In one of his more interesting recent analyses George Friedman declaims that the world is still unipolar and the United States remains the sole global superpower:
It’s no surprise, then, that Putin sees the U.S. as a force trying to create a unipolar world, because in some notable ways, it is a unipolar world. The U.S. is the largest economy in the world, its current problems notwithstanding. It also has a sophisticated military, able to bring overwhelming force to bear, train an army at war in new weapons, and use subtle force to shape the world. American power isn’t absolute, and it can be outstripped. But it is sufficiently mobile to act sequentially when simultaneous action is impossible. Put simply, the United States is the most powerful economic and military force in the world – when it chooses to act. Inaction can be confused by men like Putin as weakness. The U.S. has learned that with its inherent power it has time to react.
The American public often sees the United States as weak and mismanaged. There’s a tendency to label Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush as criminals or morons or both. The same charges were levied against Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Contempt for the commanders-in-chief is a prerequisite, to prevent tyranny, even if it has its drawbacks. The America First movement opposing U.S. participation in World War II interfered with Roosevelt’s ability to make decisions. It had a direct impact on Pearl Harbor and caused a painful initiation for the U.S. into war by the Japanese, which of course ended in catastrophe for them.
The perception of American weakness is a global one, shared even among Americans. Being underestimated has its uses, as does sporting a public that doesn’t trust its president. But only enormously powerful nations can afford the contempt. The past few months haven’t taught us that the United States is finagling a new world order. It’s taught us that Russia is weakening, that China is managing its relationship with the U.S. carefully, and that the international architecture created after World War II, though more complex, essentially remains in place. It is a unipolar world.
We’re not the only power capable of deploying force far from our shores. Countries capable of doing that include Russia, China, and France. Britain? Used to be but I’m not so sure at this point. I don’t think any other country is capable of deploying force from its shores at scale. Other than using intercontinental ballistic missiles that is. If you add that the club includes (at least) Russia, China, Britain, France, and, forsooth, North Korea.
Read the whole thing. His analysis of the differences between the Russian and Chinese postures is interesting (TL;DR is that Russia has flubbed but China hasn’t).
We’re not the only power capable of deploying force far from our shores. Countries capable of doing that include Russia, China, and France. Britain?
I am not sure what you mean by “force”, but for anything meaningful, this is nonsense. It might be possible with a full scale call-up.
Russia is having a hard time establishing a force just across their border, and they are essentially a landlocked country. So, they would need to establish ports with access to open seas, but first, they would need a surface navy.
China may be able to field a force across their borders, but while they have substantial access to the open seas, they have no effective deep water navy, surface or sub-surface. So, they are practically landlocked, but they could defend their coastline.
France has expeditionary forces in their former colonies, but with hostile seas, their logistics chain would be undefendable without the US Navy. The French Foreign Legion is capable of operating in a hostile environment, but they still need resupply. Also, I believe that the French have started using the regular army, but I could be wrong.
Today, I doubt Britain could take the Falkland Islands.
Just to be clear, I am not as delusional as interventionists. Presently, the US military is not configured for large scale combat, but if needed, the institutional knowledge exists to quickly transform. The biggest problem is the manufacturing base and raw materials.
Russia should still have the institutional knowledge, but their military doctrine is worthless against a modern military. Militarily, China is a joke, but if they invaded Taiwan, retaking it would not be easy.
While I like being “top dog”, I am not interested in being the “world’s policeman”. Unfortunately, our leaders have a different opinion. Also, I accept that the US is the only global power, but it is possible that other countries could form an alliance to be a counter balance.
Largely agree with TB. Russia and China can sustain some efforts in adjacent countries. We just sustained very long efforts in the ME but the current happenings have made it clear we arent set up for a prolonged conflict. France supports efforts in Africa but I have a hard time seeing them doing any sudden deployment of size.
Arent there others in the ICBM club like Israel, India, Pakistan?
Steve
India’s longest-range missile can hit Pakistan or China. Pakistan’s longest-range missile can hit India or China. Israel’s longest-range missile can hit Beijing or London but not anywhere in the U. S.
Projection of force means the transportation of land, air, and sea forces over transoceanic distances. Only the US can do that.
However, as both Gulf wars showed, the US needs a friendly country adjacent to the proposed conflict and as many as 6 months to build up sufficient forces. An opponent might be able to prevent the build up or to have achieved a victory before the build up was completed.
