Will the War on Iraq mark the end of USA's global superpower status?

[Navaros]

A few weeks ago I was watching a local political show. They had regional experts discussing the War on Iraq.

One of them said that if the USA remains in Iraq for decades, then that will mark the end of the USA as a global superpower.

What do you think of this?

Will the War on Iraq mark the end of USA's global superpower status?

[Pannonian]

No. But an additional War on Iran will.

[ajaxfetish]

No. It may be a weakening feature, but I think America's status as the world's superpower is more likely to slowly wane over time than get taken down by a single event, even a long one. The Vietnam War didn't end the US superpower status either. America's a big nation, and it's possible to bounce back from mistakes. The rise of China's probably the biggest factor working toward America's eventual demotion.

Ajax

[Navaros]

The rise of China's probably the biggest factor working toward America's eventual demotion.



That was part of the point that the pundit made. That since China and others weren't bogged down in wars they will advance way past the USA within decades if the USA is.

[TevashSzat]

Like people before said, the war itself won't but it will help lower American reputation in the eyes of many people around the world which indirectly decreases America's power

[Marshal Murat]

The unfortunate thing is that China is tied to America, at least for now. Their currency is attached to our Federal Reserve. I think I got that right.

I don't think that the War in Iraq will really affect U.S.dominance.
It would change if America adopts an isolationist policy. All the people too afraid of the U.S. would throw in their power. The only thing that really keeps China, India, Pakistan,and half the under-developed world from throwing their weight around is the fear of America's intervention.
:china: would probably push N.K. to take S.K., and they take Taiwan, Japan, and a couple other Asian countries.
China could take any country in Asia on, and stand a chance of winning, but if America is there, then we can crash their economy and destroy them militarily.

I think that without the U.S.S.R., the world would have been much more safe.

Military-Industrial Complex.

[Ice]

No, not a chance. The USA will remain a superpower for a very long time. We are the third largest and arguably the most technologically advanced country in the world. We aren't going anywhere.

[AntiochusIII]

China is rich and strong, but it isn't that strong. It is plagued with an unbelievable amount of problems sustained only by the continuous economic growth and effective government oppression.

In any case, their modern colonialism takes many forms: direct oppression and culture-cleansing (Tibet), puppet states (N.K.), and, quite popularly from what I've heard, economic ties. I don't really think Beijing cares for some bloodletting campaigns just to make their expansion geographical.

As for myself, I don't really care much for USA being superpower or whatever. I no longer take pride in the might and glory of nation states =/ All I care is for the economy to be, you know, good. So I can have my little corner of the world to myself knowing I won't be wandering the streets because some bloody Depressions set in.

[CrossLOPER]

Forget it, never mind.

[Xiahou]

The unfortunate thing is that China is tied to America, at least for now.
Do you mean "fortunate"? Because I fail to see how that's an "unfortunate" thing.... :shrug:

[Marshal Murat]

I would rather we be seperate entities, not two Titans locked in combat. Either way, it still works.
I would rather the U.S. rely on her own industries, and not those of China, but we are the biggest consumer.

Either way.

[rory_20_uk]

Although the Iraq war is an added drain on already strained coffers, the American economy was living on borrowed time before it started. If the Eastern countries stopped buying American dollars (in essence buying their own goods back) America would be in far greater problems that the war in Iraq. After all, they can pull out of Iraq, but they would find it much harder to suddenly wipe out their national deficit.

America's effective might is waning, merely as others are becoming more strong. In different times would the British Empire put up with Iran? No! We'd have marched in, given Jonny Foreigner a good kicking and pinched his country. These days the stakes so quickly come too high to contemplate action. Even impoverished dumps like North Korea can exist.

~:smoking:

[BDC]

I blame Mr Kalashnikov personally. When any peasant and his goats can afford a cheap, reliable, fairly accurate and lethal automatic rifle, the world becomes a dangerous place.

So much easier to conquer people when all they had were sticks.

[Watchman]

They'd actually be many times as dangerous if they had semiautos you know. SKS or something like that. Untrained idiots (ie. regular Joes) given automatic weapons have a notorious tendency to forget the safe has settings other than "Auto", which is actually only supposed to be used for fairly specific purposes and in fairly specific circumstances...

With semiautos or bolt-actions they wouldn't be able to "spray and pray" and would aim instead. Wanna speculate what the Coalition casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan would be like for one if that were the case...? :scared:

[BDC]

They'd actually be many times as dangerous if they had semiautos you know. SKS or something like that. Untrained idiots (ie. regular Joes) given automatic weapons have a notorious tendency to forget the safe has settings other than "Auto", which is actually only supposed to be used for fairly specific purposes and in fairly specific circumstances...

With semiautos or bolt-actions they wouldn't be able to "spray and pray" and would aim instead. Wanna speculate what the Coalition casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan would be like for one if that were the case...? :scared:
True, I suppose. Only they'd miss most the time anyway.

Still be easier if they just had sticks...

[KukriKhan]

Good points. Any group (gang, tribe, militia, army) needs to "shoot, move, and communicate". Kalishnikov's, Toyotas, and Nokias have made those conditions possible in even the most remote areas of the world today.

Making "Super-power", and whoever aspires to it, irrelevant.

[Odin]

That was part of the point that the pundit made. That since China and others weren't bogged down in wars they will advance way past the USA within decades if the USA is.

Did the pundit mention that the majority of China's economic growth is from manufacturing of goods sold in the U.S.?

