I think that the argument that Howard J. Shatz and David A. Shlapak are making at RAND, in favor of the next president’s maintaining the global U. S. security and economic regime is a noble one:
There is no doubt this system has been good for the world, producing 70 years without a great power war—the longest such stretch in modern history—a standard of living in the West that is the highest ever achieved, and billions lifted out of poverty around the globe.
But less remarked upon is the fact that it has also been good for America.
Carefully built and tended following the destruction and horror of World War II, the system has kept America out of devastating foreign wars in Europe and Asia. It has enabled Americans to attain lifestyles that the last generation that fought a global war could never have imagined as they suffered horrific casualties at Iwo Jima or wondered if they would survive the Battle of the Bulge.
Even less remarked upon is that the global system was designed by and made in America. The United States built it and has sought to sustain and expand it, joined in partnership with a voluntary association of a large and diverse array of the richest, freest, most advanced countries in history, all of which find it in their interest to work with the United States. Because of it, the United States enjoys a remarkable position of power and possibilities.
I just wish they’d do a better job of it. For example, where’s the cost-benefit analysis? Few would doubt that keeping the peace is good. I don’t think it’s as clear that our paying $600 billion a year is more effective than it would be if we paid $400 billion a year.
I also think they should be considering the run-on effects. Does our shouldering as much as we do of the bill have the dual effect of building U. S. support for dubious adventurism by our notional allies as well as encouraging them to engage in it? I’m thinking in particular of the war in Yemen.
Also, doesn’t who pays the bills and who reaps the rewards make a difference? At this point the top 1% of income earners pay something between a third and half of federal taxes but they also receive by far the greatest proportion of incremental income—at least half and maybe a lot more. When the foundations of the present U. S. security and economic regime were laid, ordinary Americans received a lot more of its benefits than they do now.
“Noble?”
Did you miss this tautology?
“Carefully built and tended following the destruction and horror of World War II, the system has kept America out of devastating foreign wars in Europe and Asia.”
Yeah, imperialism to squash the need for greater imperialism.
Then there’s the little matter of “lifestyle.” The American way of life.
Runaway capitalism and raffish subculture. Oh, yes, we’ve spread it across the world.
So much nobler than the traditional European way of life before occupation. “Freer” for gay marriage, abortion (outlawed even by Stalin) minority violence being exalter, yes, gangsta rap noise is now given a hearing even in Europe.
So much nobler than the military socialism the USSR provided
eastern Europe.
Why yes. The only purpose of life is material acquisition—but perhaps Trump can use some of your arguments to pave the way for a renaissance of some portion of Tradition back to the Continent.
Our military actually endangers us. The delusional neocons think our superiority in arms is so great that they can intimidate and dominate the Russians and the Chinese. However, the days of Russian and Chinese relative weakness are over. Our extremely aggressive maneuvers and bellicose language have driven the Russians and Chinese into an alliance. If Hillary Clinton is the next President, the neocons will be given free reign, and the neocon delusions will be revealed in a bloody world war.
The relative strengths of Soviet and American forces was a matter of hot dispute. It was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union and disarray within Russia that we enjoyed an undisputed military advantage.
With respect to China, China’s military continues to be primarily inwards-facing. Relative to the size of its military, China’s ability to project power is still comparatively small.
I don’t think the mere fact that we have created an unprecedented 70 years of peace and prosperity, with the cause of human liberty advanced throughout eastern Europe, Latin America and even parts of Asia and Africa, should stop us from tearing it all down in a moment of pique. No, we should immediately set about dismantling one of our greatest accomplishments as a nation.
Next let’s see if we can’t lose the formula for the polio vaccine, forget how to make jet engines and encourage a renewal of smoking. Because someone somewhere is bored, and someone somewhere is dissatisfied, and what the hell, tear it all down because revolution has such a stellar track record in history.
Well, everything changed in the early 1990’s. Once we beat the Soviets and mostly defeated communism as an ideology our calculus changed from seeking stability through balance-of-power to maintaining US military and economic dominance. As the sole “hyper-power” our leaders (continue) to think we can do whatever we want without consequence and believe whatever we do is inherently good. HRC is one of the poster-children for this view. So during the 1990’s her spouse served up “plates of shit” for the Russians as we rolled over their interests in every instance – all without any apparent consequence because the Russians were so screwed up dealing with the aftermath of the USSR. In the oughts we sought to expand democracy through the use of warfare, wrongly believing that all people are like Eastern Europeans and want secular democracy. This bankrupt idea lives on in the FP Neocon and R2P crowd.
In short, very little of what we’ve done since the mid 1990’s has had to do with maintaining the 70 year global and economic regime.
How does provoking a war with Russia help maintain 70 years of peace? Or do we have to fight that Armageddon before we know what’s in it?
Jesus Christ! Of course it is worth maintaining, and why has it come to a point where we doubt our Shining achievements against stone age rituals and beliefs. I am starting to believe Trump is only the beginning of the resurgence of common sense . At least, for my grandchildren, I hope.