Skip to comments.New Rules for a US Superpower
Posted on 07/18/2012 8:33:15 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
As the balance of world power shifts, the US is developing a novel range of diplomatic, social, economic, political and security tools to fix the worlds complex new geopolitical problems.
I touched down in Beijing in May for the fourth round of the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue with a jam-packed agenda, but the worlds attention was focused instead on the fate of a blind human rights dissident who had sought refuge in the American embassy. Suddenly, an already delicate trip had become an outsized test of the US-China relationship.
Throughout history, the rise of new powers usually has played out in zero-sum terms. So it is not surprising that the emergence of countries such as China, India and Brazil has raised questions about the future of the global order that the United States, the United Kingdom and our allies have helped build and defend. Against this backdrop, those few days in May took on even greater significance: could the US and China write a new answer to the old question of what happens when an established power and rising power meet?
When I became secretary of state in early 2009, there were questions about the future of Americas global leadership. .....
(Excerpt) Read more at newstatesman.com ...
Nothing but Obama lapdog (her job, right)
..it’s hard to sound tough and slam your fist down when holding a shot glass.
“...US is developing a novel range of diplomatic, social, economic, political and security tools to fix the worlds complex new geopolitical problems...”
Give me a break.
She’s as dumb as a toad...er...as dumb as the Obamadork.
Should have used Hillary’s own title
“The art of smart power”
Obama Era Diplomacy:
1. - Always wear your official Obama kneepads
2. - Learn how to properly bow to petty tyrants and America's enemies
Will go down in history as having made one of the worst political decisions of any power-hungry politician... taking her current job (and selling out America’s interests for BHO)...
Like it or not, Hillary actually might have had a chance at the Presidency at one time...
For stuff US did or didn't do. Even for 'perceived' injustice.
Because we are US, therefore we are at fault.
Right off the bat, she started lying.
>>> A lot has changed in three years. Under President Obamas leadership, the US has ended the war in Iraq and begun a transition in Afghanistan
Neither is credited to Obama’s ‘leadership’.
Nah...MAYBE head of the UN...but she’s too much of an old hag now....
The White House and State Department have been running the Navy ragged the past three years, trying to solve everything with offshore airfields and disaster relief operations. The op tempo is higher than during the Cold War and the budgets have been rigged via “sequestration” to cut not only the fat, but also the meat and a bit of the bone. The US has run to and fro whenever the Russians and Chinese have used their backdoor influence to cause problems (Can we all say “Syria is next”, boys and girls?). No strategy in the Executive Branch (except to punish the US for being an economic colonial power), just run people and equipment hard enough until both give up and quit.
Practically speaking, it has become too expensive for the US to be the world’s policeman.
While the obvious solution is for there to be a return to world powers policing their own spheres of influence, or a world policeman like the UN, these have both proven to be both fruitless and unstable alternatives.
World powers, on their own, become contentious, and as a group (like the UNSC) become stymied or feckless. And a UN army has proven to be awful, full of the dregs of the third world, raping and looting their way in already devastated lands.
Thus the best solution would be to create a “Multi-National Private Army” that would be far cheaper than the US military to operate, but would be managed by the US military. Importantly, it would not be used for advanced modern warfare, which would be reserved for the US military, but for minor, light infantry, low intensity missions, such as extended peacekeeping and disaster relief.
These type missions are the most expensive and largest waste of US military resources. It is foolish to spend $100,000 to train a US soldier who uses $1m in equipment, to keep two tribesmen who live in mud huts from stabbing each other with spears. When all you need is a somewhat disciplined minimum wage soldier with a rifle and rations.
The US could use the French Foreign Legion as a model for this, quartering such soldiers offshore, likely on a Caribbean island, so it could employ talented foreign nationals, under the command of US NCOs and officers.
Their transport and logistics would also be handled by the US military.
But this would not only save vast amounts of US blood and treasure, it would allow us to send soldiers to places we are loathe to send our soldiers (namely Africa).
The US military could maintain or even improve its readiness for any serious conflicts, while not having to mess with degrading petty squabbles and miseries of a thousand nasty places around the world.
And because such contractors would be private, if the US president got a wild hair and decided to send them on a suicide mission, or to start a war with a real army, then they could just politely decline.
She was assuring us the US and China have ‘excellent working relations’.
Until conflict(s) develop between our interests, that is. Then ‘smart power’ takes over.