Will the Next President be Irrelevant?
With Obama's win in South Carolina, it seems clear now that it is a four person race for the White House. On the Democratic side, it will be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. On the Republican side, it will be John McCain or Mitt Romney.
McCain is still foolishly trying to own the Iraq quagmire, which I think will come back to haunt him in so many ways it isn't funny.
But what kind of America will the next president preside over? Is it an Incredible Shrinking Superpower?
Parag Khanna of the New America Foundation argues in the NYT Magazine that the choices the Bush administration has made have profoundly weakened US power in the world. Indeed, he suggests that Bush set the US on a downward spiral, such that Europe, China and India are picking up the pieces and making Washington irrelevant. While the US is bogged down in Iraq, China is quietly extending its influence in Asia. Europe is playing both sides against the middle, and is increasingly indebted to Russia and Central Asia for its energy.
You have to wonder whether Bush's aggressive, unilateral policies have not only sunk him but the rest of us as well.
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/27/2008 02:12:00 AM
|
Facebook
30 Comments:
The Republicans have very little chance of winning, even if the Democrats continue to screw up.
Recession, possibly depression, is about to hit the USA in the worst possible time for the incumbents. The voters may forgive the Iraq-war blunders, but not being hit badly in their pockets.
The Democrats' grassroots should stop playing appeasement to win over the "kick ass" types. They have an opportunity for a historic change in America's direction and should go for it.
I think no matter who wins the election, the US dominance of foreign affairs is on the way out. I don't think anyone is going to fix that, and don't necessarily think world leadership is something to which we should aspire anyway. The election will be crucial in determining whether the US lives up to international responsibilities, most notably the responsibility of confronting its part in global climate change. We either join the world or turn from it; leadership is not the issue. Our size makes us relevant and demands that we stop going it alone.
The election will be crucial in determining the domestic future of our country, and a big part of that is getting out of Iraq as quickly and responsibly as possible.
This is a bit of hyperbole, no? The US still has the world's 3rd largest population and the largest GDP. The elected leader of such a place is hardly irrelevant.
Maybe a dramatic reduction of American influence will play out for the best. The economic system we've perpetuated, that is so dependent on cheap oil and the American consumer continuously buying more and more crap, is totally unsustainable. As long as these other power centers recognize that, and move in a different direction from our path, it will be a better future for the majority of human. I know I'm more than ready to see some belt tightening here in the US.
Your last sentences jumped off of the computer screen:
"You have to wonder whether Bush's aggressive, unilateral policies have not only sunk him but the rest of us as well."
I echoed this theme in my book WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ-Letters from Mad Plato, and do so now on my blog. CLinton would continue the status quo. Barack might change and undo the disastrous policie and actions of Bush. It gives one more hope than the hawkish McCain.
The next president is very relevant, atleast I hope so. Since he/she will be the only to slowly retreat the overextended American Empire under the pressure of the newly emerging powers and avoid the total and instant collapse of the last remaining superpower, which would create a power vacuum, into which these new powers would be drawn, unable to fill it yet.
Ofcourse, your current president might very well decide to end your country before the novemeber election.
I just read Madeline Albrights book "Memo to the Next President". She makes the case that the George Bush Democracy is not a good model in Iraq and Afghanistan. On page 282 she suggests framing sovereignty which is what every Middle East nation wants.
Could I suggest that one of the key's might be to prop up NATO a little more in Afghanistan where the real battle is. Hillary said that Bill would be a roving ambassador and I understand he is a rock star in Europe. Possibly he could make the case to the general population to support their governments to participate in NATO more. Wes Clark, former head of NATO could help as he knows the territory. Couple this with Hillary adopting the Biden partition plan and exit from Iraq, our government could be more relevant.
sorry juan but i think you're being unnecessarily negative about the US. maybe this isn't the best analogy, but it's like the stock market: you can't make informed judgments about what's happening on the basis of days, weeks - or even months; it's only with the perspective of years that we fully apprehend why things moved the way they did.
and if a post-bush administration does, in fact, pull in its horns a bit, well, so what? i think that may be all to the good. we hardly need more iraq-like adventures. and more actively soliciting consensus with allies also would be welcome.
but that doesn't mean we're about to return to isolationism. or that we should
my 2 cents
We are headed for a 29 style depression, brought on by the same kind of folks who gave us the last one. The depths of this one are claimed to not be known which probably means worse than you and I can imagine. It will be very confusing as some things like fuel and food will suffer hyperinflation while other goods will deflate because of lack of demand.
