Japan (catch all)

[davidbfpo]

Ray asked a question:

What must the US do to tweak her foreign, strategic and economic policies, given the unfolding circumstances, to be able to dictate the 'fate' of the world as she is still doing?

I am not convinced the USA has ever been able to dictate the 'fate' of the world as she is still doing.

There have been a few times when the USA has been the paramount capable nation, after WW1 & WW2 for example. It has not always used that capability, often due to domestic factors and more recently has been obsessed with terrorism to the detriment of many other issues - including its own problems at home.

The USA would have to do far more than 'tweak' its policies to attain the position you ascribe to it - dictating the world's fate.

[Ray]

Ray asked a question:

I am not convinced the USA has ever been able to dictate the 'fate' of the world as she is still doing.

There have been a few times when the USA has been the paramount capable nation, after WW1 & WW2 for example. It has not always used that capability, often due to domestic factors and more recently has been obsessed with terrorism to the detriment of many other issues - including its own problems at home.

The USA would have to do far more than 'tweak' its policies to attain the position you ascribe to it - dictating the world's fate.

Fair statement.

However, it was touted that US was the supercop of the world. And sure it acted as one and enforced it too.

Was that bogus?

If it were, then how come Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq or even Afghanistan happened or making the OPEC irrelevant to blackmail or pushing the boundaries of Europe to squeeze Russia or Middle East and none complained!?

Does one really believe Egypt, Algeria or Syria is a problem of their own making?

If that is not deciding the fate of the world, then what is?

Then if the US want to retain her primacy, what should it do?

Fade away as a wilted rose?

I do agree that the wily Oriental mind of China has somewhat degraded the US value to keep global equations, but then to see it fade away would hardly 'warm the cockles of the heart' of many nations around the world and in Asia.

What does paramount capable nation, mean?

It means capable to make its writ run!

[davidbfpo]

Ray,

You asked:

What does paramount capable nation, mean?

I believe that the USA remains the only global superpower, with no nation in a position to be a rival globally. Hence the use of the adjective paramount. I originally used italics for capable to draw attention to the USA having the capability to exercise power, it is simply that it does not always exercise that power.

In a number of spheres the USA has incredible power, notably to coerce, gather information, provide intelligence and apply direct military force. It remain weak in other spheres, in trade, ideology - or "message", info ops and finance.

Around the globe the USA is readily portrayed as a 'cop' with a big stick and little else. One that shelters itself behind walls.

The USA is far more than this. D-Day reminded me of the immense economic and industrial mobilization undertaken; not to ignore the huge Canadian contribution.

In other threads, maybe now old, American members have remarked that the USA has been engaged in a political-military campaign against terrorism (once known as GWOT), but domestically it has been carrying on as normal.

[Dayuhan]

However, it was touted that US was the supercop of the world. And sure it acted as one and enforced it too.

Was that bogus?

Yes, it was bogus. The US, like every country, acts or does not act according to its own perceived interests, and that's not compatible with the "cop" role.

If it were, then how come Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq or even Afghanistan happened or making the OPEC irrelevant to blackmail or pushing the boundaries of Europe to squeeze Russia or Middle East and none complained!?

I'm not sure what you mean by "making the OPEC irrelevant to blackmail".

The US acts, when it acts, according to its own perception of its own interest. Both perception and interests are subject to revision, so the basis for action (or inaction) is not always going to be the same. Not all of these events are exclusively related to US action in any case: "pushing the boundaries of Europe" owes at least as much to Eastern Europeans preferring to be allied with the West as it does to any US action. It is a mistake to interpret events through an overly US-focused lens: people act on their own initiatives and perceptions, not because on anything the US did. In any event, lots of people complained about all of these, some of them in the US, where there is rarely if ever a consensus on what the national interest is.

Does one really believe Egypt, Algeria or Syria is a problem of their own making?

Yes. That kind of "problem" cannot be "made" from the outside. Outside forces will inevitably try to exploit and manipulate events once they start, but that's not the same as causing them and the US is not in any way the only one playing that game.

If that is not deciding the fate of the world, then what is?

It's not.

Then if the US want to retain her primacy, what should it do?

First, acknowledge that trying to maintain absolute military supremacy without absolute economic supremacy is a one way street to exhaustion and collapse. Trying to be top dog at all times and in all places and to have the final word in every dispute is neither necessary nor sustainable.

Second, stop dissipating energy and resources on efforts not central to US interests. Apply force only when it is necessary to do so, in places and over issues where critical US interests are at stake. Empires and hegemonies are more likely to fail through overextension and overcommitment than through the restrained use of power.