Grand Strategy for an Era of Decline

7/31/2019 Grand Strategy for an Era of Decline

1/3

Grand S

Grand Strategy for an Era of Decline

The American Foreign Policy Debate in 2011

Not new: many cycles over the last decades - people suggesting that US is

becoming less powerful - counterreaction -

The rise of the rest - no of countries cracked generating more wealth and society -

China, Brazil, etc..

Fiscal picture within the US is looking bleak: American government and resources

: finances look bad in short term - worse in medium term - apocalyptic in long

term. Deficits of + 1 trillion dollar a year - collective national debt running up to

100% ...

There is a lot less money coming in than is projected to go out (or even stand still)

- so what can the US still afford in terms of its spending ?

Obama: projected first nominal defense cuts in a generation (depending on

Congress)

Reasons

- some others are spending notably more (China: 100 billion dollars / year BUT

RISING - US: 700 billion - 1 trillion a year)

- investment in research and development -- the military advantage might be

eroded very quickly if not enough is spent

- what is needed to continue their massive lead?

Present American lead so great that it is unlikely that others will pass them by inthe near future

Present trends cannot predict the future.

Power is relational - not only in crude terms of resources - find ways to persuade

others to do what they want them to do ..

ETC.

no one will be able to catch up

=> what is the near future ?? is the glass half-empty or half-full ?? How substantial

is their lead - 20-25 years too far in the future to be concerned or not?

Present trends = dangerous base for prediction?

NO - it is our "imperfect best" to predict the future ...

US institutions - structural power - norms will outlive this decline.

=> they do not have an 'outside life'

=> as China becomes increasingly stronger

Conceptual point - two definitions of US Power.Kenneth Waltz tried to define power in terms of resources


2/3

Grand S

Defining power by what you can achieve in terms of objectives

Extent of to which all of the actions affects others (more than they are affected

themselves)

2012

Weight of the US in a way that it can affect others without being affected itself is

SHRINKING. Obama within the context of American policies

Barack Obama is NO liberal's dream in Foreign Policy.

He didn't breach that much promises (false projections by other people)

'failing to do things' that he did NOT promise to do.

He opposed the Iraq war originally - a 'dumb' war - not immoral/illegal/... but

DUMB - drawn down America's involvement but has consistently stated and

restated that he is NOT a pacifist (see Nobel Prize Peace acceptance speech where

he talked about war to protect statehood, ironically)

Increasing the troops in Afghanistan - but also made some commitments to try and

set a timeline for drawing down.

Relatively tentative in his management of the Arab Spring - described his

approach as 'leading from behind' to the campaign in Libya

Obama has been hanging back, trying to deal reactively with events, not puttingthe US in the middle of situations they can't handle.

Game of RESTRAINT with Iran - to an extent he managed to win back a degree of

international credibility

Got more tough with Iran (through sanctions) but makes it clear that he thinks a

military solution to the problem does not exist

When it comes to China, he is trying to hold on to longstanding American behavior

Retired the label 'war on terror' - but increased use of special forces, drone

attacks - war has not decreased...

The Republicans have attached themselves to attacking all of these policies from a

hawkish viewpoint.

except for Ron Paul = true libertarian

Gingrich, Romney, Santorum: competing with each other in terms of 'toughness' -Obama accused them of being intent on starting a war without thinking it


3/3

Grand S

through. Make them look irresponsible.

Even Romney (business-friendly) with regard to China has accused Obama of

weakness - promised getting though on China - too soft on Arab Spring - not

doing enough in Syria ...

John McCain: drumbanging for American commitment to support the uprising in

Syria

Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism - Republicans DO (is their

argument) - always implictly envoked but now explicit in this campaign

TWO POINTS about this debate

1) A lot of this debate is a little bit detached from reality. A lot of Republicanrhetoric is based on 'magical thinking' - the government of Iran, internal politics

of M-East countries, more confident of China is NOT bending to America's will

- because of its presidents lack of authority ?

NO: because of America's gradual decline of influence and power ..

Republicans: we only need an iron will to reinstall this..

MORE commitment to invasions in Afghanistan/Iraq

MORE in Iran etc

MORE military resources ...

2) There is a choice between declining politely - managing the decline or going

out screaming, roaring and shouting, refusing to believe that this IS the trajectory

for the nation ..

Obama is under a great deal of pressure to avoid compromise ..

America is not in a position to reach out and compromise with Iran atm for

example completely impossible ..

3) The election might look like a closing-window opportunity for some countries(for example Israel - reelection for Obama)

Advise: oversee the steady decline Misterr Obama

BIGGG FOREIGN POLICY INTERVENTIONS - electorate is SICK about Afghanistan

- 55% says it has not been worth the resources.

Documents

Grand Strategy for an Era of Decline