The next President will essentially have his hands tied monetarily because of huge deficits in all accounts which will force him to pull back our military horns all over the world.
We cannot continue to strut around the globe claiming to be the last super power. The only card a broke superpower has is the bomb , hence all the talk about nuking all who oppose us.
The scary part is that in my 70 years I believe this is the most dangerous time in relation to the bomb be used again. These guys in the current civilian leadership and according to recent comments by many Generals in the services who want a preemptive nuke policy in Nato . A true sign in my mind that we are a super power with one card left,"The Bomb"
Lord save us all from these Lunies.
Yes. The problems are by far systemic and institutional; which packaged personality is ratified by the masses, after having been chosen by business and the media (redundant?) sometimes makes a little difference, but ultimately the manager the owners select usually makes little difference, on the whole.
Professor Cole: I also read Parag's article (and look forward to the book). However, like most "big picture" summations, it neglects some critical details and omits others. First, regarding the middle east, it is true that while Bush chased his democratic chimeras China, unburdened by Human Rights Watch sensitivities, has expanded in ways that will do more than haunt us; however Parag's forecast for the Islamic world---that it is unlikely to be a meaningful world actor because it will remain embroiled in local controversies---is far too pessimistic a future, one that I'm surprised you did not challenge.
However, Parag's key failure was to apply otherwise solid thinking (a fast-shrinking Russia due to demographic collapse) to where the same demographic processes will likely be more pronounced---Europe. The native born population is also shrinking, and rapidly. To support the benefit infrastructure, (practically) unchecked immigration is tacitly encouraged the EU winks at the population changes. Europe is today not your grandfather's Europe; in two generations' time, it is likely to become the Maghreb. And because of Europe's still largely tribalist societies, the failure to integrate their Muslim population is not only disturbing, it is a fact that will likely make the EU of 2050 a very different place---technologically, culturally, militarily, etc.---than it is today.
Thus Parag's thesis is inconsistent---instead of the EU leading the way, it, and not the middle east is likely to experience major, "local" controversies.
By the way, what made her larger point about US decline compelling was the inexorability of it all---the rise of China and the Asian states were, is and will remain a growing fact of our lives without regard to what Bush & Co., or any successors, care, (or what they can) do about it.
In short adjusting to multi-polarity is a fact of geo-political life for this century. As Parag correctly laments, one wishes American politicians of all stripes would finally level with the American public.
Best,
Richard F. Miller
Europe included as one of the groups stepping up shows that no damage is permanent. I have a hard time taking the piece seriously and look at it as more of a thought experiment of sorts. It takes the most extreme position possible in stating most things, and typically extremes aren't accurate.
Taking ownership of the war and the surge is very risky, almost stupid, because things could go downhill fast again there. In fact, I would bet the insurgents will have a surprise for candidate McCain. American casualties of 50 or 60 a month once again would flush McCain down the toilet.
How is it that an author of the sponsoring legislation for the biggest foreign policy blunder in our history, and one of its most vehement supporters, could even be considered for the Presidency? Only in a sick democracy.
Repent! The End Is Near.
Juan Cole wrote:
"McCain is still foolishly trying to own the Iraq quagmire, which I think will come back to haunt him in so many ways it isn't funny."
Someone in American politics needs to own the Iraq mess. I'd rather see it be John McCain than George Bush or for that matter anyone else I can think of.
Any politician who seeks the presidency will be haunted by mistakes and missed opportunities. But we hope the next president will have a better success to failure ratio than the one going out.
Dr. Cole, I hate to say this, but sometimes I feel like many of the folks who comment on your blog haven't even read it. Rather they come with an opinion and leave with the same, leaving an imprint of that opinion in your comments as well. Perhaps they are looking for a sounding board. I suppose that if that is the case, they should get a blog of their own.
Thanks again for your commentary.
I've always considered Bush, Cheney, and entourage, to be traitors to everything I was taught in k-12 about America and it's ideals.
I think the socio-political damage is done, and it's going to be long-lasting damage.
Some European pundit once quipped: "American culture? America isn't old enough to have one."