One has to wonder if the US and its allies would have succeeded in either Gulf war if Saddam Hussein had attacked the arriving forces before significant numbers were in place.
Countries that can attack the US mainland with nuclear weapons include Russia, China, and North Korea. The destruction they can inflict by missile obviates any need for significant projection of power on their part. Fifty warheads on 50 cities destroys all the nodes of our rail, highway, air transport, and of our communications and power transmission grids. State and federal government control collapses; only local government, if any, remains. Fifty million dead immediately; 250 million starve to death in the following year.
PS Friedman discredits his argument, and himself, by his assertion that the US economy is the largest in the world. China’s total economy is one-third larger than ours, and its manufacturing sector is 50% larger. They have 40% of the world’s ship-building capacity; we have no commercial ship-building capacity.
The fact is that our Ruling Class and their shills are totally ignorant of the world reality, and operate in a delusional fantasy world. It is their delusions that have brought us to the brink of nuclear war, and their delusions will have caused it, if it happens.
My view of the Gulf War was that the U. S. should not have participated. We should have encouraged France, the UK, etc. to remove Saddam’s forces from Kuwait.
My reasoning was as follows:
1. Kuwait was not worth defending. Saddam would have sold us oil as surely as the Emir.
2. Kuwait was pro-Soviet. Now it’s pro-Chinese.
3. The U. S. military should be reserved for “in case of emergency break glass” and when used should be used decisively.
4. Because of the misgivings of other UNSC members that was not going to happen.
bob sykes: However, as both Gulf wars showed, the US needs a friendly country adjacent to the proposed conflict and as many as 6 months to build up sufficient forces.
That’s why soft power has been and still remains important, something Trump repeatedly undermined. Nor do all projections of military power require the long build-up required for an invasion. People forget that for decades America has been training people from a very young age for modern warfare.
bob sykes: One has to wonder if the US and its allies would have succeeded in either Gulf war if Saddam Hussein had attacked the arriving forces before significant numbers were in place.
American air superiority meant the Iraqi army would have been destroyed as soon as they moved.
bob sykes: China’s total economy is one-third larger than ours, and its manufacturing sector is 50% larger.
By PPP, China’s GDP is larger, but that includes the price of tomatoes locally produced. China’s nominal GDP is smaller than the U.S., which better represents power on the international markets where the real economic actions occurs. China manufacturing cheap plastic goods for export to the Americans who then export their high technology products to China is nice, but less important in modern warfare.
More important is that the U.S. has strong ties to the most advanced developed economies in the world, the combined GDP of which dwarfs that of China.
TastyBits: France has expeditionary forces in their former colonies, but with hostile seas, their logistics chain would be undefendable without the US Navy.
Which makes the combined forces of France and the U.S. stronger than just the sum of the two.
Dave Schuler: Kuwait was not worth defending.
The invasion was a patent violation of international law against wars of aggression. The worst outcome would have been an indecisive military conflict. Overwhelming force was appropriate.
I’m not arguing that nobody should have defended it. I’m arguing that WE should not have defended it. Other countries have armies, too, and it would have been better for them and us if they had pulled more weight. Are you arguing that we should be “the world’s policeman�
After all is said and done, we do not today have an Iraq that provides a counter to Iran, now they’re our job as well.
But we have a very experienced military, and for some that’s the whole point of needless interventions.
Dave Schuler: I’m not arguing that nobody should have defended it. I’m arguing that WE should not have defended it.
Yes, and the counter-argument was that it could have led to an uncertain military outcome or stalemate, and that unity and overwhelming force were the appropriate response. Furthermore, if the U.S. refrained from the battle, then other countries may have done the same, further weakening the military response.
Dave Schuler: Are you arguing that we should be “the world’s policeman�
The U.S. is the leader of the Western alliance. Refraining from combat is an important part of that leadership. For instance, the U.S. should not have intervened in Iraq the second time, while its intervention in Afghanistan should have been limited to goals associated with the attacks of 9-11.
There was a slippery slope if not a direct causal relationship from our Gulf War intervention to spending trillions in Afghanistan. The way to avoid the slippery slope is not to set out on it.
BTW once we had “boots on the ground” in Afghanistan under international law we became the “occupying power” with certain obligations. The way to engage in a limited engagement in Afghanistan is NOT to put boots on the ground which was exactly my contention in 2002.