There are a lot of people predicting the rise of China and the decline of the U.S. while to a degree that might be true, China is dependant on U.S. consumption (as is the rest of the world) for its sustained economic growth.

The U.S. has over extended its volunteer military, but for the most part U.S. society hasnt paid any price for this war (no rationing, no draft, no additional taxes). If the U.S. continues its current war strategy yes it will decline more rapidly, but if we change to a total war economy (think WWII as an example) by default the consumption argument now hurts chinese growth.

the relationship of consumption to production with the U.S. and China is the underlying theme for future evaluation of societal hierarchy between the two.

[Adrian II]

Making "Super-power", and whoever aspires to it, irrelevant.In a way, yes, unless you define superpower as something more than a nation with superior military and economic clout.

The U.S. used to have huge prestige in the aftermath of WWII. It inspired all free peoples and it was the main pillar upholding all useful international institutions, diplomatic, economic and otherwise. Heck, it even founded most of those - the UN,the IMF, the World Bank, NATO, OECD - and provided leadership for them - and it did so at no small benefit to the American people and their economy.

Since round about 1970 when the U.S. ceased to be the hub of the international monetary system (because it could no longer afford its foreign wars, particularly the Vietnamese one) its superpower status has disappeared for various reasons.

Nowadays the U.S. is banking on its military might, at the expense of its remaining prestige. It has already lost superpower status, it is merely the strongest among the great powers and its might is primarily negative, in the sense that it can thwart other nations' ambitions militarily. That status too will pass. And in an increasingly interdependent world it is neither sufficient not efficient, as has been stated. I hope the U.S. finds the way back to its founding principles, to its original spirit and prestige, and most importantly to its natural allies. Only their collective prestige and action can influence continents and world events in such a way that the Kalashnikov will not in the end reign supreme in every corner of the globe.

In short, as long as there are Kukrikhan's there is hope, I suppose. ~;)

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, currently America is purchasing the most in the world, and in the short term that isn't going to change. But China is large enough to provide a very large internal market; this along with attempts to increasingly manufacture complex goods (e.g. planes and computer chips) to become increasingly independent will further reduce America's hold on the world.

As many developing countries continue to develop other markets will continue to appear. China's massive investment in Africa, Venezuela's south American pipeline (if it ever occurs of course) to mention three.

This will leave America with the might to rattle the sabre, but increasingly other inducements will be offered by others.

~:smoking:

[Odin]

Yes, currently America is purchasing the most in the world, and in the short term that isn't going to change. But China is large enough to provide a very large internal market; this along with attempts to increasingly manufacture complex goods (e.g. planes and computer chips) to become increasingly independent will further reduce America's hold on the world.

As many developing countries continue to develop other markets will continue to appear. China's massive investment in Africa, Venezuela's south American pipeline (if it ever occurs of course) to mention three.

This will leave America with the might to rattle the sabre, but increasingly other inducements will be offered by others.

~:smoking:

While that might be true to a degree (improved markets) The overwhelming majority of consumption happens in the U.S. Like it or not that drives the world economy (not exclusively, but to a large degree). That will diminish over time as other nations obtain more standard of living for its citizens, then more disposable cash.

that said the chinese economy in particular is not set up to be anything other then a manufacturing base. Its has very little in the way of other services or technologies to offer that will surpass the west in the forseeable future (its military hardware is subpar, it technology is slowly moving forward).

The bottom line is always the bottom line and the U.S. military system and its expenditures is a major lynch pin in our economy today. Defense spending pumps billions into the U.S. economy and looks like it will continue that way in the future thus making it somewhat self sustaining for the forseeable future.

China dosent have that on its horizon, at least not that i have read in the news. China's economic growth is predicated on others consumption, and as long as that is the catalyst for the pending rise of China a vibrant U.S. consumer based economy is required based on the mamoth disproportion of consumption between the US and the rest of the world.

Quite simply, there is no one else to sell the goods to at this volume to sustain the growth, and no other sources of growth industries appear to be on the horizon for China.

U.S. China will be interdependent economies for a long time to come IMHO. the overall point to my posting here is simply that U.S. consumption (and future consumption trend) coupled with the military might we have currently make us a super power. No other nation has both dynamics that can change the world social/political environment.

[BDC]

America loses its technological edge... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6502725.stm)

But at the same time all but one of the top ten countries are either the USA or in the EU, so hardly as if the west as a whole is losing its edge.

[Odin]

America loses its technological edge... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6502725.stm)

But at the same time all but one of the top ten countries are either the USA or in the EU, so hardly as if the west as a whole is losing its edge.

"government policy favourable for fostering a culture of innovation and progress and leadership in promoting the usage of the latest information technology tools."

From the article, I suspect once the liberals complete there take over of government the U.S. will see a repeal of Bush's ban on stem cell research which will result in a lot of institutional funding for new technologies based on the research.

there are colleges in the U.S. sitting on billions of dollars (harvard, MIT) just dying to be released for research in genetics.

[BDC]

"government policy favourable for fostering a culture of innovation and progress and leadership in promoting the usage of the latest information technology tools."

From the article, I suspect once the liberals complete there take over of government the U.S. will see a repeal of Bush's ban on stem cell research which will result in a lot of institutional funding for new technologies based on the research.

there are colleges in the U.S. sitting on billions of dollars (harvard, MIT) just dying to be released for research in genetics.
Yeah, that was the impression I got.

