October 17, 2008 |  13 comments |  Print this Article | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Jan Ross

The United States: Heroes of the Retreat

Jan Ross: America’s superior power position has long begun to crumble. The faith of the American people in the US mission has been shaken by the politics of an unpopular president and threatening economic developments. The US does not only need “change” right now. America needs healing.


How can the land of victories and optimism come to terms with a life after the imperial moment?

Learning to decline - is it doable? Can a world power that no longer presumes to dominate the world find a new role without depression or biting fear. Is there life after the imperial moment? That is the question that the United States faces, and that will define the term of the next American President.

The global image of the United States has not recovered since the days of the "dominance rush," when the Bush government made its land hated in the world due to the Iraq War and the excesses of Abu Ghraib. However, the superior power position has long begun to crumble.

The economic and political dynamic has shifted to Asia at the outset of the 21st century. A resurgent Russia can militarily force Georgia, a US client, to its knees without penalty. The fall of Saddam Hussein did not bring the democratic transformation of the Islamic world, but instead the end of the American era in the Middle East - control has slipped away from Washington.

The American people are reacting with an uncertainty that runs deeper than the political dissatisfaction with an extremely unpopular President. Even before the credit crisis, the motherland of capitalism was being eaten by doubts about capitalism, by the fear of cheap imports from Asia and by the consequences of free trade with Mexico. The collapse of Wall Street is such a significant event because it has hit a people for whom the trusted values of performance, justice and the reward of hard work have come into question.

The oil dependency of the USA is now seen as a national security risk of the first degree. It places the West at the mercy of Petro Regimes. The failure of Bush's war has shaken the trust citizens had not only in American power, but also in the American mission. The entire history of the United States to date was the story of its rise to the pinnacle of a world dominated by the West; but exactly this world, however, is no longer self-evident.

The competitors for the top global position have, in fact, glaring weaknesses: China can fall into a political crisis through social and ecological upheavals; Europe lacks the strategic ability to act and the appetite for greatness. The USA will remain the strongest and most important state for the foreseeable future.

But that changes nothing about the fact that wealth, influence and strength are shifting to the South and East. Ironically this is due to the incredible success of the original American model of the middle class dream of prosperity and personal freedom. Hundreds of millions have made it. They are competing economically with the United States.They are putting the USA under pressure politically and reducing its sphere of influence: It is the Americanization of the world that tears more at the superiority of the United States than any ideological or power politics opposition.

The eternal good mood is becoming a handicap

Learning to decline - that must be especially difficult for the USA. This is a nation of winners. Americans have experienced the history of modern times and capitalism to this point as the story of their own success. It is this mentality that made the United States great. It is also this mentality that will now be a problem because it opposes the self-doubt, humility and the peaceful process of growing historically old.

It may be that the USA will desperately cling to the idea of its exceptionalism and the remains of its fleeting excess of power. Despite his impressive personal stature, the candidate John McCain now seems to be the impression of a backwards looking defiance.

Barack Obama by comparison could become the first American President of a "post-American era." The land of immigration USA, the only universal nation, can win a different relationship to the world than that of dominance: It can mirror and represent it, play out and mediate its differences. Perhaps America will take the first step in that direction on November 4.

Jan Ross is foreign editor at Die Zeit.

This article first appeared in German in Die Zeit and has been translated and shortened for Atlantic-community.org with permission from the author.

Related Material from the Atlantic Community:



  • 8
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
John  Hadjisky

October 20, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr. Ross is in such a hurry to declare a Brave New World of American decline. He seems to forget that the US hasn't even entered an economic recession yet, although we probably will.

Besides, many Americans would welcome a lesser role on the world stage, because we don't need the headache. But headache is all it is, it is not a brain tumor. If it is our fate to be less powerful in the future, we won't collapse, or lash out in a fit of pique. We will simply re-discover our heritage of trade with all, alliances with none.

America's demise has been predicted so many times before.

Mr. Ross understands nothing about America.
Tags: | idiot |
 
David Neil Lebhar

October 20, 2008

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear John,

While your comments are always very welcome, your tag seems inappropriate, no? This should remain a forum for critical debate, not personal attacks.
 
Unregistered User

October 20, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"Besides, many Americans would welcome a lesser role on the world stage"

No doubt. But who could it be instead? The EU is clearly incapable politically, economically, militarily. Who else? The UN, a talk show of dictatorships and corrupt regimes?

I want to know how peace can be technically secured in a long term perspective? If according to lefties, the doctrine (summarized in two points: 1) democracies do not fight each other; 2) anybody can live in a democracy) is wrong, then what logically follows from that? The thesis "down with America" is clear. What's next?
 
