The Changing Nature of US Power
In Sebastian Mallaby’s October 23rd Washington Post Op-Ed piece, "A Nadir of U.S. Power," he points out that the United States has reached significantly low points both militarily and diplomatically. He states that adding more troops to our military problem "…seems tragically futile," and that "tough-talk diplomacy" and even our traditional methods of diplomacy are faltering. Mallaby is absolutely correct, but his well-written piece would be more aptly titled "A Change in the Nature of U.S. Power." Change implies that we as a nation and especially our political leadership must learn to function geopolitically given an entirely new set of operating principles.
Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has enjoyed being the dominant partner in world politics whether it involved the U.N., N.A.T.O., or other political, trade, or military associations. The driving forces behind that were the strong U.S. post-war economy, our primacy in conventional and nuclear warfare, and the presence of the global threat of communism.
Nations with weaker economies and smaller militaries felt pressure to ally themselves with one side or the other during the cold war. Many chose to take advantage of the resource hungry U.S. and its incredibly powerful consumer economy that could buy their local products and natural resources.
It was during this period that the U.S. diplomatic culture developed into that of what we believed was a benevolent, though considerably shortsighted, world power. Our diplomats were relatively immature in how they dealt with the rest of the world because they had been able to rely more upon economic and military strength and less upon negotiation to achieve their end goals. Most U.S. diplomats will certainly argue that negotiation has always been foremost in U.S. foreign policy, but the point here is that it has usually been from a position of significant dominance, which by definition changes the nature of any negotiation.
True diplomacy requires leaders who can work with competing stakeholders to build consensus to resolve a given issue, and by necessity, that has been the predominant diplomatic culture of most of the other nations of the world. They have had to figure out ways to maneuver the superpowers into taking positions that are to their own advantage and this takes much more diplomacy, positioning, and consensus building skill. It is a serious weakness in the managers of U.S. foreign policy and it has come to its zenith during the Bush Administration.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, smaller countries with weaker militaries no longer look to the U.S. for as much protection and support. The rise of globalization and international trade implies that more countries now have—or at the very least—are beginning to have more leverage over the resource dependant and consumer driven United States. The capability of a few determined people to cause immense destruction and political chaos render our large, nuclear backed military relatively impotent in certain situations.
Recent world events provide ample evidence that tough talk and an overly U.S.-centric worldview are no longer as effective as they once were. Our military as it is currently structured and employed is not capable of dealing with the predominant threats we now face. We are virtually alone in our war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations. There is support from some of our traditional allies, but even the hardy Brits are growing weary of flawed U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy. Tough talk has driven nations like Iran and North Korea deeper into their own tough stances against us, and our extremist enemies are by definition willing to use much more violence to achieve their aims than our own society will allow us. We must now use that power differently.
No one advocates letting rogue states, terrorists, or other entities get away with criminal behavior. Rather, the U.S. should put more effort into building a genuine case for political support, and decisive military action as appropriate by collaborating with the more reasonable nations of the world.
It is time for U.S. leaders and policy makers to realize that we can no longer define what is right for everyone else. We must now ensure that whatever we negotiate for the benefit of the U.S. is not detrimental to our international neighbors because it will come back to haunt us. We must realize that we are now negotiating from of a position of relative equality compared to just 15-years ago.
It is time for us to mature diplomatically and collaborate with the world community in order to put an end to our growing political isolation, and it is time to redefine our understanding and use of military power to increase the likelihood of success against our enemies.
Mallaby asks "…has there been a worse moment for American power since Ronald Reagan celebrated morning in America almost a quarter century ago?" Probably not, but it certainly is not the end to U.S. power. We simply need to learn what our new powers are and use them in more globally astute ways than we have in the past.
Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has enjoyed being the dominant partner in world politics whether it involved the U.N., N.A.T.O., or other political, trade, or military associations. The driving forces behind that were the strong U.S. post-war economy, our primacy in conventional and nuclear warfare, and the presence of the global threat of communism.
Nations with weaker economies and smaller militaries felt pressure to ally themselves with one side or the other during the cold war. Many chose to take advantage of the resource hungry U.S. and its incredibly powerful consumer economy that could buy their local products and natural resources.
It was during this period that the U.S. diplomatic culture developed into that of what we believed was a benevolent, though considerably shortsighted, world power. Our diplomats were relatively immature in how they dealt with the rest of the world because they had been able to rely more upon economic and military strength and less upon negotiation to achieve their end goals. Most U.S. diplomats will certainly argue that negotiation has always been foremost in U.S. foreign policy, but the point here is that it has usually been from a position of significant dominance, which by definition changes the nature of any negotiation.
True diplomacy requires leaders who can work with competing stakeholders to build consensus to resolve a given issue, and by necessity, that has been the predominant diplomatic culture of most of the other nations of the world. They have had to figure out ways to maneuver the superpowers into taking positions that are to their own advantage and this takes much more diplomacy, positioning, and consensus building skill. It is a serious weakness in the managers of U.S. foreign policy and it has come to its zenith during the Bush Administration.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, smaller countries with weaker militaries no longer look to the U.S. for as much protection and support. The rise of globalization and international trade implies that more countries now have—or at the very least—are beginning to have more leverage over the resource dependant and consumer driven United States. The capability of a few determined people to cause immense destruction and political chaos render our large, nuclear backed military relatively impotent in certain situations.
Recent world events provide ample evidence that tough talk and an overly U.S.-centric worldview are no longer as effective as they once were. Our military as it is currently structured and employed is not capable of dealing with the predominant threats we now face. We are virtually alone in our war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations. There is support from some of our traditional allies, but even the hardy Brits are growing weary of flawed U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy. Tough talk has driven nations like Iran and North Korea deeper into their own tough stances against us, and our extremist enemies are by definition willing to use much more violence to achieve their aims than our own society will allow us. We must now use that power differently.
No one advocates letting rogue states, terrorists, or other entities get away with criminal behavior. Rather, the U.S. should put more effort into building a genuine case for political support, and decisive military action as appropriate by collaborating with the more reasonable nations of the world.
It is time for U.S. leaders and policy makers to realize that we can no longer define what is right for everyone else. We must now ensure that whatever we negotiate for the benefit of the U.S. is not detrimental to our international neighbors because it will come back to haunt us. We must realize that we are now negotiating from of a position of relative equality compared to just 15-years ago.
It is time for us to mature diplomatically and collaborate with the world community in order to put an end to our growing political isolation, and it is time to redefine our understanding and use of military power to increase the likelihood of success against our enemies.
Mallaby asks "…has there been a worse moment for American power since Ronald Reagan celebrated morning in America almost a quarter century ago?" Probably not, but it certainly is not the end to U.S. power. We simply need to learn what our new powers are and use them in more globally astute ways than we have in the past.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home