trying to keep this divorced from politics, but does anybody think that the era of American hegemony has hit its zenith and is beginning to slide back down? Take a couple of things- -the Iraq war which has poltically isolated the US from a lot of its former allies, rightly or wrongly -the US military, while highly capable of winning wars, and more so than any on the planet, has also shown its limits (i.e, it can't carry out an extensive long term occupation except at a very high cost) and seems to have reached lows in recruitment -the huge trade & budget deficits, which generally keep our economy afloat on an ocean of IOU's from developing countries, which are starting to be cashed in (see the recent proposed chinese acquisitions of Maytag & Unocal) -the end of the era of cheap fossil fuels on which we are highly dependent None of this is to say that the sky is falling or that chaos is going to rein in the streets, but it's hard to imagine that the US will regain its status as the sole economic, political, and military "hyperpower" like it was in the 90's, with recent events being both symptomatic, and catalytic of the decline.
You want to see high cost? The battle of Stalingrad in WWII had over 800,000 deaths. Our losing 1500 in Iraq, while certainly not good, is not to ever be called "very high cost". We lost 58,000 in Vietnam. We're still very capable of winning wars, what hampers us is our conscious that makes us prevent all types of civilian casualties. It should be noted that our enemies take no such measure. In fact they target civilians. Umm, I'm guessing that you mean our deficits are driving down the dollar? Well guess what, the Yuan is pegged to the dollar so it hasn't risen versus the dollar, meaning the Chinese have no greater purchasing power than before. Chinese *proposed* acquisitions of two second rate US companies hardly means much anyway. In real terms (adjusted for inflation, which is the only fair way to compare historical prices) gasoline is cheaper now than it was in 1985, and much cheaper than it was during the late 70s/early 80s.
maybe i've misunderstood the last three years of politics, but i thought this was precisely the state of affairs the has left yearned for.
Yes you have misunderstood. The state of affairs the left yearns for is that America live up to its potential, which would only help the nation, and not have it slide backwards.
just wanted to address a couple of the points... -the Iraq war which has poltically isolated the US from a lot of its former allies, rightly or wrongly i don't think the US itself has become isolated from its allies but it is bush that has chosen to isolate thru his politics. meaning...that when bush leaves office it will be like an eraser on a chalkboard...there will still be some stuff leftover but it will be more or less a clean slate for the new president to dictate. this is how things generally work in democracies. further...i don't think the US is isolated from its allies on issues to the point where no one is willing to work with us. i guess i just don't see the true isolation that you are talking about. i see political difficulties that have always been there. have we ever had a smooth relationship with the french? are the british ready to turn their backs on us? -the US military, while highly capable of winning wars, and more so than any on the planet, has also shown its limits (i.e, it can't carry out an extensive long term occupation except at a very high cost) and seems to have reached lows in recruitment i think what you are really addressing with this point is public apathy towards this war. it is not as much of a representation of the military being unable to carry out an occupation but a public who doesn't want to spend the time, money, and lives to ensure the proper transfer of power in iraq since they feel the threat was overblown and the reasons for invasion were never shown to be true. how is that for a run on sentence? the military is carrying out this effort relatively well and is doing a relatively good job of working with the iraqi people, but the war and the transfer of power are taking longer than expected. also, it is turning out to be more bloody than we were led to believe and it doesn't seem like the insurgency is decreased even with a huge majority of the iraqi people opposing the attacks of the insurgents. in my opinion the occupation is going well but it is simply taking much longer than expected, mainly because of poor prewar planning. i believe if we had greater public support for this war then you wouldn't see these issues you are talking about, so thats why i feel it falls back to public support rather than military inability. -the huge trade & budget deficits, which generally keep our economy afloat on an ocean of IOU's from developing countries, which are starting to be cashed in (see the recent proposed chinese acquisitions of Maytag & Unocal) this could be a huge problem for our generation. -the end of the era of cheap fossil fuels on which we are highly dependent i completely disagree with this. right now we are in a phase with fossil fuels where we were caught sleeping and didn't not prepare for the eventual expansion of india and china. we are getting pounded on energy prices for it now and probably will for the next 10 years. i guess we need to define cheap in this discussion too. if you mean disgustingly cheap like oil at $10/barrel then yes those days are more than likely gone, but if you think it's reasonably cheap to have oil at $40/barrel (heck maybe even $35) then we are probably ok. there are billions upon billions upon billions of barrels of oil and fossil fuels that can be recovered at higher price which we are not currently exploiting. the prime example would be the oil sands in canada which are viable if oil is going to stay above $35/barrel. from my knowledge it costs about $18/barrel to produce. but it just takes time and a lot of capital. in addition we need to increase the refinery capacity but again it just takes time. so do these factors mean that america reached its zenith of hegemonic power in the 90's? i don't think so. i think the vacuum of power left by the soviets created the zenith of hegemony which was then filled by other nations finding themselves in the post soviet world and the development of china. so i think the power you are talking about was just fundamentally unsustainable since other powers like china were due to develop.
