Module 7 Reflections

Our final class debate about the greatest threat to US power provoked some interesting discussion about the concern over internal versus external threats. I think both groups brought up some great points, though being from Group 1, I am going to side with out argument. Caj did a really nice job in his post below addressing some of his concerns/further carrying out the debate with Group 2. I would just want to add that his addressing the environmental concerns was something I felt could be carried out further in the debates, if the time was there. I do think that it is hard to carry out an environmental concerns argument because it is still considered idealistic, and possibly theoretical, at some times. Something that we could have talked about further is the role of oil, politics, and the lobbying that goes on with electric cars. A concern with oil money and individual gain over the power of the US is part of the environmental argument that contributes to part of the problem.

For the US to truly maintain power on the international scale, we need to work on overcoming our internal threats to maintain power over external ones. Jason brought up one point that neither group touched upon, identity. I think this is another really interesting topic that, with the time, could have brought a really interesting dimension to our discussion. We have observed identity movements throughout American culture and these movements can have a significant impact on the power of the US. Joy’s blog discussion on movements, like the Occupy Wall Street movement. These movements have a significant impact on the internal threats of the US.

Again, the points both groups agreed on, such as improvements to the economy and education reform are important to contributing to maintaining power on the global scale. Discretionary spending is a key concern to helping reform the economy. Taking a look at the issues that plague internal debate among the US are key to maintaining power. Success internally will help prevent against external threats to US power. 

Thoughts on Module 7

Our final discussion on existential threats provided some provoking arguments, but also reaffirmed my own views concerning the largest threat to the U.S.  My academic background is in sociology and psychology, with a focus in political science.  Each discipline identifies the immediate and latent effects of structured inequality, although in different ways.  Psychology concentrated on the individual, sociology on the community, and political science focused on governmental institutions and processes.  While different, all find that high levels of inequality produce destabilizing stresses with destructive long-term consequences.  Perhaps because of this, my bias in identifying the greatest threat to the U.S. is grounded in addressing the impact of inequality in both domestic and foreign affairs.

External attacks and severe environmental challenges are unlikely to challenge the U.S. in the near future, or at least probably not in our lifetime.  However, an internal attack or revolution is a feasible threat, and one whose strength may be building.  The deep fissures in American equality demonstrate not only the inability of politicians to address and improve the structures preventing equality, but also the inability of the American public to recognize the importance of addressing issues of inequality early.  The immediate reversal of detrimental trends is necessary in order to gain the momentum needed to effect change.

In recent years, we’ve witnessed the naissance of movements such as Occupy Wall Street that have mobilized masses of Americans for a common cause.  The initial impression is that social and economic inequality primarily effect individuals, and individuals of small importance to economic development at that. However, inequality is in fact directly linked to national productivity and international competitiveness.  By ignoring factors such as education, nutrition and overall wealth equality, the U.S. is setting itself up for a long and difficult road to regain economic traction and strengthen their international influence.     

Movements such as OWS may not be immediately “successful” in reaching the goals they set out to do, but they are at least successful in the sense that they bring attention to the situation for which they advocate.  The spread of information is half the battle, and an informed public is the most dangerous weapon of democracy (did Paul Krugman say this?). The social and economic inequalities for which OWS advocates are important for those directly affected, as well those on the periphery.   I believe that movements such as Occupy Wall Street will become more frequent as inequality becomes increasingly difficult to ignore, deny, or justify.

Reflections on the Module 7 Debate

As we wrap up the final module, we split in two groups and debated “the biggest threat to US power.”  

Upon reading the final version of Group 2 opening statement, I started questioning what we had in the first paragraph: “The biggest threat to the United States is the inactivity in the international arena, this lack of presence threatens our ability to maintain our status as the only superpower.”

I believe that the US has an international presence that is global on a scale that is unprecedented; however, the problem is a perception of declining US credibility and influence. Presence alone does not solve problems; it requires a cohesive purpose. The US needs political leadership that can articulate a grand strategy in ends, ways, and means that provides an overarching purpose to bring coherence to America’s international presence. While there are a variety of threats competing for finite resources, today’s threats are not as clearly defined compared to the Soviet Union and communism during the Cold War.

I think that the two opening statements reflect how the two groups read into the question: what is the greatest threat to US power? From an international relations perspective and my military background, I thought of actors/states that intend to do the US harm or want to challenge US supremacy. I was also thinking about how Professor Jackson throughout his soliloquies framed the lessons from the perspective of international actors. Therefore, I was a bit surprised when I read that Group 1 listed at the top of their list of threats the concentration of wealth among America’s top earners.

The first paragraph of Group 1’s rebuttal essentially frames their liberal institutionalist and constructivist view of the world against their perception of Group 2’s “old school” realist perspective. I think all of those perspectives have utility, but each also has limitations. There is middle ground to synthesize the best of all three perspectives.