Silly conservatives, they really just want to screw over America. Which, as we all know, makes you a terrorist lover. Conservatives = terrorist lovers, apparently. :)

[Odin]

Yeah, that was the impression I got.

Silly conservatives, they really just want to screw over America. Conservatives = terrorist lovers, apparently.

Sadly conservatives have gotten a bad rap due to the fact that the conservatives in power now are extreme conservatives. Basically they are equivelent extremists to the ones they proclaim to be fighting in Islam ( a paradox for sure). Personally, I used to be pretty right wing, right after 9/11 but my views have steadily moved more to the center to the point where I did vote democrat in the past election.

I have found myself more in line with what is now termed "Blue dog democrats".

Anyway back to topic, the new congressional balance in washington will provide a more robust review of U.S. foriegn policy which is a good thing, and just might stave off the collapse of the U.S. so many are hoping/forecasting :)

[Proletariat]

From the article, I suspect once the liberals complete there take over of government the U.S. will see a repeal of Bush's ban on stem cell research which will result in a lot of institutional funding for new technologies based on the research.

there are colleges in the U.S. sitting on billions of dollars (harvard, MIT) just dying to be released for research in genetics.

I don't understand this. I thought Bush's approach to stem cell research was only that there was no federal funding for it, not a total ban where universities were forced to hold back. Am I missing something?

Edit: To the OP, I voted yes, but not with the most sincere conviction. The definition of a super power imo is moreorless a country that no one in their right mind would mess around with, and I think alot of that has faded with the world watching us bumble around in places like Vietnam and Iraq. Obviously we could still wipe anyone off the map and all that jazz, but we won't, and we can be definately be hamstrung and that seems alot more obvious to the US enemies these days.

[Odin]

I don't understand this. I thought Bush's approach to stem cell research was only that there was no federal funding for it, not a total ban where universities were forced to hold back. Am I missing something?



Technically yes, but his mandate does not allow labratories that have federal funding to be used to research cell lines created after a certain date and for a certain purpose.

It is my understanding (and if someone can verify I am wrong i will happily admit it) that most labs in the US capable of this research do get some form of federal funding and this procludes them from researching beyond the stem cell lines that are alredy in place.

[Proletariat]

Ah, thanks. That sounds about right, a shame too.

[Fragony]

As long as the dollar is the main currency we will just have to make sure that the USA stays the way it is, I don't understand the defeatism, how fragile is the american psyche. Such a big boy, don't cry :yes:

[rory_20_uk]

Surely a circular argument. As long as the dollar is stable it can be the main currency. If it becomes unstable people and countries will quickly switch elsewhere.

I would say that this creates a sort of mutually assured destruction clause: if there is a scare in the dollar this will either cause people to prop it up hoping that a bit more money will save the rest they've already invested, or will produce investors to run to other assets - turning a scare into a rout.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Well yes, but as long as it benefits everyone, doomsday can wait. Happened before on a smaller scale, the dutch tulip craze, watch and learn america ~;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

[BDC]

Well yes, but as long as it benefits everyone, doomsday can wait. Happened before on a smaller scale, the dutch tulip craze, watch and learn america ~;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
Tulips are awesome, however oil is rather more useful. And remember as oil is bought in USD, £1 is worth a set amount of oil.

Then that oil can be turned into fertilizer, which can be used to grow tulips, which can make us all thousands of florins!

[Marshal Murat]

The problem is that America is suffering the

MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Eisenhower warned you all.

[Azi Tohak]

Since my own definition of Superpower is rather ambiguous, I checked dictionary.com (I love the internet). This is what I got.

"an extremely powerful nation, esp. one capable of influencing international events and the acts and policies of less powerful nations. "

So no, the problem of Iraq does not mean the USA is no longer a superpower. The rise of China means it is no longer the only superpower (but I do think the USA is 'stronger' than China).

That being said, Iran can influence the rest of the Moslem world, and with all their oil, that can influence international events. Russia too, with all of its satillites. Japan, with its very strong economy and economic fingers all over. The rest of Europe... I don't know. The UK tends to follow the US for good or ill, France hasn't mattered since 1945, Germany is still neutered, Spain hasn't mattered since the collapse of its empire hundreds of years ago, Italy is very quiet, Northern Europe has too few people and Eastern Europe is still trying to recover from the joys of Russian overlordship. The EU, if it had cojones, it would be very much a superpower.

No one cares a whit about any african country (well, maybe Egypt, but it has been been very quiet for years). And South America, aside from Chavez, just keeps on its merry way.

So I count 5. Six if the EU starts to do something.

Azi

[Zenicetus]

Good points. Any group (gang, tribe, militia, army) needs to "shoot, move, and communicate". Kalishnikov's, Toyotas, and Nokias have made those conditions possible in even the most remote areas of the world today.

Making "Super-power", and whoever aspires to it, irrelevant.

Err... not really. There is still that "ultimate big stick" thing. Anyone posting on a "Total War" forum should understand that.

I live in a part of the U.S. where I can sometimes see the boomers on their way out to a patrol under the polar icecap (or what's left of it). It's a hassle because they close the bridges and block traffic to let the sub pass the channel, but it's still an impressive sight. Here's what they can do, on a moment's notice, and remember that there's X number of them out there right now, ready to fire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg

That's just one MIRV'd set of warheads, from a single missile (not sub-launched in this test shot, but it's the same idea). An Ohio-class SSBN has 24 missile tubes, each with a MIRV'd warhead. This is what we didn't use in Iraq, and won't use (please, I hope) on Iran or anywhere else. The Russians have a similar capability, but they don't have the economy to maintain or upgrade it. The Chinese might get here, but they're years away. The U.S. didn't get this force structure overnight.

