http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7645743.stm

- I'm not sure how many of you know, but I am a student of Imperial history, and as such themes of imperialism, economic dominance and military hegemony are ones that I find fascinating. I've studied in depth the rise and dominance of the Habsburg powers (1500-1700), the rise of the Dutch (1550-1650) and the rise and dominance of the British (1700-1914) in some particular depth.
Though I guess you could say America as a superpower is too "new" for modern historians to contemplate yet (it is still reserved for contemporary historians, as it is "supposedly" in the 'now' still), it nonetheless continues to spark interest, as I think it does in many of us here, politics and foreign affairs being popular subjects on this forum - perhaps the most popular.

In many of my posts on this forum I allude to this topic many times, the US status as hegemonic power, its strength, and perhaps its decline. I've always drawn strong parallels to the rise and decline of Britain (especially its economic parallel, Britain developing a strong manufacturing economy based on commercial expansion overseas through success in warfare, dominating global markets for a century, and then gradually coming to rely on a service economy based on finance, shipping, insurance, foreign investments, etc, and then eventually being outstripped by rivals while locked in endless and catastrophically damaging warfare) and as such I've always felt the "end" of American hegemony was always in the offing, as history dictates that no power can remain at the top for long.

So what do you guys think of the article? Is this the death of the US as the only superpower? I cannot imagine anyone thinks it's the death of the US as a superpower fullstop, especially when looking at its defence expenditure. But perhaps it is the beginning of the complete end?
Or do you say bullshit to all of it? I'd love to hear your rowdy comments. Are we truly facing a new world order, and what does that mean for the US?

China has an immense manufacturing base to raise capital, and Russia has it's energy assets with which to raise capital; what does the US really have left after exporting most of it's manufacturing, other than paper wealth? Even our military industry is now diminished, with contracts for materials going outside the country.

Due to the horrendous policies and attitudes of the Bush administration, we have indeed lost our status as the leading superpower in the world, and I am doubtful of seeing in my lifetime a return to the prominence we once enjoyed.

I agree with Byl on this. The Bush/Cheney administration along with the republican controlled congress has done as much damage to this country as a nuclear attack, with the only difference being there has been no mass death of the population.

I think what bothers me most is that the writing was on the wall with this. There became an attitude of "if you don't tow this line you are not patriotic".

The whole thing was almost perfectly modeled on the rise of Hitler.

Well, alot of people got what they deserve now, they wanted it, bought it and now can stew in it.

So you both really believe that we are seeing the demise of the US as a superpower, or just as the *only* superpower?

Hold on now...

The dismantling of our defensive supremecy didn't start with Bush/Cheney.

This is where I start to wonder at ya'll's ability to put 2 and 2 together.

It started in the 90's with the Clinton slash and burn policies. He singlehandledly signed off on slashing alot of exp troops out of all branchs of the military.

Now before you jump on Congress I'll have to smack you in the forehead and say "hey why are you blaming Bush/Cheney now instead of Congress".

It's simple, ya'll are as blind(I'll say more so because ya'll love the "see I told you so era that is now") about Bush/Cheney as I was about Clinton 8 years ago.

We lost a step with Clinton, hell we lost a huge step in our ability to project our power with Clinton.

As for original topic, yes us shooting our manufacturing over to foreign soil was a HUGE flipping mistake. One I really can't forgive the powers that be over the last 10 or so years. ;(

I think we are seeing a rise of power across the entire world. In part greatly to the dominance that the US has shown over the last couple decades. Free markets/freedom are on the rise throughout the world. As a result the US looses its dominance/control over world economy. Is the US loosing it superpower moniker, yes I believe it is. The entire world is rising up and the US is not growing at the same rate.

Fandros,
I don't think that you can fault the market for doing what the market does. The market will seek the path of least resistance. I don't trust the government to "fix" anything. You have to ride the waves, if we can prosper by shipping the manufacturing over seas so be it, you have to either trust the market or you trust government. This government I don't' trust.

