Revisiting this post to clean it up and hit upon a couple of points.
The forum was too narrowly focused on the Middle East and biased against the U.S. Although criticism of our policies in the Middle East are not beyond severe criticism. During the forum, Sen McCain made great points on how our failure to honor our red line regarding WMD use by Assad in Syria had repercussions around the world. Allies, partners, and adversaries questioned our resolve to lead. The Russian comments about the U.S. being the only remaining evangelistic nation that tries to impose its ideas on other countries also rings uncomfortably true. Can be Americans, meaning citizens who embrace the ideas of our founding documents and not be democracy and free market evangelists? I think that is a serious question for us, and one that will certainly come up during the next Presidential election. It will be presented in the same bipolar way that the arguments about being strong against communism were, and strong against terrorism were (and remain). Failure to conform could result in loss of party support. Yet, as Americans (obviously directed at U.S. citizens) we need to ask ourselves is that really who we should be as a nation. Sen. McCain said we have a responsibility to spread our ideas globally, so he clearly is in the interventionist camp.
The topic of American Power is important not just to America, but to the world, since our actions impact the security and economies of many citizens well beyond our borders. U.S. has issued strategic guidance to sustain U.S. global leadership. What does that mean? Is it even possible in an increasingly multipolar world? Are we willing to employ hard power in a manner that it will be effective? More to the point, if we can't sustain a dominant leadership position globally what does that portend for the world order? Will actors hostile to human rights occupy the space we abandon?
How is our power impacted by the advent of hyper-interdependence and hyper-connectedness in this phase of globalization? How is our power impacted by the advent of the emergence of market states as a new norm (market interests trump all other interests)? Can we effectively use hard power to shape the world when we allow international and domestic opinion (or more often than not, media opinion) to constrain our application of force?
Soft power is more myth than reality. Power is the ability to get people to act the way we want them to act, so if they're attracted to our ideas and values it works. If they're not, then we reached the limit of soft power, and if the desired behavior we desire is in our national interest we will have to resort to hard power to achieve it. Not watered down hard power where we gradually escalate the use of force and economic sanctions, but sufficient power to compel an adversary to bend to our will. I wish war as a political necessity ceased to exist, but simply trying to wish it away does not change the reality of the world we live in. As America's relative power continues to decline it will force strategic decisions for other leaders beyond our own borders.
We are living the curse, "may you live in interesting times."
Bookmarks