Donald  Stadler

October 20, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Good point, Russian. The US (or something like it) is obviously needed. But just as obviously the US is not wanted, and after 15 years of a rising crapstorm I have had enough of the monkey house.

Tyhe fact that the world may need the services the US can provide does not imply an obligation for the US to provide those services. Particularly when the foremost impulse of those calling themselves US allies has been to raise the costs of providing 'superpower' services in every way possible; by refusing to contribute a single euro or manpower, and by slinging turds at the US on every possible occasion.

It's been way too much, time for us to pull back and let others try it on,
 
John  Hadjisky

October 20, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@Mr. Lebhar,

Just having a little fun. In my experience the rules of etiquette for tags are sometimes more relaxed than for formal posts or comments. But I am certainly willing to follow your rules. If I can figure out how to remove the tag, I will.

I must also point out that where rules of etiquette such as you suggest are in effect, it is generally not normal to use inflammatory phrases such as "Heroes of the Retreat" in the title of a post. There could at least be a question mark?
 
Francisco J. Ruiz

October 21, 2008

  • 6
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
We are moving to a "one super-power, several great-powers" model, but the super-power is going to be the USA for decades. The current economic crisis is here to stay a couple of years but then, and after some adjustments, the capitalist model (the only that makes sense, in any case) will recover and the West is going to stay on the top.

The EU has the economic potential to be a military peer-competitor, but lacks the political will. Even if the ESDP was completely developed, the EU would only complement the American "hard power", something in any case quite interesting for the USA, which in that way shouldn’t devote resources for the European Security "area of interest".

China, as the author recognizes, sooner or later will get into troubles, as well as its economic model (with 90% of the population oppressed and disconnected from any political or economic improvement) can't be maintained forever. It is very easy to grow up coming from the bottom, but the two-figure GDP's increases won't last forever, as it happened to Japan after the 1990' crisis.

The same could be said about India, playing the hegemonic role in its region, but having 500 million people in the most absolute misery. And Russia, even recovered from the 90's turmoil, has a too great dependence on the exportation of raw materials (and prices are going down due to the crisis and reducing demand). Additionally, the demographic crisis is the number one threat for the country, something that the Kremlin authorities are trying to tackle.

So don’t be so fast burying the American “imperial” corpse; that could be true if after the end of the Cold War the USA had been really interested on becoming an imperial “hegemon”, but that only happened in the most imaginative anti-American minds. During the Clinton administration, there was a real multilateral attempt for configuring the “new world order” (maybe not too successful), and at the beginning of the Bush administration there was a trend towards a renewed isolationism, something that changed only after the 11-S.

Obviously, there have been lots of mistakes conducting the Log War on Terror, but they have not generated more hate against the USA than the already existing, associated to all kind of pathetic tyrants, oil oligarchs and melancholic lefties. What these mistakes have generated is a list of lessons learned, based on studies and critics openly made even in the US, as I had the chance to contrast being a Naval War College student. That capacity of self-criticism is the guarantee of the future success of the USA, specially with a new administration in place the next year.
Tags: | US Foreign Policy |
 
Marek  Swierczynski

October 21, 2008

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
After Francisco's post we're coming to a conclusion that the retreat does not equal defeat and that the US may well re-emerge after it takes some time to re-define its global role and sorts out a couple of internal problems, the financial crisis being the most urgent one. That might what the northern hemishpere would wish for, bearing in mind potential threats it faces from the south and lack of meantime solution ie. a clear and able competitor to the US. But things may get complicated if the US does not resurrect quickly enough or if the new role it adapts would not match the expectations. First, many examples show that geopolitics is a zero-sum game and when the superpower withdraws from certain areas, other forces emerge - states or non-state actors - to reclaim that "territory". Second, if the superpower in trouble does not adapt, it may further loose its position and become a great-power, to use Francisco's terminology. Then of course someone would be tempted to re-claim a superpower status. Unless we're ready for a major change (that would be to much for Obama to deliver), we should help the US to help itself.
Tags: | Change |
 
Jeffery Allen Richard

October 21, 2008

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I agree. There is a longing by many writers for the decline of the USA (presumably so that its role in international affairs could be then taken by a reinvigorated UN) but it seems as unlikely now as it did back when Paul Kennedy wrote "Decline and Fall of Great Powers".

Moreover, I strongly doubt Barack Obama will calmly preside over an American decline as Jan Ross describes.
 
Donald  Stadler

October 21, 2008

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"There is a longing by many writers for the decline of the USA (presumably so that its role in international affairs could be then taken by a reinvigorated UN) but it seems as unlikely now as it did back when Paul Kennedy wrote "Decline and Fall of Great Powers"."

I think there is a longing in the US itself for taking a step back, which I don't think of as a decline, except perhaps in the sense of "We decline to do so". Any number of the things which the US now does are strictly optional from the narrow POV of US interests. These things may not be quite so optional from a european point of view, or the viewpoint of many other countries.

