AMERICAN POWER IN A UNIPOLAR WORLD (Long but Good)

AEI Irving Kristol Lecture, Washington, D.C. | Feb. 10, 2004 | Charles Krauthammer

[sully777]

American power in a bipolar world

[NYFriend]

Great, if necessarily simplistic article. The reality is that this period of supreme American global dominance is unlikely to last much past mid century. China and Europe will probably rise. China seems driven be become a regional power and Europe will probably interest itself in Africa and the Middle East but not much else. South and Latin America are of little interest to anyone at this time, and I'm not sure what will change that. Fifty years is a long time, and I guess Brazil or someone else might take a leadership role there. Actually, US (specifically USAID) efforts at establishing real democracy in LA might ultimately permit them to clean up their act and develop economically, and therefore unite to become a regional power on their own. Right now the people are poor enough that they squabble amoungst themselves and couldn't organize. I am also not sure where the UK, Canada and the Aussies will go. We may end up with an English speaking alliance that may or may not include Japan (which is quite bipolar on militarism and allegiance to the US). Either way, your looking at three major regional powers in the next fifty years. Their borders seem somewhat set, so they might not fight each other (Long Cycle and Global Hegemon theories aside) Add to this the possibility of Nigeria becoming a regional power in Africa and the outside possibility of a united Islamic alliance, and you end up with the the potential for wars between the major powers (US and Europe who need the resources of the Global South for our economies, and China who has boarder and other more ancient disputes with Islam) and these possible regional powers.

There is another, much more remote, possibility. The Global South (used to be Third World) my clump together into one or two economic alliances and threaten the fully industrialized Global North, thus forcing a neo-mercantalist kind of a conflict. Either way, there is next to no change that the US will remain the only dominant power for very long. Nor should we want to, because the drain on our resources would be substantially. Frankly, globalization and free trade are good for us, because they lessen the effort we need to expend to maintain either this world systems or any other that is favorable (both militarily and economically) to us. Also, I'm about as much of a neo-Realist as you'll find today. There other concerns, such as environmental degradation and over population are potential concerns that the US, as Global Superpower, might need to take the lead on. While I'd say to do it only when it threatens our security interests, most others take a more Liberal view.

[misharu]

Holy smokes!! This guy has it nailed!!

[jim35]

An excellent read.

[Ancesthntr]

...but if somebody breaks into your house, you call 911, and the police arrive with guns drawn.

If someone invades your house, you call the cops.

Wrong, Charlie: when someone breaks into/invades your house, it is too late to call 911. You shoot the ba$tard(s), then call in the cops to help clean up the mess and give you advice as to how to prevent a repeat. The same applies internationally: Nations that are threatened by invasion from powerful nations would be infinitely better off being as prepared as possible to inflict the greatest possible price on such a neighbor, and to call the US for aid after the war of self-defense is over to ask for military aid. Which country was better off after a war with a powerful neighbor was over, Belgium (which surrendered to the Germans after a month in 1940) in 1945 or Israel in 1973 (which fought like Hell and defeated the Arabs, albeit with a fair amount of US aid)?

Otherwise a pretty good article, specifically those parts that ridicule/tear down the arguments of the isolationists and the liberal internationalists.

[gobucks]

Ditto. But, there are a few omissions, critical omissions in this tour de force.

It totally captures the entire truth he's politically allowed to address; it's comprehensive in that.

The root desire of leftists, he says,

To turn the law of the jungle into the rule of law -- of treaties and contracts and U.N. resolutions. In short, to remake the international system in the image of domestic civil society.

This sentence alone captures a core essential truth of the leftist's desire. But, there is a document, a well known document, that morally under girds, and fuels, this religious desire of religious leftists - and they are ALL religious, theirs cries of protest notwithstanding.

Dearest Charles, wisely, omitted it's mention. But it is that document that is driving this outlook nonetheless. FWIW, that document's essential meaning has been distorted and hijacked (I'm not sure of this last statement, yet - for I'm still trying to understand the document myself - but I'm sure it is indeed this particular document.).

What Charles omitted, wisely as well, is that there is another document which morally under girds the idea of reason, of truth, and indeed fuels democratic globalism. And that document I will identify - the New Testament, with it's necessary background document, the Old Testament. The idea of truth, absolute truth, is underneath democracy - and before Christ, no one believed in absolute truth.

And that idea of absolute truth is religious. Sorry Charlie, but truth is a religious idea. Your entire article, every word which I agree with 100 percent, nonetheless disguises what you are actually cheer leading here: in absolute terms, a crusade.

I agree with your argument about how Amercian power should be used; but even more, western power is a function of the work of Christian missionaries.

I hope you don't mind my clearing up a bit what you had no choice about omitting. Loved your article!

[gobucks]

Thank you LavaDog - this was the second outstanding article I have read today. Ping to you other folks - I think you'll like this too.

[gobucks]

Hey there ... you might want to consider this article for your ping list. I think the arguments within it are central to Israeli security.

[VOA]

we can see clearly the two great geopolitical challenges on the horizon: the inexorable
rise of China and the coming demographic collapse of Europe, both of which will
irrevocably disequilibrate the international system.

We can hope that
1. China will continue to get more Christianized, via the underground "home church"
movement.
2. Some Islamics do something grossly offensive in France/Germany...so bad that
the Europeans say "go back to Arabia, the whole lot of you!".

[VRW Conspirator]

In the unipolar world we inhabit, what stability we do enjoy today is owed to the overwhelming power and deterrent threat of the United States.

Great Read!!!!

The quote above is the reason people around the world both sleep at night and gnash their teeth.

[nopardons]

Thanks for the ping. Interesting reply, BTW; thoughtful too. :-)

[cornelis]

Thanks for the ping.

The author is careful not to mention religion, no doubt for very good justifiable reasons. All the same, I agree with you. It seems that argumentation for the sake of good against evil apart from religion is a sham. The authors I have read that more or less counter the immanentist view are Plato, Aristotle, Eric Voegelin, F. A. Hayek, H. Dooyeweerd, Whittaker Chambers, Willmoore Kendall, Vaclav Havel, (even Leo Strauss), and others.

[SJackson]

Thans

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

Yes, it is long, but it's Kurauthammer.

[Valin]

Yes, it is long, but it's Kurauthammer.

Yes and that means it's good.

Thanks for the ping.

As an aside this is going to drive the paleocons right up the wall.
And that's always...interesting.

[expatguy]

Thanks for posting this.

[WaterDragon]

Outstanding! A lot of food for thought, here.

[Cicero]

Well, both of you are right. In the model Krauthammer proposes, if somebody attacks America, we are ready to respond instantly as necessary. If somebody attacks one of our allies, then they have a choice of calling 911--which is us--or of preparing in reasonable fashion to defend themselves until we arrive. Of course they would be wiser to have some means to defend themselves as well as to call on us.

[Windsong]

"And that idea of absolute truth is religious. Sorry Charlie, but truth is a religious idea. Your entire article, every word which I agree with 100 percent, nonetheless disguises what you are actually cheer leading here: in absolute terms, a crusade."

But of course. We in the U.S. are the Great Satan, doncha know..

Perhaps Bush should have just left the mantra to "Infinite Justice" instead of that pc "Enduring Freedom" crap.