Here's another sobering graphic. The U.S. spends far more than anyone else on the military, and this is a very rich economy:

http://www.deviantart.com/view/9410862/

On top of all that, the U.S. military now has more real-life combat experience than anyone else, thanks to the recent debacle in Iraq and other adventures. There is a difference between being able to buy stuff, and having the experience in using it on the ground (or in the air, whatever).

I truly wish this were not the case. I didn't support the Iraq war, voted against the current administration, and I'm horrified at what this is doing to our reputation, worldwide. But that doesn't mean the U.S. can be discounted as a military power. Please don't make that mistake. I only hope we'll get a more rational government in the war-making branch, next election cycle.

[AntiochusIII]

The UK tends to follow the US for good or illNot much anymore. At least in terms of public mood. Mr. Blair remains the loyal and most useful ally of the USA nonetheless.

France hasn't mattered since 1945For a nation that doesn't matter, they sure cause a lot of trouble.

I believe I remembered something about the Israelis getting their hands on, oh, nuclear weapons. One of those things you can blame the French on.

(well, maybe Egypt, but it has been been very quiet for years).Egypt had been quite busy in its own way. Suppressing radical Islamists and Democratic progress both at the same time, I think; someone from the Middle East could elaborate further. Otherwise they just act like everyone else in the region: keeping a very very close eye on the hellhole that was once big bully Saddam's playground and the chaotic mess that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I disagree with your application of that broad definition, personally. Many nations have a lot of influence on many things internationally. We usually reserve "superpower" to something of a more powerful force than just "influential," which seems to be the result of your application.

[Strike For The South]

I could care less if America the country floats into oblivon what I care about is our ideals and how instead of comprsing them to stand we kept them to fall. America is the greatsest country in the world I belive that and will till the day they bury me and it isnt becuase of money or might or tall buildings none of the frivouls tangible things peolpe waste lives chasing after in 100000 years once were gone people will look at America and I hope they see a country that was better than the rest. Hpefully we go out kicking andf screaming but hey I have a flair for the dramatic.

[Idaho]

The first gulf war was the high water mark of US power. It's in decline now.

[Watchman]

I think it's mainly stuck with an excessively bloated, parasitical military-industrial complex it can't get rid of that bleeds off its finances and makes it do stupid things partly in an effort to get some return-of-investement out of all those neat and hugely expensive military toys. Which means military adventurism for fun and profit, which doesn't really pay off in the ling run.

The Russians did a bit better in one way at least - the collapse of the USSR was so complete, especially economically, that it took their equivalent parasite with it by the default condition of a deep economic lurch.

[Odin]

I think it's mainly stuck with an excessively bloated, parasitical military-industrial complex it can't get rid of that bleeds off its finances and makes it do stupid things partly in an effort to get some return-of-investement out of all those neat and hugely expensive military toys. Which means military adventurism for fun and profit, which doesn't really pay off in the ling run.

The Russians did a bit better in one way at least - the collapse of the USSR was so complete, especially economically, that it took their equivalent parasite with it by the default condition of a deep economic lurch.

yes the U.S. has made some very silly moves in the past (Vietnam for instance) but came out of that mostly unscathed on a societal level. So when excatly does this fall happen? Thats the part I am not gathering from the many posts to this thread, they seem more reactionary based on political preference (or dislike) then on some tangable formula.

The intital poster posted an article that intimated it was the rise of china that would bring about the demise of the U.S. My simple argument to that intimation was the economic argument that one is dependant on the other. After reading a lot of responses there are many forecasts with little more then what seems like emotional or political differences with the US as the fuel for the argument.

Can someone offer a constructed hypothosis in all seriousness? I would enjoy that discussion, but the forecast of the U.S. fall from power has been forecast since Vietnam and our failures there. The U.S. is far from an ideal player in the world and has a few cracks in its foundation but its hardly close to collapse economically, militarily, socially.

What am I missing? I'll respond to constructive discussions.

[Watchman]

Oh, I wasn't talking about the Cold War. The huge military-industrial ballooning during it had a very real purpose and reason for its existence after all (and in some very real senses the rest of the West Block was quite happy to dump the financial and sociopolitical burden thereof onto the US). I'm talking about after it, when the Great Evil Empire the whole thing had been built against unceremoniously fell over after running out of steam and the US was suddenly left with a gigantic superpower-level MIC developed for an apocalyptic World War Three deeply integrated into its political and economic structures that no longer had a real purpose but still incurred enormous running expenses to just maintain.

All dressed up with no place to go, as it were. The spy services were at least a bit easier to wind down to "peacetime" settings so to speak.

Personally I think it is the continued existence of that MIC and its organic integration into US political and economic circuits that directly or indirectly lie behind many of the state's self-induced problems and plain mistakes since the end of the Cold War. The thing's too enmeshed in the structures to be "demobilized", so the decision-makers have to try to make the best of its continued existence. In practice this means using it to prosecute US policies and uphold national interests abroad, ie. military adventurism and gunboat diplomacy. I also rather suspect having that much global power-projection capacity available kinda skews the whole paradigm of US foreign policy - "for the owner of a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail" as a succint chestnut I've seen put it. In other words, its existence psychologically predisposes US decision makers for "hard", coercive problem-solving approaches even where those are suboptimal solutions, which in turn greatly increases the chances the state will get bogged down in fruitless, horrifyingly costly and in many ways damaging military ventures abroad which only serve to compound the problem and undermine US position in the post-Cold War global developement.

