A few weeks ago, as the U.S. financial crisis was causing ripples of anxiety throughout world markets, I was on the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington as it sailed into the Japanese port it will be calling home for the next few years. As the immense ship pirouetted around its axis in the middle of Yokosuka Harbor before backing up to its berth, it occurred to me that there are few manifestations of American power more awe-inspiring than an aircraft carrier. I've seen many other examples of America's military reach—from Kosovo to Central Asia, Guam to Iraq—but the George Washington takes the cake. It has 5,200 members on board, and its galleys serve 18,000 meals a day. It is home to an entire Navy air wing of 60 to 70 planes altogether. It's as tall as a 24-story building. And thanks to its nuclear reactors, it can stay out at sea, well, pretty much forever.
Conventional wisdom has it that the George Washington is soon to become an empty symbol. According to everyone from Hamas to Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, the American Empire is over. The era of U.S. hegemony is done for, finito. The reason is simple enough: the financial and economic crisis is already tipping the United States into recession. The huge amounts of money now being spent on reviving the banking system will crimp America's leading role in the world. Whoever the next president is, he'll find it hard to push-through dramatic tax increases; and without additional revenue, the already huge U.S. budget deficit can only get bigger. Aircraft carriers like the George Washington cost $4.5 billion a pop, and keeping them afloat isn't much cheaper. In 2007, the Department of Defense budget was about $440 billion—and that didn't include additional funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which add more to the bill. Surely the sheer lack of cash will end up restraining Washington's ambitions to remake the world.
There's just one problem with this thesis: The United States was short on cash long before this latest crisis hit, but that didn't stop it from continuing to build up the world's most formidable military...
More at Newsweek.
Comments
A thoughtful article. It articulates why getting FP right is such a challenge. The actions that political entities may take are not just based on the effect of a given factual action, but by their interpretation or belief of the relevance surrounding that action as it is believed to affect their interests.
There was a speech given by Rep. Ike Skelton recently where he referred to the United States as the indispensable nation. I think this is true in more ways than most credit. We've recently gained some insight as to the interdependence of economic markets as what occurred in our own economy impacted world markets. An economics professor in China went so far as to call for some other standard than the U.S. dollar for states and investors to place their economic faith in.
One could call such a statement as an opportunistic expression to advance nationalistic ambitions, but that would be far too simple in my view. Such statements show how fear, interests and honor are deeply entwined and more often than not, indistinguishable. While that professor may call on it, the reality is the U.S. dollar represents far more than just an economic standard among the many from which one might choose. It also represents intangible commitment and philosophical beliefs which have manifested themselves in physical manners such as the security provided by the U.S. 7th Fleet (and other visible American military power), American business and enterprise across the globe, the American consumer of goods and the trade that goes with it, American products and ideas, the raw production potential and natural resources (even if we are currently not using it all) in what a German friend of mine called the "Big and Wide" when referring to the U.S. It also has to do with U.S. stability and the relatively stable transfer of power that accompanies our political system. All of these things have contributed to more global stability in my view, not less.
I think it is hard for most American to understand the role the United States plays globally. It has muddled by domestic politics, and by war. The pursuit of domestic politics tends to conflate issues, and exaggerate the fears and emotions of the moment of the individual voters they are appealing to for political gain/office. War, even when the policy objective is relevant and impacts future well being is tough to sustain domestic will in a democracy because it involves some degree of personal sacrifice, is expensive in that it is the ultimate consumer of resources, and is so easy for those with political ambition to craft narratives which serve their own philosophies and personal goals. When sacrifice seems increasingly at odds, meaning more are asking why they should sacrifice, it is that much harder.
As such it understandable that the complexity of the role a major power (like the U.S.) plays often just by being present as it relates to issues that matter at home are easily obscured or lost entirely. These may be issues in which the effects of our actions do not translate readily to the here and now, but may matter tomorrow for us or our posterity. When presented in conflicting political arguments to support individual interests, the idea that our future is contingent upon the decisions, actions or inactions we take now matter is masked.
The irony is, as the author points out, is that the efforts required to obtain office are somewhat different from the efforts required once in an office. Expectations crafted in the pursuit, during a campaign may be at odds with the actions required to fulfill the duties of an office. I think this has to do with being able to focus on a single objective - that being the attainment of office - vs. the many responsibilities and objectives that come with being the trustee of American power and the role in which we have placed our selves either by our actions, or the expectations of the global audience. The world seems to offer few clear, unambiguous choices, because it retains it complex, interactive and political nature in spite of any actions.
The environment is constantly in flux and resistant to strategies embracing goals of engineering as though our efforts produce a finished product with a fixed nature. Policies must constantly tuned to reflect the realities of the time while keeping an eye on the range of potential outcomes our actions may generate, and remaining true to the values which justify the means expended. This is particularly hard to do if you abandon the means to do so because you mistakenly undervalued your role, and assumed that somehow it would take care of itself, and that anybody who might assume the role would share a sunshine and roses view of the world, and that their interests would always be considerate of what values and freedoms you hold close.
Best, Rob