designed to sway the US' actions. Both groups of Republican and Democratic representatives in the US government are largely in favour of following through with continued, widespread forward deployment of the US military and its related assets, whereas the American public, while war weary, is still largely in favour of such deployment of said assets outside of the Iraqi and Afghan theaters. While the US government is not in total agreement over how funding should be allocated in the coming years for the military (when has it ever?), it hardly represents any truly significant impact on US ability to sustain such endeavours (particularly, when considering how much it ballooned in the post-9/11 years, such that the decreases in spending still put it significantly above pre-9/11 projections of what the US defense budget would be at this time). Likewise, given past and current economic trends alongside comparable historic precedent worldwide, those hoping the US will be unable to sustain such spending and/or its overwhelming military advantage will be sadly disappointed for the foreseeable future (assuming no major and catastrophic event occurs); looking at it from a pan-historical perspective, the indicators simply aren’t there that the US is “turning inward”.
While US capability to engage in such affairs is not really in doubt, the question becomes should the US continue in such a manner and, if so, what impact will it have? While I simply lack the time (as I’m sure most do the interest) to expound on every facet of such matters, I will instead analyze how such moves place the US in a historical context and how they do so in an idealistic context. Historical perspective, even relativism, is important to gauge the behaviour (contemporary or otherwise) of a nation, while idealism helps remove the inherent risk presented by historical relativism of excusing the actions of a nation as, comparably, not being “as bad” as past groups.
Indeed, going by the behaviour of the US’ usage of its military, you would be hard-pressed to find any historical entity which has been a more benign entity when in possession of overwhelming primacy. I would contend that, in the known history of mankind, no comparable entity has been as benevolent while in its supremacy as the US and its military; while this may sound like glowing praise for the US, remember that those it is being compared to regularly engaged in horrendous atrocities, the US simply engages in ones less frequently and (relatively speaking) of lesser magnitude. Likewise, I do not consider this to be because of any sort of moral imperative inherent in the US and its military, simply the result of “national evolution”. Unlike its forebears, the basis of US strategy and diplomacy, whether conscious or otherwise, of acting as a relatively benign influence helps prolong its longevity as global primate by ensuring maximal support at home and abroad while also minimizing the reciprocal effects of negative actions in an ever more interconnected world. As such, when considering those demonizing the US foreign policies as being “the greatest threat to peace” or even one of the greater come off as, if you’ll forgive the bluntness of the following, “whining” considering what other nations in similar positions have done in the past; this is not to say they should not highlight when the US or any other entity does wrong, but such hyperbole only serves to obfuscate and taint the credibility of any criticism of US actions, thus obstructing the ability of useful criticism to serve as instigators of change. This is doubly so when many of these same individuals offering these embellished claims oft attempt to use historical precedent, real or otherwise, to support their arguments.
While the US may be viewed favourably in an historical context, in an idealistic one things become much more difficult to form any sort of moral judgement. On the one hand, especially as someone who believes all governments are contrary to the long-term wellbeing and self-determination of mankind, the idea of a “global leader” like the US makes me uneasy; at the same time though, I also know how all the other such “leaders” behaved in the past, and know much of the prosperity and (relative) peace we enjoy would likely not be possible were the US to lose or abdicate the responsibilities it has given itself. As such, it becomes an issue of where while the end of the US’ role as global leader could usher in an age of equality for all mankind and an end to much of the power of those few who constitute the various governments have over the many, it could also (and, indeed, has almost always historically when a relatively benign major power pulls back from the wider world) backfire and lead to a chaotic and uncertain world and/or one with a much less benevolent leader. Still, we cannot shy away from the promise of a better world and become complacent lest we stagnate socially, but a prudent course of action would be to ensure we are able to reverse things should this sort of social transformation go off-track.
Given the above, if the US leadership is serious about seeking a better world, it would be well-advised to begin sharing more in both the responsibilities and the benefits whatever endeavours these forward deployments involve, not just to traditional allies or those nations with resources but to all. That way, each group gains a hand in shaping the future, while the US can serve as a bulwark against negative change as power is transferred from them to all people; while it might mean the US would be facilitating the death of their role as world leader, it would bring about a world in which no one group has more say than another, and is that not the stated goal of the US? The belief that all men are created equal? How much less tension would there be in such a world where the PRC would be forced to deal with the other nations of the SCS as equals, where it lacked the power to try and strong-arm any one other? How much quicker would the Israeli-Palestinian issue be resolved if both groups had to come to a level table, free from hubris or spite? While, in such a world, the US might not possess the power over other nations it once had, it would be safer and more prosperous than it ever had been, as would all others. The US, alongside all other nations, may have to give up their swords, but in their absence they would also have no need of their shields, being able to set the burden of carrying them aside and trek freely into the future.