Or at least it seems to me there was something convulsive about the way the US seems to always be so quick to reach for the proverbial Big Stick in spite of the expenses involved, while its competitors/peers/allies quietly concentrate on far less costly and risky "soft" measures, building up networks of friends and allies and developing their economies. The main reason the US can afford its wars for example is that for their own reasons the Japanese and lately the Chinese are willing to subsidize it.

This, to me, seems like the symptoms of an empire in decline, desperately lashing out with its still overwhelming military power in the vain hope that it could use force to maintain its crumbling position of preeminence which recent developements have in fact largely obsoleted, all the while its internal problems only get worse and those very strong-arm measures are slowly alienating its friends and allies. Not much different - mutatis mutandis - from when the old European colonial empires crumbled, really.

[Redleg]

Can someone offer a constructed hypothosis in all seriousness? I would enjoy that discussion, but the forecast of the U.S. fall from power has been forecast since Vietnam and our failures there. The U.S. is far from an ideal player in the world and has a few cracks in its foundation but its hardly close to collapse economically, militarily, socially.

What am I missing? I'll respond to constructive discussions.

The United States will eventual reach a point that its status as the World's only superpower is taken away. Will we do it to ourselves? That is doubtful, given the nature of the nation and our own internal resources. What can happen and most likely will happen is that China will continue to grow in economic power and eventual will either reach our technological and military power or even surpass the United States in that regard.

This is the fate of every major nation - a raise to power followed by a decline in power. A perfect model of this is the United Kingdom, eventual the United States will follow that same model, my hope is that we do not follow the model of the Roman Empire or the Soviet Union.

[rory_20_uk]

The fact that China is diversifying as fast as it can in terms on its internal market as well as international partners shows that although it is currently tied to the USA, this probably will not always be the case.

50 years ago China could with difficulty project force across its borders. Now it projects force over at least 3 continents. OK, it is not invading anywhere as the USA is. Instead China is husbanding its power for the future. Would you imagine that the balance of power will be the same in the next 50?

~:smoking:

[Odin]

I agree that there will come a point where the US wont be alone as a super power, particularly if the EU decides to adopt a constitution and combines its resources that would make the U.S. a 3rd super power (with China).


This is the fate of every major nation - a raise to power followed by a decline in power. A perfect model of this is the United Kingdom, eventual the United States will follow that same model, my hope is that we do not follow the model of the Roman Empire or the Soviet Union.

On this point I disagree mainly due to the fact that the empires you mentioned all had conqured territories that had thier own historic identity. UK in particular, the U.S. has nothing close to the satellites that became the commonwealth. In terms of power projection perhaps, but the collapse of those empires seems to me to be predicated of the loss of territories.

The U.S. isnt dependent on conquered lands to maintain its status as a power.

[Watchman]

It does, however, seem rather worrisomely dependent on the use of force - be it military, economical or political - for solving its external problems. This could be taken as a sign that it actually lacks the resources and/or competence for subtler methods, and in any case if there's one thing that is certain from history it is that having to rely of "muscle" eventually exhausts the means of anyone. Sooner or later it simply becomes too cost-ineffective or others simply devise ways to counter or evade the coercive tachniques.

[Watchman]

The U.S. isnt dependent on conquered lands to maintain its status as a power.Nobody is, these days. For the very simple reason that approach is no longer sustainable in the face of modern communications and nationalist sentiments, nevermind now being a major faux pas in international diplomacy.

This in no way means the US didn't employ comparative approaches more or less updated to present-day global conditions for maintaining its global status.

[Odin]

It does, however, seem rather worrisomely dependent on the use of force - be it military, economical or political - for solving its external problems.

On this point we agree, but for my position with the noted cavaet that international mechanisms dont seem to work for solving external problems either (this of course is arguable based on point of view)


This could be taken as a sign that it actually lacks the resources and/or competence for subtler methods, and in any case if there's one thing that is certain from history it is that having to rely of "muscle" eventually exhausts the means of anyone. Sooner or later it simply becomes too cost-ineffective or others simply devise ways to counter or evade the coercive tachniques.

It could be taken as a sign for that, I would note that in the world climate today it is taken as a sign for that from those nations who do not currently have the same capacity to solve external issues outside the subtler methods you elude too.

As far as cost ineffective, yes this is true but the U.S. economy has not yet moved to a wartime economy at all, suppose for a moment that we infact made that move (via a WWII reference) the "muscle" would grow much much larger therefore sustaining a longer period of effectiveness for said policy.

[Lemur]

Hmm, I think it's still early days in America's power. Sure, things look a little bleak right now, and the current Administration has done real harm to our soft power, but nothing irreparable, and the fundamentals are good. China is growing in power, yes, but they have a heck of a bridge to cross (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll-china-politics-006.html). All the tube socks and cheap electronics in the world won't help them on the day that the Communist leadership can't deliver steady growth, and that day will come.

Europe would be an interesting co-power, assuming they could ever join in an effective union. We had a little discussion about just that subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) in this country, with good result at high cost. If Europe can manage to form a stable, meaningful union without needing a half million casualties to sort out the details, it will truly be a historic saga.

