Future of World Geopolitical Power Balance

The United States has been the world's largest economic powerhouse since the 1880s. But not until the first half of the 20th century did the US become the world's largest military force as well. The role of world's military hegemon was one that was forced upon the US by Germany in WWI and by Japan and Germany in WWII. By the end of WWII, the intent of the USSR to become the predominant hegemon of Europe and Asia was clear. The US had a choice: either allow itself to become a permanent worldwide military hegemon to balance the effect of the growing influence of the USSR, or to retreat back into an isolationist shell.

The USSR's acquisition of the atomic bomb, and later the hydrogen bomb in combination with long-range bombers and inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) made it obvious that isolation had become impossible. The US under Truman committed itself to world leadership in the attempt to prevent Soviet style totalitarianism from smothering the entire globe.

Now, still at the dawn of the 3rd millenium, what is the future of the world geopolitical power balance, in the face of a newly belligerent Russia, a diffuse but ambitious worldwide program of Islamist ambition to conquest, and a rapidly arming mainland China?

The problem today is that the U.S. political system seems to have lost its ability to fix its ailments. The economic problems in the United States today are real, but by and large they are not the product of deep inefficiencies within the U.S. economy, nor are they reflections of cultural decay. They are the consequences of specific government policies. Different policies could quickly and relatively easily move the United States onto a far more stable footing. A set of sensible reforms could be enacted tomorrow to trim wasteful spending and subsidies, increase savings, expand training in science and technology, secure pensions, create a workable immigration process, and achieve significant efficiencies in the use of energy. Policy experts do not have wide disagreements on most of these issues, and none of the proposed measures would require sacrifices reminiscent of wartime hardship, only modest adjustments of existing arrangements. And yet, because of politics, they appear impossible. The U.S. political system has lost the ability to accept some pain now for great gain later on.

As it enters the twenty-first century, the United States is not fundamentally a weak economy or a decadent society. But it has developed a highly dysfunctional politics. What was an antiquated and overly rigid political system to begin with (now about 225 years old) has been captured by money, special interests, a sensationalist media, and ideological attack groups. The result is ceaseless, virulent debate about trivia -- politics as theater -- and very little substance, compromise, or action. A can-do country is now saddled with a do-nothing political process, designed for partisan battle rather than problem solving. __FareedZakaria

The Democratic Party in the US combined with much of the US news media, is painting a picture of widespread national malaise for public consumption. They are portraying the US as a defeated nation in the midst of economic and environmental devastation, with no possibility of improvement--unless one of the unqualified Democrats is elected US President, and the dysfunctional Democratic Party led US Congress is allowed to maintain control over the US legislature.

Yet, it is that same dysfunctional Democratic Party that is responsible for most of the problems the US has with energy supply, lack of innovation, lack of business competitiveness, and lack of credibility on the international front.

The "great national malaise" suffered by the US under President Jimmy Carter was a real phenomenon. Unemployment, Inflation Rate, and Interest Rates were in the double digits. The USSR appeared to be in ascendancy and unbeatable. The world had no respect for a US that had run away from its Vietnamese allies with its tail between its legs, for a US that deserted its ally in Iran to the muslim fundamentalist terror state. Jimmy Carter's policies created the malaise, and it lasted until Jimmy Carter was well and gone from government.

The current malaise is largely a creation of the news media in collaboration with the US Democratic Party and powerful allying forces, including various organisations sponsored by George Soros. The US economy is nowhere near the sad shape it assumed in the late 1970s. But perceptions are often more important than reality. As long as the US Democratic Party has the cooperation of the US news media, it is the Democratic Party's perception that will be presented to the larger part of the US public.

Volunteer US Military Meeting Enlistment Goals--Causing Critics to Contemplate Suicide

Many critics of the US military have claimed that the military is self-destructing over its mission in Iraq. What is far more likely is that it is the critics themselves who are self-destructing, because not only is the wartime military sharper and more proficient, but it is also meeting recruitment goals.

So what does this mean? It means that recruiting is strong for the branches of our military that see the most action in Iraq (Army and Marine active duty), and gets only slightly weaker for those branches where a troop is less likely to see action (Army NG and then on down through the Navy/Air Force reserves). Which means that of the people choosing to sign up for the military, most of them are signing up with an inclination toward going to Iraq.

Sort of throws a monkey wrench in that whole “Bush’s unpopular war” line when the military has such little trouble finding citizens willing to risk their lives for it, doesn’t it?

The US has a volunteer military. The closer a particular branch of the military is to combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, the easier it is for that branch to recruit members.

Are they Truly Antiwar? Or Just on the Other Side?

Passion for political causes is cheap, if one makes his living via his passion (eg Al Sharpton, David Duke, Al Gore, etc.). When it comes to the anti-war movement, the same rule applies. Because when deciding whether a war is better than the alternative, one has to override passion long enough to rationally understand what the alternative to a war is. Only a victim of faulty brain function fails to understand that the alternative to a particular war is not always peace.

The terrorists are encouraged by the reports of American politicians seeking to have U.S. troops withdrawn. Most Iraqi Sunni Arabs see that as a disaster, but the terrorists see it as an opportunity to take on the security forces without having to worry about the much more capable American forces. But with U.S. troops gone, the Iraqi security forces will be inclined to wage war the traditional way. That means massive use of firepower against civilians in any neighborhood where the Sunni Arab terrorists show up, or are found.

....So far this year, many more parts of central Iraq have been cleared of terrorists, and the remaining ones know they have to maintain their visibility to survive. Setting off several bombs a day keeps the terrorists in the news, even if the explosions take place in a smaller and smaller area of Iraq. The terrorists play more to the international media, than they do to anyone inside Iraq. The terrorists are already hated and feared throughout the country, even in Sunni Arab areas. There, the terrorists must increasingly divert resources to terrorize Sunni Arabs, and keep them in line. They are aided by Islamic conservatives, who see all the unrest as an opportunity to impose Taliban like rules on the population. If the terrorists accomplish nothing else, they will have shown how to manipulate the mass media, and divert attention from the true origins of the terrorists, and their objectives. It's been a masterful job which, of course, the mass media will have no interest in examining anytime soon. In a generation or so, there will be books and articles about it, but the subject will never get a lot of media attention.

Source

War is always a horrible state. Peace under a bloody oppressive regime or theocracy might be seen as worse, to many people.