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.
Ashley, I agree with your overall summary of recent U.S. foreign policy in terms of the need to shift towards being more strategically oriented. The U.S. has a military without peer and dominates at the tactical level. Yet, all these tactical successes since 9/11 did not get the U.S. to its intended strategic end states of regime change and stable democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus, it is often said that the U.S. is good at tactics but bad at strategy.
ReplyDeleteAs for Russian self-interest and U.S. values, I semi-agree. Putin and Russia are acting in self-interest. I think our nation is tired of war and not quite sure what U.S. values exactly mean anymore. Our concept of democracy is unique, and the idea of spreading it to others is easier said than done. It also comes across as a bit arrogant to other nations when they notice that our own house is not necessarily always in order with regard to democracy.
For a previous military master's program, I had to read the book, Promised Land, Crusader State, by Walter McDougall. The author, a Vietnam veteran, provides a diplomatic history of the U.S. since 1776 using a biblical metaphor. He characterizes the 19th century as the Old Testament where U.S. foreign policy was pragmatic and based on preserving democracy at home. The shift to the New Testament with the Spanish American War led to an idealistic nation in the 20th century with a superior attitude that our values can fix the world's problems. McDougall is essentially stating that U.S. foreign policy is best when pragmatic and not idealistic.