I think you’re trying to argue that we SHOULD be the world’s policeman and that we SHOULDN’T be the world’s policeman simultaneously.
Dave Schuler: There was a slippery slope if not a direct causal relationship from our Gulf War intervention to spending trillions in Afghanistan.
That’s the leadership part. “The Quiet American” always thinks America can fix the problems of other countries.
Dave Schuler: BTW once we had “boots on the ground†in Afghanistan under international law we became the “occupying power†with certain obligations.
The mission should have been to root out those who had attacked the U.S. If the U.S. didn’t occupy Afghanistan, then it wouldn’t have incurred the obligations of occupation. The disaster in Afghanistan and in Iraq are evident.
Dave Schuler: I think you’re trying to argue that we SHOULD be the world’s policeman and that we SHOULDN’T be the world’s policeman simultaneously.
The U.S. is first among equals. Each situation requires its own judicious response.
The only way for us “not to occupy Afghanistan” was to have left the Taliban government in place OR fought an entirely air campaign. Once we were physically in the country and had removed the previous government, we were definitionally the “occupying power”. That’s quite clear in the conventions. Not responding at all was politically impossible. That’s why I favored a punitive expedition in the air in force.
You’re thinking of some other country. “Judicious response” is not in our wheelhouse. Never has been.
@Zachriel
Sometimes, I think you comment just to be argumentative. Again, you have proven are able capable of producing a rational argument in a logical manner with multiple multi-sentence paragraphs.
France, NATO, other allies, client states, and basically the whole world is dependent upon the US for its ability to deploy force. There is a lot I skipped over, but it includes the ability to manufacture the weapons, munitions, ammo, spare parts, etc. to resupply the troops.
France and the UK did not have a large enough stockpile of bombs to sustain their Libyan bombing campaign. Today, the arms shipments to Ukraine is depleting NATO country (including the US) stockpiles, and none of them (including the US) have the ability to quickly restore them.
(On a wartime footing, this would quickly change.)
Regarding “modern warfare”: As soon as the fun toys are destroyed, it becomes good old warfare – men with boots and a rifle defending ground. NVGs are great until the batteries run out, and once the satellites are destroyed or hacked, GPS is useless. So, you are back to navigating by a compass and map.
(During WW2, fuel became scarce making tanks useless for offensive operations until resupply was available.)
Finally, stop being trifling. Pablum is not a thesis.
Dave Schuler: That’s why I favored a punitive expedition in the air in force.
Punitive would have been a waste of resources. The idea was to get the perpetrators. That would require violating Afghanistan’s sovereignty, but that was due to Afghanistan harboring people who violated America’s sovereignty. It did not require removing the Taliban from power. Notably, the Taliban is in power today.
Dave Schuler: You’re thinking of some other country. “Judicious response†is not in our wheelhouse. Never has been.
Defeating fascism, the rebuilding of conquered nations after the war, and establishing an international order was judicious. The Gulf War was judicious in that it returned the world to the status quo and ended Iraqi territorial ambitions—without imploding the Middle East. The Cold War was largely judicious in that it avoided nuclear war by following the basic plan outlined in George Kennan’s Long Telegram, with containment, providing a vision of democracy as an alternative to Soviet communism, and avoiding becoming “like those with whom we are coping”.
TastyBits: Regarding “modern warfareâ€
A good example would be Ukraine. The boots on the ground are Ukrainians defending their own territory with “toys” provided by their Western partners. While rifles are still important, the real work is being done by high-tech munitions. Together Ukraine and its partners are stronger than the sum of the parts.
@bob sykes
For the First Gulf War, my unit was in the Saudi desert in ten days. (If I recall correctly, our forward party was there in five days.) We were a “tripwire”. I think the idea was an all-out bombing campaign if we were attacked. We could have defended ourselves, but at some point, we probably would have been overrun.
What you saw on TV was not what I experienced. The first day, the conscripts surrendered in droves. We just pointed them to the rear. On the way to take the Kuwait airport, we were in a three day running tank battle with Saddam’s more elite mechanised units.
For all you youngsters, nobody knew how the US military would perform. There were 500,000 US troops, and the reason was to not repeat Vietnam.
There was no way to “get the perpetrators” by invading Afghanistan while leaving the Taliban in power. What we have learned since 2001 is that a) it would take more than 20 years to “get the perpetrators” even if we invaded Afghanistan and b) we didn’t need to invade Afghanistan at all to do it. That, however would not have satisfied the political needs.