In summary, the class had a general consensus that a remedy of fiscal policy is necessary for the US to retain its ability to apply the instruments of national power (diplomacy, information, military, and economic) in the manner of a superpower.

Thoughts on Professor Jackson's Mod 7 Lecture

Professor Jackson's lecture for Module 7 was probably my favorite because the topic of Great Powers has more context than some of the more abstract previous module topics. As I was watching and listening, I began reflecting on how Professor Jackson purposively presents his lectures in a very broad and academic manner as the introductory course to this master's program. I could not help but also reflect on how after 30 years in special operations, I view the world a bit different than Jackson and most others. In this blog, I will attempt to contrast some of the concepts that Professor Jackson mentions with my own worldview/biases as a former operator and planner.

Jackson discusses in the lecture how prediction is difficult, and therefore he suggests that "forecasting" and "scenario planning" are more useful. I had been instructed that during operational level planning the staff must "anticipate and provide options for the commander."

Jackson discusses the concept of forecasting using the "most likely" and the "most desirable" outcomes. In the U.S. military, the commander's staff intelligence section typically prepares an enemy "most likely course of action" and "most dangerous course of action." The enemy "most likely course of action" is sometimes described as the enemy will most likely continue doing today what it did yesterday. The "most dangerous course of action" is the worst case scenario where the enemy either mobilizes its reserves, launches an all-out offensive operation, and/or decides to use the most potent weapons in its arsenal.

In reflecting on the difference in these two approaches, it seems to me that conceptualizing "most likely" and "most desirable" outcomes is more aligned with a constructivist theory of international relations based on ideas. The "most likely" and "most dangerous" analysis naturally lends itself to a more realist perspective of international relations where power, strategy, and worst case scenario contingency planning are the standard.

Military doctrine is a guide to action. It is authoritative, but requires judgment in application. U.S. Army doctrine has been undergoing a change as the U.S. military plans on redeploying and eventually withdrawing from Afghanistan. This coincides with the focus shifting from a force conducting stability/counterinsurgency operations to a force with a primary emphasis on combined arms maneuver against a near peer competitor such as Iran or China. Note that this shift is essentially transitioning from the "most likely" threat to the "most dangerous" threat in terms of potential enemies.

Pre-Blog - Thoughts on the Readings

Professor Jackson’s lecture and readings provided a really nice overview of the rise and fall of powers and how difficult it is to actually predict what will happen next. With all of the current events happening – Ukraine, Russia, Israel and Gaza – the economy, success and growth of other world powers like China, what will be the greatest threat to US world power? Our readings and lecture demonstrate that resources and war seem to indicate a rise or fall or fall powers or we observe a shift in power after big events like this. As the United States tries to maintain its power, other states will continue to challenge it.

One argument I read about in Foreign Policy Magazine that I thought was interesting, is an argument for the US to formulate its policy in pursuit of interests that are consistent to American values, to maintain its power. (From here: http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/08/05/to_operate_in_a_renewed_cold_war_atmosphere_the_us_needs_to_realistically_pursue_it) . This article seems particularly relevant to our discussion, as he argues that Russia seems to continually challenge the power of the US and they do this by pursuing interests – like Crimea, Georgia invasion, strengthening its relationship with Cuba, etc. These examples demonstrate recent Russian cases of pursuing interests that are consistent with their ideas. The US has not been doing this, and “must recognize the limits of what it can realistically achieve”. Foreign policy in the US should be shifted to be strategically oriented, while recognizing restraints in parallel with American values. The focus in shift in foreign policy in the US will help maintain power and avoid threats against it. 

Threat to World Peace

In our readings this week, John Ikenberry wrote an astute quote that I feel summarized how the U.S. approaches international involvement.  “The United States may want to renegotiate rules and institutions in some global areas, but it ultimately will want to wield its power legitimately in a world of rules and institutions.” This desire to use power legitimately can be seen in appeals to values and justification for action that are made prior to military interventions to gain support both domestically and abroad.  

Despite this desire to use power legitimately, it appears as though U.S. actions over the past decade have been interpreted by the international community a little differently.  In January of this year, a Gallup poll named the U.S. as the most dangerous threat to world peace, receiving 24 percent of the international vote.  In comparison, the second and third countries were Pakistan and China, which received 8 and 6 percent of the vote respectively.  

In 2006, a similar Gallup poll result was found.  The blame in 2006 largely went to the Bush administration.   Calls for military intervention overseas were recognized as unsubstantiated by the international community, and are reflected in the Gallup Poll results.  Despite negative international reception, these claims were asserted as justifiable reasons to intervene regardless.

If U.S. international involvement were to be perceived as legitimate by the international community, it probably wouldn’t be seen as an overwhelming threat to world peace.  Clearly, there is some disagreement amongst the global population regarding the necessity of U.S. intervention abroad and whether or not these actions are maintaining peace, or damaging it.