A larger reason, however, may be that no ambitious politician is willing to mention the discomfiting reality about America's place in the world -- that we are weaker today than we were a decade or two ago, and that we need a new foreign policy that acknowledges and builds on that fact.
President Bush's follies have accelerated the decline of U.S. influence, but he can't be blamed for its onset. It started, ironically, at the moment of our late-century triumph, when the Soviet Union imploded and the Cold War victory was ours. Some proclaimed that the United States was now "the sole superpower." But, in fact, the end of the Cold War left the very concept of a "superpower" in tatters.
This is just idiotic. We are weaker than we were in 1988 when the Cold War still raged? We are weaker now than in 1998 when our president was in disgrace and we couldn't get anybody but Britain (other than dribs and drabs from other allies) to help us attack Iraq in the Desert Fox operation? And a year later we were seen as a bully fighting a near-unilateral war against Serbia over Kosovo, unable to move a couple squadrons of helicopters into the Balkans?
And we had these problems even as the French coined the term "hyperpower" to describe us?
Look, we may be weaker than we were in 1998 but it isn't because we are weaker but because other nations get stronger. China in particular but also India and Russia are gaining strength. We had perhaps half the planet's GDP in 1945 with our enemies in tatters and that has declined over the decades. When the Soviets collapsed we again dominated the globe. Now others rise. This is normal. And given the massive downsizing of China's economic power, isn't the timing of another "America is doomed" essay a bit bad?
Yet we will remain the strongest power for many decades. And with China penned in by powerful neighbors, our power will remain the most unconstrained and available to tip the balance:
[As] other powers rise up, they will be glowering at each other, with their increased military power committed to watching close neighbors whose military power is rising.
We, by contrast, will have the most free military power usable for power projection to support our allies and oppose our foes.
Writing us off is a fun game for some to play. But it won't happen any decade soon.
And contrary to Kaplan's view, when I look around the globe I don't see the alienation that he sees. I see friends and allies. The idea that he is dismantling the idea that our power is unchallenged is ridiculous. Who claims that? It is a straw man. We've always recognized limits on our power and President Bush is no different from any other president in this regard. What sets him apart is that he is willing to use the power we have to pursue our interests and defend our country. For some, that is truly disturbing.
Kaplan also bizarrely complains that we are rough with allies who get in our way in order to do what we want:
So, for much of the last seven years, U.S. leaders stomped around the globe with wide-elbowed indifference to the consequences of their actions. Allies were alienated, enemies enraged and those in between -- especially those rich in key resources -- cut their own deals and created their own networks outside U.S. control.
Enemies enraged? Iraq and Afghanistan are now allies where they were enemies. North Korea is teetering and eager to talk. Iran is poor with people who think well of us. The mythical Arab street has moved on from the overthrow of Saddam and has turned on bin Laden.
And more strangely, in the next paragraph Kaplan complains that we let countries get away with not cooperating with us!
Nations, including those whose leaders aren't so disposed to anti-Americanism, have learned, through experience or observation, that defying Washington carries no penalty. Germany joins France in opposing resolutions on Iraq in the U.N. Security Council -- and nothing happens to Germany. The Turkish parliament votes against letting U.S. troops invade Iraq from the north -- and nothing happens to Turkey. Bush warns Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak not to trample on human rights; the trampling continues -- and not only does nothing happen to Egypt, but on his recent trip to the Middle East, Bush commends Mubarak for his
commitment to democracy.
So what is it? Are we to be condemned for throwing elbows or failing to knee friends in the groin? Is Kaplan so determined to write us off that he can't keep one paragraph's argument in mind as he goes on to the next contradictory one?
As for the weak dollar he mentions, I remember the late 1970s when oil producers questioned whether they'd take dollars for their oil. And then our military was not feared by anybody. Now, the Chinese are darned worried about the power we've displayed in our wars to defend ourselves since 9/11.
It's a fun parlor game to predict our decline. Authors make money on this theme all the time. And since our decline never seems to work out that way, I imagine they will for decades or centuries to come. Profits of doom will never be a thing of the past.
People, I wouldn't trade places with China or anybody else in the world. Put away those shiny white surrender flags.
UPDATE: A timely article on our GDP:
In terms of gross domestic product, the U.S. has been an economic colossus for a long time, and continues to be so.
Economist Angus Maddison writes in his book, ``The World Economy: a Millennial Perspective,'' that America's share of world GDP peaked at almost 28 percent in 1951, up from 1.8 percent in 1820, 8.8 percent in 1870 and 18.9 percent in 1913.
The U.S. share of world income then declined consistently until 1975, when it accounted for 21 percent of world GDP. It has been roughly the same since. Maddison, who has compiled global national-income data for the world from 1 A.D. to 2001, estimates the U.S. share of world GDP was 21.4 percent in 2001.
Since then, growth outside the U.S. has picked up, while the expansion inside the U.S. has slowed. According to the International Monetary Fund, which offers more recent statistics, the U.S. accounted for 21.0 percent of world income in 2001 (which is close enough to Maddison's estimate to allow one to draw on both); it declined to 20.0 percent in 2005.
Our military spending, still well under our Cold War level as a percent of our GDP, fails to show a decline in our power:
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute keeps a database of world military spending that goes back to the late 1980s. According to the institute, U.S. defense spending as a share of world defense spending peaked at 44 percent in 1992, and then declined until 2001, when it fell below 39 percent of the world total. ...
Since 2001, however, the U.S. military has grown considerably, largely because of the war in Iraq and the war on terror, and the U.S. constituted 45.7 percent of global defense spending in 2006.
Given the relative size of the U.S. armed forces, there is little doubt the U.S. will have to take a leading role going forward in assuring world security.
Looking both at the economic and the military facts, one can only conclude that the U.S. is a singular nation, and will likely be so for a long, long time.
And again, remember that our power is largely unneeded for direct defense of our territory. We can project much of our power around the globe to support friends and challenge enemies.
The desire to surrender is strong among some despite the facts to the contrary. But a guy can dream, I guess.
UPDATE: A useful reminder of how affordable the war is financially.
