The author of this piece has, in other places, made a powerful case against the overestimation of American strategic decline, yet if history is any guide at all some decline is inevitable. The overall objective, in my view, is to place both the nation and those places in the world that are amenable to it in a position such that decline is manageable and not fraught with the chaos and instability that other such strategic declines have shown. Here Britain is a superb model and Rome is not. Whether it is a case of American senescence or simply world growth, the strategic balance must eventually change.
There are two basic poles to this strategic direction.
The GOP that once spearheaded Eisenhower’s boots-on-the-ground commitment to Europe and later united behind Bush père et fils in the wars against Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, is threatening to divide along the classic axis of isolationism vs. interventionism.
It is a classic axis indeed. If we have learned nothing else from the 20th century it is that Fortress America is potentially disastrous; conversely, an attempt at unlimited internationalism is prone to over-extension in terms of men and material, "imperial overstretch". Doctrines of collective security were a theoretically sound compromise that functioned with varying degrees of efficiency for years so long as an external threat was present to cement the teams together. Hence NATO, SEATO, and a number of smaller such attempts.
Absent that external threat the whole thing can, and has, devolved into an odd globalist/internationalist stew where the resources of the dominant partner are directed by the representatives of others who (1) have other, even conflicting strategic interests - the "non-aligned" nation bloc in the UN, for example, and (2) have a disproportionately small amount of their own national resources committed, those that are being far less than the ambitions of the strategic aims require.
It is not a case of selfless idealism that has the U.S. contributing to international efforts that serve against U.S. interests, it is, despite copious propaganda to the contrary, a case of suicidal stupidity. It is also a massive waste of resources.
The decline of the second British Empire was superbly managed but it was also aided in a soft landing by the advent of the American counterpart. It is difficult to imagine a similar ending to any serious future American decline. It would be wonderful to accomplish the overall strategic aim I mentioned above, arranging such a soft landing through the establishment of a world order wherein the attractions of war are in similar decline. That end might justify the interventionism necessary to effect it, were it possible at all. Hence the attraction of interventionism. The trouble is that it isn't possible.
There is the additional complication of an ideological reality within American politics that a large number of its adherents do not themselves have American strategic interests uppermost in their list of priorities, and not simply, as the author cites, within the GOP. The staff of the existing administration contains individuals who have proudly proclaimed their open disdain for both country and interests, choosing instead a strategic vision that requires American decline at a brisk pace and with enough accompanying misfortune as to serve as a punishment for America's past sins both internally and internationally. Theirs is a larger vision, a "greater good", and the success, the dream, the very existence of their own country is in the way.
To a great degree the success of post-war American policy depended on its continuity - the doctrine of containment passed from Democrat administration to Republican and back again more or less intact. In this case a strategic doctrine worthy of the name, i.e. one spanning decades, is possible. Where one side regards the other as the true enemy and its country as a stain on the world, that sort of overall strategic doctrine may well be impossible to effect at all. An objective of liberty is incompatible with an aim of world socialism, or of a world Caliphate, for that matter.
And yet a strategy of liberty is necessarily messy, local, and short on grand structure. If the overall strategic direction of the United States is trending toward the smaller, the local, the more ad hoc engagements, it is not necessarily a sign of decline, but of economy.
Nevertheless, one cannot despair altogether. Expansionism, especially of the violent variety, can prove ruinously expensive, as Cuba and Vietnam learned, as the Soviet Union eventually learned, and as Iran is learning today. China is not exempt from that iron rule. "We've got the money, too," as the author quotes, cuts both ways.
If, however, the United States continues down its European road of increasingly unaffordable social spending, we won't any more than they do now.
...While the U.S. still spends about 4 percent of gross domestic product on defense, the Europeans are down to 1.
The social dislocation necessary to change that in short enough order to be effective is unlikely to be pretty; indeed, in history it has occurred nearly solely as a result of war. That appears to be an iron rule as well. Just some dark thoughts on a rainy Sunday evening.
Bravo!
Excellent essay, Bill.
I learned more from your comment than I did from the posted article.
An excellent and reasonably comprehensive article about the military situation of the US vis-a-vis the rest of the world. It is worth coming back to look at a few times.
You, Bill, have made some astute observations about it, also.
With some really glaring false premises.
He doesn't even mention the demographic meltdown occurring in Europe with Islam moving to take the continent. That is idiotic.
He pretends that American deterrence is the reason the Russians don't move on the oil states? Really?
He fails to note that it is high oil and gas prices that fund the Russian military and that this is easily remediable by taking on our own regulatory morass just as Reagan did.
He fails to note that America is logistically VERY fragile. We are killing our rural survival base. We are extending our food supply lines abroad. We maintain at most two weeks of food within reach of any urban center. Much of that food requires electrified refrigeration. All fuel requires electricity to pump it without manual backup. Almost all of our water supplies and sewage systems require electric pumping. We are augmenting our carefully raised violent urban underclass with an even more violent urban underclass with motive for conquest having an established weapons supply system spanning the continent.
Look at what Sandy just did. This blind fool assumes this nation is ready to defend its own homeland in war when it can barely care for itself in a peacetime natural disaster!