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.
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....

[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.

[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...?

[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...?

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.

[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.

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...

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...

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

[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.

[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