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.