But it has become staggeringly obvious that these things which the US does have come to be 'taken for granted', and no longer worthy of note or support from other nations.

So the US should undertake a complete top to bottom strategic review of everything it does globally, and reduce or eliminate it's committments to missions which are either not directly in the national interest of he US or which are not being 'paid for' or reciprocated in solid terms by the countries who benefit them.

I think the lesson of Kennedy's magisterial 'Decline and Fall of the Great Powers' is that a great power can do a great many things - but it cannot do everything. I thin the US has been trying to do 'everything' or something too close to that; time to make some intelligent choices.
 
Jeffery Allen Richard

October 21, 2008

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
To being with, my own opinion of the "magisterial" work of Prof. Kennedy is that its central premise - great imperial powers collapse because of "imperial overstretch" - was overstated and overly simplistic. But that is a discussion for a different forum I think.

More significantly, what makes you think that the US has been "trying to do everything"? In the last 20 years, the US has engaged in several "little wars" and one expensive and prolonged military occupation. The current US defense budget, although large by global comparison, is extremely sustainable (as opposed to very legitimate concerns about how to deal with growing entitlement commitments, state and local pension funds, and health care). The US has only one potential serious military adversary (China - and that is only over the status of Taiwan) and Sino-American relations are on the whole pretty good.

Moreover, many of the policies you would likely consider "not in the narrow interests of the US" are likely supported by important consistuencies of the US electorate and not strongly opposed by a significant section of the voting population.
 
Donald  Stadler

October 21, 2008

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr. Richard, the thesis of 'Decline and Fall' concerned not only the (relatively) sudden collapse of great powers but also the long-term stress placed upon other powers which accept massive committments during a period of relative strength and attempt to keep those committments when the strength of their position has deteriorated relative to other powers.

Examples of sudden collapse might be Imperial Spain after the 30 Year War or the USSR after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Here you are correct - the fate of Spain does not compare to the immediate future of the US.

The book also documents the fate of the British Empire - and here the historical parallel to the US is much closer, if not a precise fit. I think it's pretty clear that Brittania would be much better off today if she had found a way to reduce her some of her committments and obligations when it became obvious that her relative strength was declining. Allow other powers to bear part of the burden. Britain may have been unable to do this because of the geographical nature of her empire and her dependence on global trade for critical materials and even to feed the home isles. nThus they had to maintain the Empire until the better end when it could no longer be maintained.

The US is not at all in a similar position to where the British Empire was, and the response need not be the same at all. The US does not maintain a formal empire, is capable of feeding itself without trade if necessary, and also capable of obtaining most strategic materials without going to the far ends of the earth. There are certain exceptions to that of course, but those mark ans area of shared interests with other powers, so I see ni reason why the US should bear the burden of exclusively defending the seaways far from our borders.
 
Jeffery Allen Richard

October 21, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
And the biggest dissimularity between the US and the British Empire - the US is not about to go toe to toe with a significantly more powerful land army and lose more than 2% of its entire population as war deaths - which more than any "imperial overstretch" broke the British Empire. Had the First World War not occured, it is entirely conceivable that the British Empire would not have collapsed, although changing attitudes by the English regarding the legitimacy of the Empire might well have resulted in the same result - but for purely political reasons.
 
Donald  Stadler

October 21, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The UK was already feeling the economic overstretch as early as the 1880's, Jeffery. They were failing to repair and upgrade their infrastructure, failing to keep up with the growth rate and modern industrial expansion of Germany and to a degree France, and certainly not with the US.

It's understandable of course. The British Empire covered a quarter of the planet, so it was in a fairly real sense their planet. I think they got into WWI to stop Kaiserine Germany from dominating Europe.

I wouldn't be too sanguine about the US not getting into a land war Jeffery. I see three possible flash points - Russia, Korea, and Taiwan. With continental europe steadilly cutting their defense budgets since the Berlin Wall fell, the defense of Europe has been left in the hands of Uncle Sam. This adds huge risks for the US which makes absolutely no strategic sense at all for the US to bear. We have similar committments in South Korea and Taiwan, although I don't see China as an aggressive power this way. That won't change unless or until the Chinese economic growth rate drops in a big way. Should China hit a depression, watch out!

My answer is to reduce US committments to the land defense of continental europe to very little, although we may choose to defend naval lanes and supply some air support. If Europe chooses to go undefended (as it largely has) we ought not allow ourselves to be suckered into paying the price for them either in treasure or lives. The situation in Taiwan and South Korea should be closely monitored. Taiwan coul be indefensible under certain situations, and our committment in Korea should be to help SK defend itself against NK - not an agressive China.

I think the withdrawal
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?