How Influencial is Washington now?

[Leviathan]

Thanks I've found it on the PINR site.

[Rat Faced]

Apparently thats the original article, its getting the credit here at least

[vidcc]

It is true that the world is changing very rapidly. The war on Iraq has proved that the US is not a “hyper” power. Its forces are stretched to breaking point.

I agree with this on one level. The USA is a "hyper" power if it came to ordinary warfare,(bombing a clearly identifiable enemy).

Problem is, this is obvious, so conventional warfare is not a tactic of anyone that fights the US (at least not for anyone with the smallest amount of tactical thought).
We appear to be showing previously unseen vunerabilities and need to fix this fast.

We do need to learn diplomacy if we want to be influencial

[j2k4]

We would do just as well not to be influential, I think-let others take the lead (or not)-we do as we deem proper, in the same situational fashion as always, just as other nations have always done.

That we now do so without this infernal "concensus" the great fans of the United Nations insist on is but the clearest indication we are right to do so:

Please lead us, America, but only in the way we wish to be led...

Jacque Chirac has a better idea-just ask him-he's been aching to lead something; get in line behind him, or, better yet, try your own path; you're just as well off, yes?

[Maxtor2]

Though the author has some credibility and understands much of political theory, he ignores much of the evidence that should be applied.

First off, there are no regional hegemons other than the US. The US dominates North America, and has nearly as much power in South America, though its actual involvement has been quite low. Europe, as a whole, is trying to act like a superpower, but it is not a superpower; it is merely a continent that has made a political treaty. Europe has no military, its currency is unstable, its members are dissimilar and will disagree, and it still depends on help from the US. Asia has no superpower, as Russia can not even exercise its power within its own borders, and China is too unstable to take a role as a leading nation. India is just starting to develop, and few of its 1 billion people experience what the developed world considers the standard way of life. Africa is, at best, about 50 years away from having anything that could be called a regional hegemon. The best bet is the nation of South Africa, but it would only be able to control the southern half of Africa, because the continent's infrastructure is so poor that there is little way for South Africa to interact with northern Africa. The only superpower in the mid-east is Israel. Saudi Arabia can be destroyed in a day (literally; it takes only one bomb to eradicate the political power of Saudi Arabia. It would be a large bomb, and dropped on the House of Saud, but it would still be a single bomb). Iran can not rival the US, because the Iranian people like the US and hate their own government.

The biggest potential rival to the US is China. However, China will have to finish its recently-started industrialization process, and will almost certainly have to remove its own communist government. Once China is opened to freer trade (and its restrictions), its industries will be set back considerably by copyright laws, which it has entirely ignored. Additionally, China will start to import products, which it does rather little of today. Finally, China will find that it is limited by the raw materials from which it is growing (mainly fuels, but also metals and other stuff), because the world will not produce raw materials at the rate China requires to maintain it's rapid growth.

The nation leading the pro-China charge in Europe is France. France has participated in the largest joint naval operation in China's history, this operation was intended to intimidate Taiwan (it failed). France has also been pushing for more trade with China, especially the trade of modern and technological products. Many of those products were developed in the US, and France would be glad to see China copy those products and sell them cheaper because of the lack of research expenses. This would not only help China, but it would hurt the US.
However, the US will probably cause France's economy to crash before France turns China into a noteworthy opponent.


Now, for the claim that the US economy has fallen. The US, of course, has some big economic problems. The social security system needs to be updated, though a lack of update would cause economic problems but not a horrible crash (the expenses of the healthcare system can cause a major crash. And, if you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's "free"). Additionally, we import more than we export, which is bad. And, a ton of money is being wasted due to some useless environmental regulations (some regulations, however, need to be strengthened), which only exist because some politician wanted the insane environmental groups to vote for him.
The first way to improve the economy is to open ANWR to oil drilling. ANWR is protected because it has some porcupine caribou, which probably aren’t an independent species, they are only called porcupine caribou because they were found near the Porcupine River. Plus, those caribou are actually helped by oil drilling projects, because the buildings and equipment produce heat; the caribou have been known to gather around the equipment at times when they would otherwise freeze to death. Opening ANWR to oil drilling would create at least 250,000 jobs (according to the people who run ANWR, at http://www.anwr.org/). The US may not have to depend on mid-east oil if we can drill our own. About 25% of the US's domestically produced oil comes from a little drilling site about 60 miles west of ANWR, and one of the largest (if not the largest) Canadian oil drilling sites is just east of ANWR. Might I add that the Eskimos want oil exploration on their own land? Well, the Inupiat Eskimos want their own land to be explored, but the Gwichins (who live 150 miles south) don't want Inupiat land to be explored. The Gwichins had their land surveyed several years ago, and no oil was found, so they don't want their 'neighbors' to find oil and become wealthy (Eskimos want to drill oil much like other Indians can run casinos). Enough of this argument, all counter-arguments are pretty much useless and rarely have any basis in fact. Check the ANWR site for a debunking of the various myths.
Other issues are subject to more debate, and many of them are already being scrutinized by the government.