I can largely agree that once Bush is removed and we have a less extreme leader we will largely get back to being allies with our allies. We won't be able to lie even Britain into wars as easily. It has made the whole world mistrust us more. The Iraq War has undermined the safety of our country and the occupation is only going good if you are a faithful GOP'er who isn't planning to go to fight yourself. With regard to energy. It is insane to not even try to conserve gasoline. The only possible justification must be that those in control are thinking short term profit. I agree that the trade deficit is a problem and as we see the Chinese will soon start wanting US physical assets (Maytage, Unocal, real estate, and not just dollars when it is obvious that we intend to inflate away our debt to them. America has reached the peak of its unilateral power, but that is natural and is to be expected and much of the problem is the nuttiness of the Bush neo-con plan to dominate the world. Neocon craziness is actually going to speed up the process,by wasting our wealth, and making us less popular in the world. A relatively peaceful Europe or even possibly China will look good compared to the warmongering US. We see Europe and China out maneuvering us at evey turn. Hopefully even the neocons must realize that we can't invade or even realisitically threaten Venezuela, Iran.India, Pakistan, much less Russia and China and many other countries as we keep blustering to keep them from doing energy deals with each other. Our power play to seize control of Middle Eastern oil has caused them all to actually increase their ties to each other. Latin American in particular is using the fact that we have tied down our entire miitary in Iraq to break away from our dominance.
In tonight's speech, if Bush can be as a "straight" talker as you are in describing the problems, analyzing the causes, and acknowledging the mistakes, I think he may win back sizeable support from the mass and a significant fraction of sympathy from me. Remember we didn't go into the war with a national sense of purpose to help the Iraqis, now it becomes the only convenient purpose left. Can you imagine if in early 2003 Bush stood up and asked the American public "Are you willing to sacrifice to help make the lives of Iraqis better?", what kind support we would have gathered?
That's the way of things. No one stays on top forever. Looking at the last millenium, the US' spot at the top has lasted longer than most. And, there are only a couple of examples in the history of the world with ridiculously long periods of hegemony. The US might be a good candidate to do it again, but I get the feeling those long-lived hegemons are a thing of the ancient world. So, not looking at anything happening for the country now, I'd put my money against US domination in the intermediate term (if I was a gambling man, which I'm not).
i don't see the argument how it has undermined the safety of our country. i can see the argument for undermining our credibility, but i don't see how the war has hurt the safety of the american people. please elaborate. 1. how does europe and china outmanuever us at every turn? 2. how did we attempt to seize control of middle eastern oil? i know you will laugh when you see that, but what oil did we attempt to take and nationalize for the US in the middle east? 3. what countries in latin america are breaking away from our influence? it is frustrating asking you questions glynch because everytime i have asked something you never answer, but i am asking you to thoughtfully answer these questions with solid facts to base your opinions from. please i am sincerely asking you
Judging by how this speech is going to occur, i.e. a speech to the American people from Fort Bragg in front of a crowd of HURRAH-ing soldiers, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Dubya is incapable of speaking directly to the American people. He has to put on a show instead.
Its hard to say if we're at the zenith but I do see a lot of things that indicate that we've past the point of it being the best it ever gets for the US. Looking at the rise and falls of other great powers I see a lot of the same warning signs similar to what happened to Rome, China and Britain. The one hope that the US has those unlike those is our constitutional democratic government and relatively open economy that may allow for change and adaptation within our government and economy to keep up with shifting situations. I will say that while we likely will remain the premier military power for decades our economic pre-eminence is highly suspect. If Europe can hold together and evolve their market along with the PRC and India conceivably not that long from now we could see those markets overtake us and we take a severe economic blow as those groups find it more profitable to trade with each other than with the US.
