From today’s NYT Magazine:
Condoleezza Rice has said America has no “permanent enemies,” but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism; in fact, they were signs of imperial overstretch. Every expenditure has weakened America’s armed forces, and each assertion of power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks, insurgent groups and “asymmetric” weapons like suicide bombers. America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. That new global order has arrived, and there is precious little Clinton or McCain or Obama could do to resist its growth.
At best, America’s unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift. The post-cold-war “peace dividend” was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership. So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing — and losing — in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom.gov; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules — their own rules — without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this post-American world.
It will take American conservatives a while to realize what opportunities have been lost because of their late 19th century understanding of global power arrangements. Their primitive, arrogant provincialism and loutish use of military power are leading inevitably to the scenario these conservatives fear most–the diminution of American power and influence. They have been outplayed, and if they were willing to trade the world’s love of American ideals for its fear and respect, it’s becoming clear that they’ve lost those as well.
It will take a while for Americans to grasp the full extent of the consequences of American stupidity and incompetence over the last eight years. But rather than cut our losses and regroup around a saner approach, we’ll continue on in the Middle East for fear of looking weak, or whatever. The world will roll its eyes and do what it has to do to move on without us. We should expect this basic continuation from Clinton, perhaps not from Obama. But the pressures on the new president, no matter who it is, to stay the basic course will be enormous. The implacable military/industrial/congressional complex is not going to bend to one person’s will, especially if he’s likely to be gone in four years.
After Bush you have to wonder if the world will ever trust America again. Even if Americans elect more intelligent, forward-looking leadership, there’s no guarantee such leadership will stay in place. It’s not even likely. And, as suggested above, there’s reason to believe that the nation’s political class has not learned its lesson after the Iraq fiasco. Even if the Democrats develop a more intelligent foreign policy that relates to the world as it moves more deeply into the 21st Century, is it likely that Americans will keep the Democrats in power? It won’t take much to scare them back into the arms of the Republican primitivism.
The rest of the world understands this, and the Bush presidency has alerted the world to the kind of danger a loose-cannon America poses. It is only logical that the world will now take steps to protect itself from future Bush/Cheneys. What reason has it to believe that America any longer has a trustworthy leadership role to play? We elected foolish bullies not just once, but twice in this decade. And we’ll do it again–if we’re scared into it, and we’ve seen how easy that is to do.
Leave a Reply