Concept of Global Leadership is Obsolete
Professor Smith writes in his post: "Bacevich's belief (Chapter 1) that empire pays, and that the public appreciates a payoff from it under the name of 'freedom,' does not persuade me."
The problem here is one of verb tense. What I try to argue is that empire (or at least an expansionist foreign policy) once /paid. /Indeed, if we cite the Louisiana Purchase as the beginning of serious American expansionism, then it paid quite nicely for at least the next century-and-a-half. By the time I was born after World War II, the United States had become the most powerful, the richest, and (for the white majority), the freest nation on earth. Americans liked to attribute the nation's success to Providence or their own virtues, but that was nonsense. We acquired power because we sought power. Many (by no means all) Americans then reaped the benefits of power.
The problem is that for roughly the past four or five decades empire (or expansionism) has /ceased/ to pay. Unfortunately, our political elites, deeply invested in obsolete and bloated conceptions of "global leadership," won't face the facts.
Will Obama be able to break us of these old habits? Maybe. His pragmatic inclinations offer modest cause for hope. But persuading institutions wedded to the expansionist tradition to change poses a mighty challenge.
"The problem is that for roughly the past four or five decades empire (or expansionism) has /ceased/ to pay."
Ceased to pay for whom? Seems to be a going concern for some people.
How long till we see a fully co-ordinated media campaign to convince us withdrawal from Iraq would violate the cherished hopes and dreams of every enlisted man? Those don't come cheap.
February 5, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what you say is that realism in international affairs is changing because of globalism in such a way that the projection of military power does not necessarily lead to positive results as it has in the past.
That might be true for us but not necessarily other powers. China--although not overtly expansionist--seems to be doing quite well in its projection of power in Africa and elsewhere.
I would not sound the death knell of realism in global affairs just yet.
February 5, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm stupid, but I'm still Global Leader! Yay!
February 5, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe the failure of global leadership to "pay" is not so much an historical phenomenon as an ideological one.
If the United States was still running a global empire and taking a global leadership role to protect its parochial interests, we might turn a profit. It's hard to turn a profit when you're involved in protecting Bosnian Muslims and nation-building.
It is not our hubris but our compassion which has laid empires low. I'm not pining for a return to empire, but we cannot try to be global leaders for other people's benefit and expect to benefit ourselves.
February 6, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote a trilogy of posts, one at TPM and later all at DKos about why having or at least freely using the power of empire is liable to backfire.
In short people pin a lot of problems on you and fear you and so resistance increases. You can overcome it, but relatively, it's almost always a waste of blood, money and resources in a world where arms are plentiful and pacification tactics prohibit genocide.
February 7, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the cost of doing business exceeds the profits then empirism fails as an enterprise. Like most businesses that fail the business does not or will not retrench in a timely manner - they continue to throw more and more money into the black hole of militarism hoping that force alone will prevail.
There is no return in militarism - navy carriers do not return a profit, tankers do.
February 8, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink