America's Imperial Ambition

This article can be found here.

November 23, 2009

Modern American strategy is marked by the use of "preemptive and preventative" use of force, without the consent of the international community. This political stance threatens diplomatic relations and political stability. Containment policy began in the Cold War Era, and should have ended with the collapse of the USSR. Ikenberry sees this period as the first to use nuclear arms as a potential deterrent, and also views it as productive to the creation of necessary partnerships through international organizations. When President Bush came to power, he drove these realist ideals to new heights, rejecting Clinton's policies of improving national concerns and opting for a more international focus, namely integrating Russia into western ideologies. Ikenberry also cites Liberalist persuasions in American global politics, fundamentally founded upon economic prosperity by discouraging the use of trade blocs or rivalry. Unfortunately, these institutions tended to unite only the Democratic industrialized nations, and only contributed to the prosperity of these nations at the expense of those nations that are excluded. Trade expansion was seen as conducive to fighting terrorism. But America's recent protectionist measures have presented a loss of interest in this peace-promoting trend. Before actions like this were ever promoted by US politics, the global community was willing to see them as the supreme world leader. Now, the global community is becoming concerned over how much power they have, and whether or not they are using it for the good of all. The key problem is that the US sees the responsibility as global power as including the necessity of containing aggression by exerting their superior military strength. This belief has only been encouraged by the lack of competitiveness in obtaining the status of world power, disrupting the balance of power doctrine. America has grown so ignorant to believe that if they advance so far ahead of all other powers, the other states will simply give up and allow them to remain the permanent leader of the globe. But a new type of organization, terrorist groups, act outside of these traditional values or accepted rules and will not adhere to trends; this is the key reason that the US is pushing for the total elimination of these entities. The fear today is that, while these groups are willing to die for their cause, states cannot, based on the moral codes and laws that they promote in governance, willingly allow this to occur with the people they are intended to keep safe and secure. Since the US has taken the strategy of attacking all areas under the suspicion of housing terrorist groups, and these groups lend themselves to ease in flux, there has been a lessened interest in sovereignty. Also, new US strategy exchanges isolationism for pure rejection of global action, like treaties or institutions. The US belief that they are the sole great power has driven their idea that they are also the only ones with the authority to act aggressively against suspicious nations. Until the US states what this war will contribute to international order in the end, the global community will continue to loose interest in the cause.

The interesting aspect of Ikenberry's argument is his total regard for the US as an unwaivering and permanent global power whose military and economic prowess far exceeds those of possible competitors. Many critics would probably argue that the United States is actually slipping away from that status as Asian powers gain significant promenence in economic arenas. It could be a matter of a couple decades that sees China taking the place as global leader, especially considering the astounding speed at which they advance technologically and the profound importance that plays in considering states to be top global competitors. Also, Ikenberry chooses to simultaneously expose the US distancing itself from international organizations and promoting the global community to place a larger emphasis on these groups. "The US needs cooperation from European and Asian countries..." It's hypocritical to wish the outside community to do more of something that you acnowledge your own country avoids doing itself. If you must do this, you must also recognize the need for your own nation to adopt these similar policies. It's near impossible for these states to cooperate if the United States, as the leading global power, refuses to take part in this.