[Mb-hair] Decadent America must give up imperial ambitions

[Michael Butler]

FT.com     
 
Click Here to Print
      EMAIL THIS | Close
 
Decadent America must give up imperial ambitions
>By Anatol Lieven
>Published: November 28 2005 20:20 | Last updated: November 28 2005 20:20
>>

US global power, as presently conceived by the overwhelming majority of the
US establishment, is unsustainable. To place American power on a firmer
footing requires putting it on a more limited footing. Despite the lessons
of Iraq, this is something that American policymakers ­ Democrat and
Republican, civilian and military ­ still find extremely difficult to think
about.

The basic reasons why the American empire is bust are familiar from other
imperial histories. The empire can no longer raise enough taxes or soldiers,
it is increasingly indebted and key vassal states are no longer reliable. In
an equally classical fashion, central to what is happening is the greed and
decadence of the imperial elites. Like so many of their predecessors, the US
wealthy classes have gained a grip over the state that allows them to escape
taxation. Mass acquiescence in this has to be bought with much smaller ­ but
fiscally equally damaging ­ cuts to taxes on the middle classes.

The result is that the empire can no longer pay for enough of the
professional troops it needs to fulfil its self-assumed imperial tasks. It
cannot introduce conscription because of the general demilitarisation of
society and also because elite youths are no longer prepared to set an
example of leadership and sacrifice by serving themselves. The result is
that the US is incapable of waging more wars of occupation, such as in Iraq.
It can defeat other states in battle easily enough but it cannot turn them
into loyal or stable allies. War therefore means simply creating more and
more areas of anarchy and breeding grounds for terrorism.

It is important to note that this US weakness affects not only the ambitions
of the Bush administration, but also geopolitical stances wholly shared by
the Democrats. The Bush administration deserves to be savagely criticised
for the timing and the conduct of the Iraq war. Future historians may,
however, conclude that President Bill Clinton¹s strategy of the 1990s would
also have made the conquest of Iraq unavoidable sooner or later; and that
given the realities of Iraqi society and history, the results would not have
been significantly less awful. For that matter, can present US strategy
against Iran ­ supported by both parties ­ be sustained permanently without
war? Indeed, given the nature of the Middle East, may it not be that any
power wishing to exercise hegemony in the region would have to go to war at
regular intervals in defence of its authority or its local clients?

Furthermore, the relative decline in US economic independence means that,
unlike in 1917 or 1941, really serious war risks US economic disaster. Even
a limited US-Chinese clash over Taiwan would be likely to produce
catastrophic economic consequences for both sides.

In theory, the desirable US response to its imperial overstretch is simple
and has been advocated by some leading independent US thinkers such as
Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard.* It is to fall back on ³offshore
balancing², intended to create regional coalitions against potential
aggressors and, when possible, regional consensuses in support of order and
stability. Not just a direct military presence, but direct military
commitments and alliances should be avoided wherever possible.

When, however, one traces what this might mean in practice in various parts
of the world, it becomes clear how utterly unacceptable much of this
approach would be to the entire existing US political order. In the former
Soviet Union, it could mean accepting a qualified form of Russian sphere of
influence. In Asia, it could mean backing Japan and other countries against
any Chinese aggression, but also defusing the threat of confrontation with
China by encouraging the reintegration of Taiwan into the mainland. In the
Middle East, it could involve separating US goals from Israeli ones and
seeking detente with Iran.

Impossible today, some at least of these moves may, however, prove
inescapable in a generation¹s time. For it is pointless to dream of long
maintaining an American empire for which most Americans will neither pay nor
fight. My fear though is that, rather than as a result of carefully planned
and peaceful strategy, this process may occur through disastrous defeats, in
the course of which American global power will not be qualified but
destroyed altogether, with potentially awful consequences for the world.

>

The writer is a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation. His
latest book is America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism.

*Stephen M. Walt, Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy
(W.W. Norton, 2005)
>
>
>