Robbie, I'll let slide your ad hominem attack. 1) The NYT had an article a couple of day ago (try some research . It might be in another thread) quoting experts were saying that Iraq is an ideal training ground for urban terrorists.. Even General Abizaid said that the resistance is not getting weaker. I'll go with Abizaid over Cheney or Bush on the strength of the resistance. Creating more battle hardened terrorists does seem to decrease the safety of the American people. Have you forgotten 9/11 and how terrorists can actually come over here and harm us? Tying up our entire military and exposing the soft underbelly of the of the all "volunteer" army, and its problem in fighting long term wars not necessary for our actual defense, also undemines our safety. 1) China is outmaneuvering us as they are now seen as less of a threat to the world and to us. I find this incredible. Thanks, Dubya. Dont you? (Go find the posts that showed this in the polls). The Euros are also more liked. China is locking up energy deals with Iran, Venezuela, Russia. 2) Let me ask you. Do you actually believe Iraq has nothing to do with oil? "Seizing it" vs. putting in a puppet government dependent on our 13 permanent military bases for survival. I won't spit hairs with you. 3) Venezuela, Bolivia, are breaking away. I saw Brazil was doing some trade deals with China that we didn't like. Do some research. BTW as I drive down Houston's freeway in my Camry to go to work and visit far-flung friends , occasionally go home for lunch etc. I wonder how I could get buy with $6 gasoline or even worse $10 gasoline and what a change in lifestyle it would be. I could still go to work, but my social life, shopping and other activities might be quite different. I'm not sure a lot of low wage people could even get to work.
"The Troops Support Bush" is just a wee bit of a generalization...some do, perhaps a majority do, but not all.... Check it out ...and don't forget.... Iraq Veterans Against The War Looks like the blind loyalty your President worked so hard for is slipping a wee bit, basso.
Sam, I don't really see it because there is nobody to compete with the US for the top spot. Europe isn't going to do it, and certainly not Canada, or any country in Latin America or Africa. Our biggest competitor would be China, and they still have a lot of political instability. Economically they may be strong, but they have a long road ahead.
Before the US can be pushed aside as the world's dominant power, there has to be someone available to take its place. I don't have confidence in the European Union being the one. Have they ever been able to agree long term without infighting ? They've also got their share of economic and social challenges. China and India may have lots of people, but their populations, poverty, and social problems will eventually anchor their progress, So the US may be in for a bumpy ride, but they're not about to be dethroned anytime soon. EDIT: Dayum Mr C! Thread sits dormant for hours, and then you sneak in just ahead of me and say what I was going to say I feel like I'm bidding on ebay...
I guess my feeling about that is urban terrorism has been going on for awhile in Israel and I would figure it has been providing ideal grounds for urban terrorist development. I can see the argument but I disagree with it for the fact that making an attack in Iraq is fundamentally different from making an attack in America. The landscape is different and they do not have constant reinforcements or support. With the ease of the attacks in Iraq it is kind of amazing that terrorists aren't able to get away with on the American homeland as easy. I guess it depends who you interview if you want to discuss the threat of China. I'm sure the nations involved in the Spratley Island dispute don't agree with the assessment of China being less of a threat than us. Further, you should read up on the extent of American MULTILATERALISM in Asia. Also, you should read up on China policy under Clinton versus China policy under Bush. We have allowed China to get away with much less under Bush as opposed to Clinton. I was lucky to have a visiting professor from Beijing who works with ASEAN discuss these subjects before I left UT. I have never understood this argument and I guess I never will. Even if you want to believe that the war was about oil then please explain the logic with respect to reality that we could then use this oil for our own benefit. I guess you just have to believe that we went to war to benefit our oil companies which is just a non-sensical belief. It would require that you believe the president is a maniac killer to the level of Saddam which is just not a reality no matter how much you hate Bush. So how do those trade deals have to do with our army being in Iraq? Remember you brought that point of Latin American nations breaking away with respect to our army being in Iraq. It's not like our army enforced those trade deals. It's the free market. China has cheap labor we don't. well us low wage people get by. you ask for help. you cut back on expenses. you work odd jobs.
I think the point is that you don't go out of your way to business with a group of people (in this case a country) whom you think are distasteful or dangerous. Historically, we are in a very dangerous position. The cold war mentality was one that promoted idological team building. Before the cold war, however, there was much more of an "everybody for themselves" approach, and the target was always the people on top. A perfect example would be the reaction of the Dutch, French, and English to Spanish success in the new world. People born post-WWII don't think in these terms. That having been said, the China deal with Brazil has nothing to do with anti-Americanism. They have raw materials, such as Iron. China is the largest consumer in the world of these materials at this point. This is analogous to the same that people give favorable terms to Wal-Mart because they are large customers and they either are pressured to or see opportunity in doing so, not because they have any special love of Wal-Mart, or hatred of K-Mart. As far as low cost workers, the inverse can be said as well. China at this point has lots of low wage workers but few high-skill high-tech workers. We are competing in different segments of the world economy at this point.