We have an ability to reinvent ourselves in the U.S. that will serve us well for some time. Assuming we can navigate between the twin evils of socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security) and theocratic tendencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson), we should be good for decades to come, possibly centuries.

[Agent Miles]

Definately yes.

From now on, we will be a global super-duper power.

P.S. China has about one more generation until they go pffft like the USSR did.

[Marshal Murat]

China has to rely on expansive growth and little tricks to contain their population.
Repressive attacks on farmers, stomping down religion in Tibet, making dissenters 'disappear'. As the candidate of France said, China's justice system is 'quick'.

They're growth also moves them to support other nations for state-company benefits. African countries whose internal problems complicate using natural resources has allowed China to step in, buy and refurbish lands, and allows them to produce materials very quickly. However, it is also Belgian-esque their practices, such as copper mining.

I think the U.S. will decline in favor of :scotland:

[Pannonian]

We have an ability to reinvent ourselves in the U.S. that will serve us well for some time. Assuming we can navigate between the twin evils of socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security) and theocratic tendencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson), we should be good for decades to come, possibly centuries.
However, you still have another 1.5 years of Bush and Cheney to negotiate. A war with Iran would be an act of lunacy that will effectively sink America's superpower status (at least at anywhere near the level it is now), but it's lunacy they are quite capable of.

[Watchman]

On this point we agree, but for my position with the noted cavaet that international mechanisms dont seem to work for solving external problems either (this of course is arguable based on point of view)I'm really thinking more of state-specific problems and mechanisms - although "international mechanisms" are often something that gets involved in settling difference between those - but I think you'll have to agree the "soft" approaches as practiced by for example most Europeans states tend to involve rather less getting stuck in costly and frustrating armed conflicts and generally getting everyone pissed off at you.


It could be taken as a sign for that, I would note that in the world climate today it is taken as a sign for that from those nations who do not currently have the same capacity to solve external issues outside the subtler methods you elude too. I seem to be incapable of deciphering the meaning of this passage, and I'm not exactly bad at English. In other words, "whut ?"


As far as cost ineffective, yes this is true but the U.S. economy has not yet moved to a wartime economy at all, suppose for a moment that we infact made that move (via a WWII reference) the "muscle" would grow much much larger therefore sustaining a longer period of effectiveness for said policy.Yet the national foreign debt is already at record-breaking levels and only getting worse by the day, and the main reason the country hasn't had to go into "total war" mode is the continued willingness of East Asia to keep buying dollars at a loss for their own selfish reasons. Besides, a shift to war economy would be quite impossible given the domestic situation - the US citizenry is getting rather restive as is, nevermind now if they had to deal with that burden. I rather suspect the main reason Bush et Co. Ltd. have been able to pursue "War on Terror" as they have is that it has ultimately had rather little effect on the everyday existence of the US public - were that to change I've little doubts of there being major riots outside the White House but fast.

[Odin]

I'm really thinking more of state-specific problems and mechanisms - although "international mechanisms" are often something that gets involved in settling difference between those - but I think you'll have to agree the "soft" approaches as practiced by for example most Europeans states tend to involve rather less getting stuck in costly and frustrating armed conflicts and generally getting everyone pissed off at you.

Yes thats one way to look at it, it also allows you to discuss the issue at nauseum. International bodies are wonderful forums for nations who want a global stage but dont have a global ear. I personally dont like to do comparissons with european nations due to the explosive nature of conversations I have had in the past. That said, the soft nature, as per your example is a realitively new occurance for our european friends.

One need only look to pre WWII to note that many nations did not infact practice a soft approach. So have they evolved or devolved? I guess that might depend on what side of the pond your on. In my opinion a nation capable of either approach, at its own choosing is ideal. Sadly when the persons making the decisions have bad intentions you do get stuck in costly armed conflicts as the U.S. is now.


you stated:
This could be taken as a sign that it actually lacks the resources and/or competence for subtler methods, and in any case if there's one thing that is certain from history it is that having to rely of "muscle" eventually exhausts the means of anyone. Sooner or later it simply becomes too cost-ineffective or others simply devise ways to counter or evade the coercive tachniques.

my reply was :
It could be taken as a sign for that, I would note that in the world climate today it is taken as a sign for that from those nations who do not currently have the same capacity to solve external issues outside the subtler methods you elude too.

Simply put, its probably read as a sign of incompetence or lack of resources by those who cannot act in the same manner as the U.S. to resolve its issues outside the international "subtle method" you eluded to. To be blunt, it smacks a bit of jealousy from my perspective, I am not an advocate of the war in Iraq and its many shortcomings but I believe in the ability, and act of a nation to act unilaterally outside of antiquted diplomatic systems that were put in place to handle a different world order.

Basically, the U.S. can do what it wants when it wants and how it wants (evidenced by Iraq) and dosent lack compentency to use subtler methods (evidenced by nato involvement in afghanistan) Is this clearer?


[QUOTE]Yet the national foreign debt is already at record-breaking levels and only getting worse by the day, and the main reason the country hasn't had to go into "total war" mode is the continued willingness of East Asia to keep buying dollars at a loss for their own selfish reasons.

And by the same argument then, how does Asia (china) maintain its growth without subsidising the U.S. debt? Its a vicious circle but its based on supply and demand, and like it or not the world needs the US to be in debt, otherwise we dont spend as much, and then who will by those wonderfully manufactured goods from China? The oil from the middle east? The labor from South America?