Scott Baillargeon
First off, Oro Invictus, I would like to applaud your respectful criticism of the US. It was done with integrity, which is the opposite of what I have received regarding my own comments concerning this article. I should like to also premise by stating your contradictions over your inner conflictions concerning what role the US should actually assume. It seems you do not wish to see any government assume so much power and would rather live in a world free of borders, but are forced to rail against that idea because a world without borders cannot exist without suffering due to inequality. I face these conflictions as well. The role of any government will always be a gift, and a curse to the people it so governs. However, having the luck of being born of a free country I have little to complain about.
Though we are mostly in agreement, there are, however, certain ideologies that you, and others, possess regarding the character of the US and its overall intentions concerning the world at large that give me pause. You state in your comment that, “[o]n the one hand, especially as someone who believes all governments are contrary to the long-term wellbeing and self-determination of mankind, (which I agree in total) the idea of a “global leader” like the US makes me uneasy; at the same time though, I also know how all the other such “leaders” behaved in the past, and know much of the prosperity and (relative) peace we enjoy would likely not be possible were the US to lose or abdicate the responsibilities it has given itself.” I take issue with you, and many others, who seem to be under the assumption that the US ever had a choice in assuming this role as “global leader”.
You postulate that the US has bestowed this responsibility to itself, and in part, you are correct, but not entirely so. I would argue that the US has had to assume this role due to, in large part, the aftermath of WWII. The US was the only nation left intact in 1945. The Truman Doctrine which was designed as a countermeasure against communist expansion, and it is important to note that the US had decided early in this undertaking to distinguish between “good” and “bad” communists, along with the Marshall Plan, which was US aid to Europe in its reconstruction, the US assumed the role as, you have put it, “global leader”, or “morally obliged leader”, as I have come to perceive it. My point, simply put is, had the US refused to provide/extend a safety net to Europe after WWII the geography of the world would not resemble its contemporary self. Britain, France, Spain, Portugal etc. lacked the resources in 1945 to undertake – while trying to rebuild their cities – the burden of becoming a protector for all of Europe that the imposed fear that an expansion of communism might deliver.
In essence then, after WWII, Europe was completely defenseless and outspent. The US did not give itself this responsibility; it had no other choice but to assume the responsibility of protector to Europe from Stalin and communist expansion which threatened the well-being of all of Europe – not to mention the well-being of the US. Albeit, I am not going to state naively that the US didn’t have a lot to gain by providing aid to Europe during this time, but its overall choice to assist Europe was a mostly selfless act. Once the US assumed this daunting, moral obligation, it became tethered to the fate of the world and therefore is now unable to break from this disposition, as you have said, because peace and prosperity would dissipate in a matter of years.
As per your request that the US ought to share the burden of this challenge with other nations in order to create solidarity, or austerity, is a thought born of folly. How could the US entrust the safety of certain groups and nations to other nations whose past has been so corrupt; possessed so much abhorrence toward certain other groups and been so destructive? Do you suggest Britain should share this load, Australia, France, or Canada with the US? The US is the only nation that can honestly stand among the rest as a nation that seeks freedom and prosperity for all countries in the world, because it is within the national character of the US to impose such values upon other, oppressive regimes, nations, and regions. Albeit the US, from time to time, has made its mistakes where avarice replaced selflessness, but overall the US record for maintaining order beyond its shores has been exemplary compared to what the alternative could’ve essentially been, but enough of me espousing my subjective nationalism for a moment.
I agreed with the crux of your comment, and I feel the US is overextending itself, especially now where private contractors are taking the place of trained military professionals to implement prosperity, safety, and supervise in the reconstruction of dilapidated regions abroad. This will ultimately be the downfall of the US – since, it is indicative, simply in the comments on this thread alone, that the perceived international character of the US has degraded over time and this new development, concerning the implementation of private civilian contractors, will only hasten the degradation exponentially.
The US is an empire, of sorts, whose objectives are not simply for monetary gain – on most occasions – which is unlike the character of previous empires that have occupied the world stage. The imposition of the US is to implement human rights ordinance and maintain stability within turbulent regions abroad keeping itself and its allies safe from international harm. However, the US is not unlike those previous empires, and is therefore susceptible to collapse without the necessary economic resources to sustain its immense expanse. Furthermore, sustainability, of not only the US but of the preservation of peace and prosperity abroad provided by the US, is going to require the assistance of trusted allies, or else, the US will eventually crumble under the weight of its overextension. (Somewhere, someone is cheering for this scenario.) This challenges the domestic perception of this responsibility as well. Because the US is in such an economic downturn many voters, albeit uninformed, suggest a downsizing of the US military presence abroad – which I have made quite plain in my initial comment concerning this article.
This issue has multiple facets and none can assume to know them all. The US commitments abroad are becoming a quagmire where it will eventually cause internal harm to the country itself. If you enjoy the peace and prosperity that the US has provided for the world, and wish it to continue, then other countries, not just the old alliances, as you have stated, need to step forward and assist, selflessly, in this effort to endure this way of life so that we all can prosper in the long term – which is, I believe in essence, what you have suggested.