The most damage that South America can do to the US is the destruction of the Panama Canal, which will happen sooner or later. The US made a big mistake of giving the canal to the government of Panama, because Panama refuses to maintain the canal, though it still charges huge amounts of money for ships to pass through. It will, eventually, break, and the Western nations will either rebuild the entire canal (and not give it to Panama), or it will build a new canal somewhere else (probably somewhere farther north than Panama). Otherwise, there is very little that South America can do to the US that would hurt the US more than South America.


Weinstein's argument ignores all evidence that doesn't support it. Thus, it contains far less evidence than needed to support its conclusion. And, thus, the conclusion is inaccurate.

Oh yeah; that whole 'European economic recovery' thing, it might have just died. Yep, died very shortly after it started. And, the falling value of the US dollar actually helps the US quite a bit. First off, it increases exports (as recent data will verify). Second, it helps push China to make its currency subject to market fluctuations. The Chinese currency is currently pegged to the dollar, and undervalued so China will export more and import less.


How's that for analysis?

[vidcc]

Please lead us, America, but only in the way we wish to be led...

Who asked America to lead them ?

There is a wish for us to take part perhaps....but lead ?

[Biggles]

Maxtor2

Interesting, but a little lop sided and couched in overly adversarial terms imho.

Personally I believe too much is made of the whole influence thing. Barring some unforeseen calamity, the world (including the US) will continue pretty much as is.

The European economy will happily chug along at its current pace - its demise has been forecast for decades but the standard of living continues to rise. (the Euro is no more unstable than any other as far as I can see) The Europeans have their own agenda and culture and that is not going to change. Despite the many languages and histories what is surprising is how similar we are socially and politically. One would expect the European Parliament to be in a permanent state of paralysis riven with dispute, but it continues to operate and produce surprisingly enlightened (from a European perspective) legislation with relatively little fuss.

US influence in the Americas was once (with perhaps the exception of Canada) total. It is less so today, the recent reaffirmation of Hugo Chavez by the Venezuelans being an example - this would not have happened prior to the 1990s. This does not mean that it is a free for all, but changes are afoot.

China will continue to prosper - its Government may at some point stop calling itself Communist, but it will remain inherently Socialist. I disagree that the market will not rise to meet China's demand for steel etc., that runs contra to basic market economics - the market abhors a vacuum. Also, the Taiwanese recently voted for a more conciliatory government - suggesting that they do not want confrontation with mainland China. China is going to be a major economic power and it is not surprising therefore that other trading nations are keen to become involved.

Russia has flirted with the free market and the experience has not been a happy one. It looks like they will return to a more centrally controlled economy whether they will entirely wind the clock back or whether they will go for the mixed economy similar to the European model remains to be seen. It would largely appear to be in the hands of Putin at this point. However, the rather neat trick which has effectively re-nationalised Yukos suggests he is determined to take action. However, I would agree that Russia's main concerns are local rather than world stage.

Africa's lot will continue to be one of considerable misery I fear. Even if there were a country capable of taking a lead it is unlikely they would want to be saddled with the burden.

As to ME superpowers - there are none. Israel is small country with a potent self-defence force, largely financed by the US. It could not march across the ME and, for example, occupy Iran, a nation 12 times its size. It simply would not have the manpower to do so - nor would the majority of its citizens want to. With regards Iran, I am unsure as to the basis of your comments but I suspect it would be unwise to put the concept to the touch.

India, like China, is a booming market and for that reason is important and will continue to be important.

The world economy is a complex place and is neatly inter-linked. The Arabs, despite their professed dislike of Europe and the US, have invested Trillions in both. One would not want them to get cold feet and dis-invest. International diplomacy is a balance of the practical and the possible. To try and re-invent the world requires enormous skill and understanding of where all the pieces go. It should not be tinkered with lightly.

In short, the US still has influence as befiting a major economic power. The military aspect, in the absence of a credible enemy, is incidental and cannot be easily translated into influence that has any real economic meaning.

These are merely a few jottings (with glass in hand and festive glow in heart). I did quite like your piece though - nicely written

[cpt_azad]

Agreed. Great post Rat. You do realize that you are not the only one that was against the war 2 years ago or even before that when it was announced, but the point being America is not what it used to be.


@Hobbes, ya i didn't read the whole thing too, no naked waked nomen