I think we are seeing a rise of power across the entire world. In part greatly to the dominance that the US has shown over the last couple decades. Free markets/freedom are on the rise throughout the world. As a result the US looses its dominance/control over world economy. Is the US loosing it superpower moniker, yes I believe it is. The entire world is rising up and the US is not growing at the same rate.

WHAT?! "Free" China? "Free" Russia (well, maybe sorta - but not really)? The world's new superpowers are hardly "free".

I'd say Fandros is right that the blame lies in both administrations. Hello, NAFTA?

Clinton was just a bit less brazen about screwing us over right to our faces.

WHAT?! "Free" China? "Free" Russia (well, maybe sorta - but not really)? The world's new superpowers are hardly "free".

The process of freedom takes decades not years. The rise and fall of empires takes decades. Look at what Russia was 100 yrs ago and tell me the freedom enjoyed today is even comparable to what it was just 50 yrs ago. We are not at the finish line we are in the race.

The Russian people mostly hated "freedom", and longed for the old days. That's one reason why ex-KGB Putin is so popular there.

The Russian people mostly hated "freedom", and longed for the old days. That's one reason why ex-KGB Putin is so popular there.

And that spits right in the face of the PNAC

Again Sanchek your looking at the here and now, expecting to gauge a trend that is happening on a much larger scale. Freedom is on the rise everywhere. Hell even the fact that they put Putin back in office says they had the freedom to do just that. Putin didn't seize power he was elected.

Maybe they need to be "liberated"?

They will do that themselves. We don't need to do anything.

That doesn't at all match what's actually been happening in Russia since Putin was elected in 2000.

Hold on now...

The dismantling of our defensive supremecy didn't start with Bush/Cheney.

This is where I start to wonder at ya'll's ability to put 2 and 2 together.

It started in the 90's with the Clinton slash and burn policies. He singlehandledly signed off on slashing alot of exp troops out of all branchs of the military.




LOL...the downsizing of the military was started during Bush one. Right after the Gulf War, you should know that.

During the '90s it was a republican congress that advocated base closings based on our "new world order" as being the supreme superpower left in the world.

That said, it's a foolish statement to think that being a superpower is all about the size of your military, that lesson should be exceptionally apparent from the collapse of the Soviet Union; their military was huge and powerful when it collapsed. It was their economic failure that brought them down.

We are in a very very tenuous situation with this bullshit that has gone on. We are unbelievably vulnerable, both economically and militarily due to this wall street shit and our ridiculous projection of power into Iraq.

It is not a "but but Clinton" thing this is a Bush Cheney and Republican congress thing as it is on their watch that this has come to fruition.

I don't disagree with you, Putin is bad for freedom. However my point is still valid, freedom is on the rise, even in Russia. The more people are exposed to freedom the more they desire it, the rate at which they accept it is different for every society. I think in 100 yrs the world will have more freedom than exists today. Who will be on top will have the most the most free market and personal freedom will be a close behind it.

You cannot export freedom... /facepalm

That is called oppression and occupation. Freedom comes naturally from the people who are oppressed rising up and breaking the shackles.

Beelz, I'm curious, what positives do you base your feelings on?

It's a mistake to assume that every culture and society in the world must long for our brand of freedom.

You want me to quote some website that lists a table that has some magical number that measures freedom? I base my opinion on my experiences and with interaction within my world.
I see Russia responding to the world condemning their actions in Georgia, the responses where directed to the people of Russia just as much as it was to world. I see China hosting the Olympics, which welcomed massive amounts of foreigners into country. I see the communist struggling to hold down their free market and failing. I can go on but the signs are everywhere.

Jed you are correct, however exposure to freedom can be seen as exporting, depends on your point of view.

Rover your response to Fandros, minus all the venom is correct it STARTED with Bush one, however he is right that during the Clinton years the military spending was drastically cut. Here (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html) is a chart.

