Loss of political capital compared to what? What does political capital actually mean or achieve?

In 1990, we built a coalition and expelled Iraq from Kuwait. in 2003, we built a coalition, and took control of a country. We had more international support the first time (political capital?), but all that support prevented us from going farther than expulsion of Iraqi forces. In 2003, with less support, we invaded and took control of Iraq in a few weeks. Has the occupation cost us capital? Maybe, but with who? Libya openly abandoned nuclear programs bc of OIF, and it appears Iran suspended theirs for the time being because of OIF. Eastern Europe wants our bases and money. Asia wants our bases and money. al Qaeda is being rejected by other militants door to its aggressive actions, and performance on the front lines in Iraq.

Throughout the ages, groups and countries have invaded Afghanistan. In 2001, we sent in troops and firepower to assist the non-Taliban forces, and expelled the Taliban from power. Today, though not perfect, there is a nominal central government, that is slowly improving the security situation. If nothing else, we may be the first foreigners to ever be reluctantly welcomed by most Afghans. That's capital.

Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
@patmc:

One of the most relevant factors is in my opinion the loss of political capital. That diminished the diplomatic influence.
As someone once said, Baker accumulated capital by building the coalition against Saddam in 1990, GWBush spent all political capital by building the "coalition of the willing" and attacking Saddam again.
We probably lost some "political capital" from OEF and OIF, but it was probably with countries that were already lukewarm friends to begin with. Conversely, strenghth and commitment have given us capital. Colombia, Ethiopia, Georgia, and other states are more confident in taking action now because they have our support. Is that a loss of political capital? The President of the United States may be booed and protested when he enters a foreign country, but what other leader has sent his/her forces across the globe and taken over 2 separate countries, despite the complaints?

China, UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc... are still largely regional powers now, though they all were once world powers. The UK, Germany, and France can barely meet their commitments in Afghanistan and Africa. China is buying influence with investment, and military ties. They are a strong power, but they still can't cross water and take back Taiwan. The US took back its breakaways 2 centuries ago. Russia has size and oil, but is still tied down in its backyard, and in playing spoiler elsewhere.

Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
And I believe you are wrong with your assertion that the U.S. has most influence in the world. That's a shadow of the past. I don't see any country being significantly ahead in influence to date. China, UK, France, Germany, Russia and the USA all have significant influence, albeit in different regions and with different methods.
The USA failed with too many diplomatic initiatives in the past years to be considered very influential.
Name the diplomatic initiatives that have failed, and they can probably be met with initiatives that have succeeded. Are these failures enough for the country with the largest economy and most active military to not be very influential? I doubt that. The US in not perfect, and criticism is not necessarily knee-jerk Anti-Americanism, but it is better to use facts and examples rather than abstract theories such as perceived loss of political capital, which is largely an opinion, not fact. I may be wrong, so please show some evidence.