Dave Schuler: There was no way to “get the perpetrators†by invading Afghanistan while leaving the Taliban in power.
Quite the opposite. Bin Laden fled Afghanistan in December 2001. The U.S. had an opportunity to capture him in the Battle of Tora Bora, but the Bush Administration delayed in sending the required troops. The Taliban and Iraq were distractions from the only mission that really mattered.
@Zachriel
Thank you.
The munitions being supplied to the Ukrainians are severly and dangerously depleting the US and NATO stockpiles. Furthermore, the “high tech” weapons systems and ammo will take years to replace.
In a large scale conflict, they would be depleted in months if not weeks. Even mechanised units are dependent upon fuel resupply.
In the end, it is about men with boots, a 60 lb pack, a bayoneted rifle taking and holding ground. Everything else is support.
(I do not want to be an asshole, but what you see on TV and most movies, ain’t reality.)
The Ukrainians are Cossacks, and they have always been the elite units of the Czarian armies. They are formidable fighters, and Putin should have known this. I suspect that Putin believes that this is another rebellion, and like all other rebellions during the past 600 years, he believes that the Cossacks will be “brought to heel”.
The West is feckless, and eventually, the Ukraine will be part of Russian territory, again.
@Dave Schuler
I am not going to argue about whether or not we should have been in Kuwait, but I do contend that it was a “good war”. We had an objective. We accomplished that objective, and we “called it quits”. What came after was another matter.
Once the Al-Qaeda bases were destroyed, we were finished and should have gotten out. A small forward operating force could have been left. I still do not understood how the Taliban became our problem.
I thought that the Iraqi invasion was a pretext to establish ME bases outside Saudi. When the US dissolved the Iraqi government, I realized they were actually after WMDs. (They should have consulted NOPD or CPD. They would have found WMDs, crack, heroin, weapons, etc.)
@Zachriel
Battle of Tora Bora
It is not as simple as sending a few more troops. On the ground, reality can change fast, very fast.
(Suddenly, there is a g-damn minefield on your fucking right flank and your air support is dropping bomblets on your left flank. None of that shit is on the fucking sand tables.)
TastyBits: In the end, it is about men with boots, a 60 lb pack, a bayoneted rifle taking and holding ground. Everything else is support.
It’s about combined arms and has been since Alexander. Air power alone is futile against infantry which disperses and digs in, while concentrated infantry necessary for ground action is vulnerable to air power. Combined arms allows the infantry to act as the anvil, forcing the enemy to concentrate or be destroyed in detail. But if they concentrate, they are then subject to decimation by air attack.
TastyBits: It is not as simple as sending a few more troops. On the ground, reality can change fast, very fast.
Sure, but they had bin Laden trapped and it was those on the ground closest to the action who had requested several hundred troops to prevent his escape and close the trap. The Bush administration was distracted by the Taliban and by Iraq. The result was decades of war, thousands of American dead, and al Qaeda sticking their finger in America’s eye.
@Zachriel
Air power, artillery, naval guns, rockets, etc. all sound impressive, but against well entrenched troops, they are almost worthless. Trust me, they are standing until a Harrier or Cobra fly overhead, and then, they hit the deck.
If the Bush administration were serious, they would have sent in a substantially larger force than they did. Because on TV the First Gulf War looked easy, they assumed that this would be the same.
As to whether several hundred troops would have made a difference, I have no idea, and you certainly do not. Furthermore, this is not the Uber Eats app, and you do not just place an order for several hundred troops. Then, you need to deploy and supply them.
Let me be clear, I do not care about the politics. I only care about the guys taking incoming rounds. Everybody else is “in the rear with the gear”, and most of them do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. Leaders back in the states looking at maps and making decisions based upon accounting are assholes.
You can believe whatever you like. I do not like discussing the topic, and I am finished.
They didn’t really have that option. Afghanistan is land-locked, supplies need to go through Pakistan, and Pakistan wouldn’t allow it. The viable options from a logistics point of view were either to do what they did or not go in at all.
BTW the sequence of events was a little different than is being suggested. The Taliban were removed AND THEN the “battle of Tora Bora” took place about a month later. Said another way the latter was conditional on the former. The U. S. was little involved in the action—it was conducted by Afghan militias vs. Al Qaeda. At that point we didn’t have many troops in-country.