American consumption (and debt) is the major driver of the world economy and a necessary evil for all concerned.



Besides, a shift to war economy would be quite impossible given the domestic situation - the US citizenry is getting rather restive as is, nevermind now if they had to deal with that burden. I rather suspect the main reason Bush et Co. Ltd. have been able to pursue "War on Terror" as they have is that it has ultimately had rather little effect on the everyday existence of the US public - were that to change I've little doubts of there being major riots outside the White House but fast.

Yes you are right, right now it would be impossible to go to a total war economy, unless a dirty bomb or two went off in small city somewhere.... As an american I can tell you we are tired of the war in Iraq, but there is no doubt another attack like the one on 9/11 would result in instant public support for a military response, on that I have no doubt.

Little effect on the U.S. public is subjective, but I do agree with you that its hardly effected most peoples life to the point of burden, again I defer to the post 9/11 american reality I personally know many taxpaying voters in my life who I have talked to who were happily discussing dropping a nuke on Kabul and wiping our hands of it.

My point? public sentiment in the U.S. can change very, very fast Bush was one of the most popular presidents in history for a good 2 years after the attacks, and why? Because he acted with a big stick, simplistic as that might be, it plays well in America.

[Sjakihata]

America loses its technological edge... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6502725.stm)

But at the same time all but one of the top ten countries are either the USA or in the EU, so hardly as if the west as a whole is losing its edge.

2 of the countries in the top ten are not EU/USA.

[Divinus Arma]

If we allow ourselves to be defeated, than yes. And I find it hard to imagine that the most powerful country in the history of the world with all its resources, technolog manufacturing capability, and intelligence capabilities could be defeated unless there is no will to fight.

The Western World will fall to fear and terror due only to its own politics. Democracy is fragile by itself, and the exploitation of freedom by leftists will cause its demise.

The west is filled with a majority of spoiled sheep who have no respect for the sheepdogs that keep the wolves away.

[Adrian II]

If we allow ourselves to be defeated, than yes. And I find it hard to imagine that the most powerful country in the history of the world with all its resources, technolog manufacturing capability, and intelligence capabilities could be defeated unless there is no will to fight.

The Western World will fall to fear and terror due only to its own politics. Democracy is fragile by itself, and the exploitation of freedom by leftists will cause its demise.

The west is filled with a majority of spoiled sheep who have no respect for the sheepdogs that keep the wolves away.When military people start losing wars they always complain about stabs in the back and betrayal. It's run of the mill.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Good points. Any group (gang, tribe, militia, army) needs to "shoot, move, and communicate". Kalishnikov's, Toyotas, and Nokias have made those conditions possible in even the most remote areas of the world today.

Making "Super-power", and whoever aspires to it, irrelevant.
Indeed. We are fortunate to live in times when defense is easy, and offense difficult. Such periods in history tend to be comparatively peaceful, provided the leaders aren't too irrational.

[Lemur]

The Western World will fall to fear and terror due only to its own politics. Democracy is fragile by itself, and the exploitation of freedom by leftists will cause its demise.

The west is filled with a majority of spoiled sheep who have no respect for the sheepdogs that keep the wolves away.
Interesting side-note: the man who wrote the following was what you would consider a leftist. Go figure.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-- George Orwell

But if you really believe that the "leftists" are the greatest threat to the U.S.A., shouldn't you consider some sort of action commensurate with your rhetoric? I mean, terrorists from the Middle East don't stand any realistic chance of permanently harming our nation, but you believe that leftists can drag us down to second- or third-world status, so clearly we should be responding with even more violence and force to the leftist threat than the terrorists. Correct?

[Watchman]

If we allow ourselves to be defeated, than yes. And I find it hard to imagine that the most powerful country in the history of the world with all its resources, technolog manufacturing capability, and intelligence capabilities could be defeated unless there is no will to fight.

The Western World will fall to fear and terror due only to its own politics. Democracy is fragile by itself, and the exploitation of freedom by leftists will cause its demise.

The west is filled with a majority of spoiled sheep who have no respect for the sheepdogs that keep the wolves away.Meh. Leaving aside the pinko-Republican rhetoric, the US is already by geography immunized to serious foreign threat. The English Channel has nuttin' on two damn oceans.

What it will fall over of is internal decay. Too many Problems Shelved to Problems Solved, too great income gaps, too much about whatever social issues you can name, and way too many populist twerps of all persuasions including the Might Makes Right reactionary crowd.
You know who you are.
Empires that don't eventually fall to outside invasions then come apart in internal strife. Way of the world.

[Marshal Murat]

I think we seem to be something like Post-WW2 France.
Bunch of people who are opposed to a war, and a govt. who is for it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

P.S. China has about one more generation until they go pffft like the USSR did.

Which China has done on at least a half dozen occasions historically. They always return to the status of power player eventually.

I think you're on track as to when their current regime will reach its final crisis --20 to 30 years sounds about right -- but the inevitable downturn that accompanies it may put China back decades or simply be no more than a tough hicough on their rising path. It's simply too early to say.

Our Lemury friend made some good points earlier.


Point Two:

Military Power = capability * will.

This is why we have problems when using force; our will to use it is limited by a host of factors (many of them good things).

Sidebar: This is one of the reasons the USA gets so "hopped up" about countries such as Iran or North Korea developing Nuclear weapons. We are more or less convinced that Kim Jong Il has the stones to use them and more than a little fear that -- even if hit with them -- we could not. We have shied away from their use ever since unleashing the first such attacks, even when the tactical situation on the ground (Chinese intervention in Korea; Hanoi 1968/69) would have made sense on a strictly "military" level.