It's a mistake to assume that every culture and society in the world must long for our brand of freedom.

This really made me think. I always thought of freedom as the act of not restricting the individual's choices on what to think, how to live, where/when to go. I never thought of freedom as a Starbuck's and McDonald's on every corner. That is profound.

South Ossetia has been holding democratic elections for 15 years and wants freedom. We aid their enemy.

Iran was a democratic government that we helped overthrow, in favor of another, weaker government that gave way to the Ayatollah.

To say that we support and nurture democracy of any brand is to ignore history. You're going to have a hard time selling our pure, idealistic love of freedom as long as we keep the world saddled with over 700 overseas military bases...

You want me to quote some website that lists a table that has some magical number that measures freedom? I base my opinion on my experiences and with interaction within my world.
I see Russia responding to the world condemning their actions in Georgia, the responses where directed to the people of Russia just as much as it was to world. I see China hosting the Olympics, which welcomed massive amounts of foreigners into country. I see the communist struggling to hold down their free market and failing. I can go on but the signs are everywhere.

Jed you are correct, however exposure to freedom can be seen as exporting, depends on your point of view.

Rover your response to Fandros, minus all the venom is correct it STARTED with Bush one, however he is right that during the Clinton years the military spending was drastically cut. Here (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html) is a chart.

It was cut by a republican congress.

It was cut by a republican congress.

Gotcha...

So it's only fair to blame the Republicans no matter what position they hold.

Note I said Clinton signed off on it, just as Bush signs off on shit pushed infront of him by the very Democratic Congress now.

You can't have it both ways Rover, either pick a side or just admit you have blinders on.

You want to blame Bush, fine I agree as long as you agree Clinton was in the same crooked high chair back in the 90's.

You have look at the massive increases in defense spending during the Reagan years to get the real perspective on the decreases during both Bush 1 and Clintons administrations. It was inevitable as sustaining spending at such a high level was fiscally imprudent.

But both GH and Willy were smart enough not to get our troops embroiled in long drawn out occupations as well.

Freedom, is about opportunity, not Starbucks. However, no one forces you to go in and buy a half-caf moccah latte, with amaretto flavoured skim foam on top either.

To some, freedom = money. Others, freedom = choices. In the United States, you have the opportunity for both, in any quantity, limited only by how hard you work.

No one gurantees success, however. I think a lot of people get it mixed up that opportunity = success.


Insofaras military bases in the world, isn't it dependant upon the governments of those countries to say "Thanks but no thanks" when it comes U.S. 'help'?

Gotcha...

So it's only fair to blame the Republicans no matter what position they hold.

Note I said Clinton signed off on it, just as Bush signs off on shit pushed infront of him by the very Democratic Congress now.

You can't have it both ways Rover, either pick a side or just admit you have blinders on.

You want to blame Bush, fine I agree as long as you agree Clinton was in the same crooked high chair back in the 90's.

got'em

South Ossetia has been holding democratic elections for 15 years and wants freedom. We aid their enemy.

Iran was a democratic government that we helped overthrow, in favor of another, weaker government that gave way to the Ayatollah.

To say that we support and nurture democracy of any brand is to ignore history. You're going to have a hard time selling our pure, idealistic love of freedom as long as we keep the world saddled with over 700 overseas military bases...

I don't see how this is a response to anything I said. The topic was freedom and you seem to be addressing US policy. I never insinuated or stated any opinion on current or past US policy.

Maybe I misunderstood you to be holding the US up as an example of how freedom should work and/or an example of how the rest of the world should act. That's how I understood you, in the context of this thread, and our crumbling, overextended empire.

overextended empire.

Thats a key word right there.

Why i believe we need to make a fundamental shift and let the rest of the world deal with it's own self for awhile and we focus on putting our house in order.

/nods

We should put ourselves first here and revamp our infrastructure to be ready to grow/expand and hell support what we already do/are.

Gotcha...

So it's only fair to blame the Republicans no matter what position they hold.