...and we may not make it, but there ARE glimmers of hope for American society... If we look to older cultures that pre-date us on the continent.
The next President will not be irrelevant. Not if it's Barack Obama.
We have nothing to fear but the Clintons themselves. This is an election about who we are, who we want to be. If America does not regain its can-do, we�re in it together, no man is an island spirit in its greatest traditions, it will soon fade into a shadow of its former self. Here is an analysis of the latest on the Clintons versus Obama. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/27/14512/4399/221/444226
I agree with a lot of the comments that we are on the way down. However do we need to enhance the rate with the criminally incompetent foreign policy we have been persuing. We desperately need to get some one in with some sence of experience in international issues. Some how that should be part of the criteria for president versus the process of elections.
The Americans, Europeans and Chinese all have different views about the 21st century structures.
The Americans have kept the same vision: the big nations competing for spheres of influence and using the military as both a means and a status symbol.
The European have greatly diluted the concept of nations and states. They do not want a United States of Europe, nor strong nationalism. They also see defence spending as detrimental. They can easily outspend the US if they want to, but refuse to do so.
The Chinese are nationalists but have taken capitalism as their new religion. Unlike the USA, they are not interested in forcing change onto others (apart from Taiwan.) The want expanded trade and economy instead of 20C power play.
The USA could be committing suicide, the way the USSR spent its way into oblivion on militarism and ideology. But the forces of global finances will very soon put the brakes on US government spending, particularly on the military, the same way the smaller nations have been forced when they cannt service their debt properly.
Hillary said that Bill would be a roving ambassador and I understand he is a rock star in Europe. Possibly he could make the case to the general population to support their governments to participate in NATO more.
Please, Fiscalliberal, take care of your grandiloquent empire by yourself, our own taxes are better invested than in wars. Don't dream that by sending Bill Clinton to EU you'll be able to convince us to participate to YOUR wars. We don't want to put more troops in Afghanistan, we want the ones we have there back because it's a lost cause, like Iraq. NATO was an alliance to protect EU from the URSS. It doesn't make any sense to maintain it longer; we don't want new missions outside EU for it. It's only because some EU countries needed to mend fences with the US after refusing to take part in Iraq that the US was able to pressure Germany and France, for instance, to put some troops in Afghanistan.
You have to wonder whether Bush's aggressive, unilateral policies have not only sunk him but the rest of us as well.
Exactly. Generations will pass before we recover from the ravages of the Bush maladministration - if we recover.
Parag Khanna's paper was an interesting reading, thanks for the link. His interpretation of the US situation isn't reminds me of the book of Emmanuel Todd : After the Empire Todd says that the new emerging power are emerging in Asia. That the US is in decline, because she is no more able to convince others by persuasion, that her values are the most desirable. Somewhat forseeing, he also said that given her decline, the US tends ressort to military power, but that the explosion of military costs is hastening her decline.
Concerning Khanna's interpretation, I wonder whether he isn't underestimating the power of Russia, but he shows quite clearly that the EU is few and few adopting her own road and distancing herself from the US. We don't share the same culture anymore, we want a pluralist world, a really pluralist world, not one who would still be managed by the US. The conclusion of Khanna are somewhat deceiving, as if he hadn't yet understood that neither the EU, nor the other countries of the world want to be manipulated by the US, whether through school fellowships or other tricks.
Concerning several condescending remarks that the US still has the biggest army in the world and the biggest GDP : this is not questionned. The question here is about the trend. For instance, at the end of WWII, 80% of the world monnetary reserves were in dollars. Nowadays it's only about 63% and in about a decade it will be not more than 50%. The EUro has about 25% (and is on an ascending trend) and the oil mornarchies are talking about creating a unique monney, equivalent to the EUro. The yen has 5% etc. The IMF and the Worl Bank, created under the US leadership after WWII are loosing a lot of their importance : Argentina for instance has reimbursed her debts and got money from the Venezuela, without the drastic conditions starving the poors. On the chapter of loosing influence, the list goes on, but I'll stop there.
Irrelevant may be taking it a bit far. We're still a huge, very rich country. It took the Roman Empire nearly 300 years of mostly terrible leadership to go from its peak to complete collapse, and even then the eastern empire continued for another 1,000. The British empire ended more quickly, but it took two enormously expensive, total wars, and it was just a small island to begin with. The astonishing thing about them was that they ever achieved global empire status in the first place.