Point Three:

I like Lemur's coments as to the USA and superpower status -- an interesting perspective and a nice reminder. I hadn't thought along those lines in a while, but it's always a good point to remember how any ten years in history does not ALWAYS become the focal point of great change, even though constant change is the norm of existence.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Will the War on Iraq mark the end of USA's global superpower status?Nah. America will pull out at some point, sooner or later. Then Iraq / the Middle East can revert back to being a dump. It's all of passing interest. Vietnam didn't mean the end of America's status either. At worst, Iran will establish itself as a regional power.

I do think the rise of China will mean the end of America's status as a sole hyperpower. I'm convinced China will surpass America as the world's greatest economical power sometime during this century.

Even so, America will still remain a superpower. I don't foresee any absolute decline, only a relative one. The unique position of sole hyperpower the US has enjoyed since 1989 couldn't last forever. There's no need for panic, or for 'Fall of Rome' scenario's. The UK, France, Germany, Japan - we're all doing just fine even if none of us can decide the fate of half a continent with the stroke of a pen anymore.

[Adrian II]

I don't foresee any absolute decline, only a relative one. The unique position of sole hyperpower the US has enjoyed since 1989 couldn't last forever.As Kukrikhan and others have remarked, the nature of power and power projection will change drastically as the world becomes more and more interdependent.

Interdependence of course does not mean that conflict is automatically out of the question. The Chinese investment in U.S. treasury bonds for instance isn't necessarily a strategic 'weapon' in Chinese hands if the profits on these investments depends on the health of U.S. finances. But it doesn't stop conflict either.

Reminds me of the Anglo-Dutch wars in which the Dutch partly financed the British. Some Dutch investors made handsome profits by selling British contracts short &cetera. Small yachts would cross the Channel twice daily, even in the midst of naval battles and coastal bombardments, to transport letters of credit and other financial contracts between the City and the Amsterdam stock exchange...

[Yoyoma1910]

Bah, the U.S. is just England's rabid dog on a leash.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Painting with an overly broad brush aren't you my Ostereicher acquaintance?

Nobody's leashed in either direction in the Special Relationship -- though our friends in the UK have probably been more frustrated than typical of late.

[Divinus Arma]

Call it what you will. The war can only be lost due to an absence of political will and moral courage.

We desire our TV, iTunes, entertainment etc. When faced with a difficult challenge, many of the people simply cower and take their luxuries for granted. Fight a war? Not now! American Idol is on.

America's greatest generation has come and gone. This generation, for the most part, lacks character.

[Divinus Arma]

I think we seem to be something like Post-WW2 France.
Bunch of people who are opposed to a war, and a govt. who is for it.

Seems like pre- WW2 France to me. Appease and hope not to face conflict.

[Strike For The South]

Dude just becuase people are opposed to the war doesnt mean the lack couarge or balls it simply means they oppose the war. While I agree our generation seems a bit lost our generation hasnt hit 30 yet. 10 years ago what did you care about DA? America is trying to fight a war using .1% of our capabilties. That is the problem if we would jsut exert more of our monies and energies we could do it. Maybe they grow them different out over in California but I know my upbringing isnt going to lead my into a life of consumerism and decay. I'll serve my country as a cop or a firefighter or a marine (hell some people did all 3:laugh4: ) you worry to much

[Ice]

[QUOTE=Strike For The South] America is trying to fight a war using .1% of our capabilties. That is the problem if we would jsut exert more of our monies and energies we could do it. Maybe they grow them different out over in

Politics. All it is. Don't ever think they are smarter than you, because they really aren't.

[Samurai Waki]

Actually, if anything, the War says a lot about our Generation's Character. It says, we don't want to stay in a pitched (and admittedly) losing battle, in a pointless war, in a god forsaken Desert, so that rich scheming Oil Tychoons can once again manipulate the lives of thousands of Soldiers and Millions of Americans to gain an extra buck. Iraq is not Nazi Germany, so theres absolutely no point in comparing the two Generations. Most Americans at this point are all fighting their own war, and I honestly think the fight against personal Poverty rings a little bit truer, admittedly it might be a selfish cause, but isn't fighting for natural resources also a bit selfish?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Bah, the U.S. is just England's rabid dog on a leash.

I would like to remind members that country bashing is frowned on. If one intends to be amusing, there is a wide range of smileys available to convey intent to the sensitive. (Like this moderator).

:bow:

[AntiochusIII]

America's greatest generation has come and gone.And which generation would that be...?

[Adrian II]

Call it what you will. The war can only be lost due to an absence of political will and moral courage.

We desire our TV, iTunes, entertainment etc. When faced with a difficult challenge, many of the people simply cower and take their luxuries for granted. Fight a war? Not now! American Idol is on.

America's greatest generation has come and gone. This generation, for the most part, lacks character.Call it what you will? Okay, I will. I call it Catonism, after Cato the Elder.

The term was coined by historian Barrington Moore in his seminal book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966) in which he examined the eighteenth and nineteenth century roots of fascism, communism and democracy.

[Samurai Waki]

And which generation would that be...?

I believe he's talking about the Revolutionary War Generation, without those soldiers, there'd be no America and everybody could shut up already. :laugh4:

[Lemur]

Kids these days! It's all been downhill since the Millard Fillmore administration!