Myth and reality about the USA being "top dog"

[PowerWizard]

We all heard about the myth of the so-called "superpower" of the USA. Despite being a myth, it is a recurring "argument" in many debates, so I took the time and tried to sum up my thoughts on this (i posted this on another forum as well). The Backroom rules state that this forum is not for uncontroversial topics, but I hope this won't turn into a flame war (it has a great potential to it), so I would welcome the help of moderators to delete disruptive and provocative posts.

DISCLAIMER: This is not a discussion about how "bad" or "good" the USA is, it is rather a discussion of its role and future in international affairs. So I'd advise to refrain from such black-and-white arguments. The world has become a better and safer place by the efforts of this country in some ways, and has become worse and unsteadier in other ways; it remained the same by yet other efforts. The question here is: "Can the USA be regarded as a go-alone global power?"

Let's clear up some definitions first, such as 'power' and 'dominance'. I am going to use Joseph Nye's distinction of hard power and soft power. Hard power is the main, but not the exclusive indicator of a country's international impact and it includes military and economic power. Soft power includes non-traditional forces such as cultural colonization and the influence of ideologie(s). I'd like to restrain my first post to the hard power aspects of this debate.

The USA is still a top dog, but it is certainly not the only "top dog" in the kennel of global powers, including the European Union, China, Russia and maybe other countries as well. Moreover it is not the leader of this kennel, never was and unlikely to become one in the 21st century. It is certainly not an underdog and will remain in a strong position throughout the century, but its military and economic power is insufficient to upkeep its current rate of global exploitation. With the end of the cold war, and the interlocking ties of globalization, the structure of international affairs are starting become more and more multilateral. The attempted unilateralism of the Bush regime failed as it only alienated the allies of the USA and increased hostility towards the US military expansion. This country is militarily inefficient and economically dependent, and if it continues the current course of "global war on terror", that will only eat up her main resources.


Military power - inefficient and unsustainable

Let's start by reviewing the recent US military history. The military "victories" of the USA are hardly convincing. World War II was not won by American soldiers, but by Russian ones; Operation Overlord (which was too late anyway to prevent the Holocaust) met a reservist German coast-guard and incomplete defences. The cold war was not "won" by the USA. When the USA had the chance in 1956 to intervene and liberate Eastern Europe from totalitarian dictatorship, it was reluctant to do so. The cold war was ended by the inherent problems of the Soviet political and economical system that inevitably lead to its collapse - the process was of course speeded up by the reforms of Gorbachev and the independence of the Eastern European bloc. Let's also mention the Vietnam War, that is still the major fiasco of US military history, which lasted more than a decade without any apparent success for the US side. The Gulf War in 1991 was also unsuccessful as it failed to overhtrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the failure in Somalia in 1993.

The September 11 attacks showed the weakness of the US administrations to grant internal safety for their citizens. The course of "global war on terrorism" began, but this concept is vague - to say the least. Nothing shows weakness more than this weird worldwide "war", in which the USA is squandering the last of her power resources. The myth of a worldwide terrorism is long gone, it only shows the social tensions deriving in the modernization of developing states. The overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the same year meant the control of the capital, Kabul and its surroundings in 80 kms. The war is still ongoing, and the USA constantly requires help and reinforcements from its allies. Again, this is hardly the evidence of a supreme global military power. Its latest "success", the Iraqi war was described as "mysterious" by John Keegan, British military historian and journalist. Defeating an already fallen regime, that shows no or minimal resistance can be hardly called as success. Both causes of war turned out to be false: there were no weapons of mass destruction found and reports showed that terrorist activity was not reduced but increased with the Iraqi war.

The same could be said about the planned (or unplanned) operation against North Korea: attacking an already fallen, half-fallen regime to demonstrate power and push the world to a state of war from which the USA can only profit. Why is the USA reluctant to take down its major enemies: Venezuela, Iran or others? Because in order to demonstrate its military might, the USA needs to maintain the image of the "fireman" in international affairs. That's why the USA was reluctant to intervene and stop the Russian invasion of South Ossetia, or to solve the ongoing and serious Israeli-Palestine crisis. A long drawn out war is hardly in the interests of this country.

It is almost needless to point out the obvious fact, that the global "empire" the USA built in the 20th century (especially the global military network) far overstretched itself. US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost US$904 billion in direct budgetary outlays. The US$687 billion spent on Iraq exceeds alone the costs of any other US war except World War II. A CSBA study says that, even if the US reduced its troop deployment by half, the Iraq conflict could cost US taxpayers up to an additional US$817 billion over the next decade. This would result in a total of US$1.72 trillion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 to 2018. This is an unsustainable process. The USA can't maintain more military outposts, moreover it needs to cut back its military spending. Which means it needs to rely more and more on her allies to maintain its global presence.

Economic power - dependent and unsustainable

The USA is not self-sufficient economically. Its external debt in international trade is growing from year to year. Gross U.S. liabilities to foreigners are $16.3 trillion as of the end of 2006 (over 100% of GDP). The U.S. Net International Investment Position (NIIP) deteriorated to a negative $2.5 trillion at the end of 2006, or about minus 19% of GDP. National debt. The borrowing cap debt ceiling as of 2005 stood at $8.18 trillion. In March 2006, Congress raised that ceiling an additional $0.79 trillion to $8.97 trillion, which is approximately 68% of GDP. As of October 2008, the "The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" raised the current debt ceiling to US$ 11.3 trillion. Private debt reached a critical level too, see the subprime mortgage crisis. The US public and private debt has reached unstoppable levels. The balance of import/export is starting to become problematic too. As you can see on this chart, the proportion of imports compared to exports is growing since 1996.

The US economy can be described as a black hole that attracts the most various goods of the world, consumes them in an incontinent manner, but its production rate is not in keeping with this tempo. The US economy needs the continual influx of foreign capital and products in order to upkeep the standard of living. Its economy is clearly declining and tending towards improductivity since the 2008 economic crisis.