Then again, I imagine the fantastically rich Ming rulers in China would have laughed if you had told them, on first contact with the Europeans, that they would one day be the world's basket case, utterly submissive to these much smaller, far off barbarian nations.
But the days of the lone superpower are indeed over, and only existed at all because the rest of the world joined us in the mirage of the power of our military in today's world.
Most of all, Iraq has demonstrated to all the limits of that power by its inability to subdue even a relatively small, crippled nation. It's only good for fighting a similarly structured army in conventional battle, which is why no one will ever fight us that way. But that doesn't mean they won't fight.
Reportedly, when Saddam realized that we were indeed going to invade, he asked his generals, "Can you give me two weeks?" They could, and did, and thus the early insurgency. Iraq had a professional military, with staff colleges, war games, contingency plans, the whole bit. Since 1991, obviously the main contingency one would plan for would have been an invasion by the US, and any fool would have seen that a conventional war was hopeless. The only hope would have been to melt away and fight an insurgent campaign. That's exactly what happened, although the insurgency now has taken on a life of its own and is way beyond anything Saddam planned.
We can recover at least some of our moral authority, and I hope we do, though it will take time. Bill Clinton's "rock star" status in Europe has probably faded considerably, though, just as it is taking a hit here. They've been watching his disgusting conduct on the campaign trail, too.
Regarding 10:14 PM, Christiane said...
May I suggest that you totally miss the point which is involve NATO to help us stabilize the area and get Bin Laden who is the one that flew the planes into the towers. Then we can leave the area. Kumbya will not make him go away. May I suggest reading "The Looming Towers" to get some insight into the depth of Al Chaida which is funded by the Saudi population.
Your obvious hatred for the Clintons precludes in depth assessment of the problem. Furthermore I do not advocate a stonger military or war. However George Bush twice elected by our people has gotten us in a mess using war and we have a lot of ground to recover. Oh by the way the treasury has been drained.
You have to wonder whether Bush's aggressive, unilateral policies have not only sunk him but the rest of us as well.
The big issue here is where the US military-industrial complex and other multinational corporations would go, should they decide to cut their losses and quit the US economy.
And what would a broken, bleeding USA do with it's gigantic stockpile of weaponry?
Some pretty scary scenarios right there, folks... I'm imagining rioting mobs and renegade military units, etc.
The problems Khanna writes about in the NYT today are hardly new, and while the Bush administration has made them significantly worse, it is also true that we Americans have done ourselves a great disservice as well.
After all, the French have figured out how to use standard reactor designs to make nuclear power affordable and safe, while the US continues to consume ridiculous amounts of oil, costing us a fortune in dollars.
Nearly all developed countries have figured out better ways to finance health insurance, with far better coverage of their own citizens.
Nearly all first or second world nations educate their children better in science and mathematics than we do.
And we no longer bother to try to prioritize our spending, preferring to spend money on smart and foolish items without any distinction, building bridges to nowhere in Alaska, and missile defense systems that fail every test but the most rigged than to invest in our nation's economic development, or our children's education. And we do all of that with large chunks of borrowed money.
In this regard, Stein’s Law applies: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
And of course, one reason the latter half of the 20th century was the American century was that the world spent the 1930s and 40s destroying Europe and East Asia. We shouldn't expect to dominate a saner world in the same way as we did the post-WWII world.
Fiscalliberal,
I don't hate the Clinton.. on the contrary, I've always had a soft spot for Bill Clinton. This isn't enough to convince EU to do fight for wars which don't concern us.
The day the US treat the Arab correctly and pressure the Israeli to conclude a fair peace treaty with the Palestinians, the day the US troops withdraw from Iraq and the US government leaves his colonialist enterprise there, along with the other US imperialist goals in ME, then Al'Quaeda's terrorism will disappear by itself (having nothing against whom to fight).
But yes, I hate to see what the US is doing to the rest of the world, especially in the ME.
You give McCain too much credit, and Hillary too little, for taking ownership of the Iraq quagmire. She will do as much or more to keep us there in pursuit of (take your pick) "victory" or "stability." Obama is also a fast learner and, to convince others that he is "reliable," will pick a suitably hawkish running mate or cabinet.
Post a Comment
<< Home