Note I said Clinton signed off on it, just as Bush signs off on shit pushed infront of him by the very Democratic Congress now.

You can't have it both ways Rover, either pick a side or just admit you have blinders on.

You want to blame Bush, fine I agree as long as you agree Clinton was in the same crooked high chair back in the 90's.


Oh, I didn't say Clinton isn't culpable, but it is the congress that targets the bases, programs etc to be cut. The president just has to yay or nay it.

I think there are many that thought Clintons was great, well NAFTA sure sucks as do other things signed into law in the '90s. It's too bad the focus was placed on blowjobs instead of substance, just think if it would have been.

Damn, there has been a lot of discussion on this topic since I left for work this morning. Nice to see.

Halo, I am saying that there are going to be more *superpowers* than just the US. I am not sure if Russia will regain that status if it remains aggressive and belligerent, but if it becomes more of a cooperative entity in the region and opens up more to the EU it could well move in that direction.

China is already in that position, although not in the same role as the US has been. They have made MAJOR investments in many countries, notably on the African continent, which have opened doors to them for future activity; and, they have done so without the US mistake of trying to tie investment to policy. They will likely still spark some antagonism, but not at the level of the US which has tried to dictate to countries that get money from us. This gives them an edge, at least on that continent. Also, their trade is huge, and their space program now has them firmly established as capable members of that club.

My comments regarding Bush/Cheney and their policies was not aimed at the military side of things, but at diplomatic and manufacturing/trade deficiencies. As has been pointed out, it was necessary to curb the Reagan level of spending and it mattered little who sat in the chair, as it was going to be required. I believe I have read at some point that the joint chiefs were also in favor of those cuts and were charged with providing the targets for the cuts.

Bush/Cheney have us now relying on other countries for critical equipment and materials, including (as I saw today on a magazine cover while delivering mail) critical computer elements for some of our bombers from China. CHINA?!?!? With all the fuck-ups we keep seeing in their manufacturing, and the corner-cutting they are so fond of to increase their profits?

Anyway, we are no longer going to be the only big kid on the block, and that is a good thing in the long run. Other countries will need to also step up in crisis situations, and our foreign aid packages should be able to be reduced somewhat, leaving more monies available for our own country's needs, repair and rebuilding of infrastructure being a huge number one.


BTW, I cracked up when spell check pointed out that I needed to hyphenate 'fuck-ups'! :D

Guys I think you're taking too narrow a view of America's situation.
It's very easy to blame it on contemporary political elements, such as an currently unpopular executive, but that is to suggest something along the lines that the Western Roman Empire collapsed because of the weakness of its final Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, and in doing so to ignore long term or natural socio-economic trends.

Perhaps the Bush administration contributed toward an unworkable and harmful global strategy that has gradually overstretched and undermined American power abroad, but to pick-out individual characters or regimes as the cause of American decline is, I think, a bit too shallow.

The rise of a bi-polar political world order (growing EU, emerging Asian powers, etc) has, I think, more to do with growing American weakness than Bush or Cheney ever does.

Great thread, keep it up!!

Oh I certainly agree it's not the evil "dubya" that's brought us to this point on his lonesome.

It's decades of living high on the hog, nafta, dependence on oil, selecting foreign leaders we like, other countries finally evolving etc etc that have brought us to today.

Will I see the day when America is an also ran country? Not likely, we've alot going for us and great allies who need us strong and will help keep us there. ( and yes I'm old dammit, ask anyone in RiP they'll gladly tell you so!!)

But yes, I think we are losing ground quickly to China/EU/Russia. Thing is, they all have hurdles that they've yet crossed. Things that'll test their own mettle. The US isn't the only measuring stick to greatness, just the popular and visible one.

I wouldn't worry about the EU. As an international power, it represents Western liberalism, democracy, and ideals (of which all originally radiated from). The EU and US are the world's most dependent economies, as well as sharing foreign policy goals (mostly) and possessing the most influence within each other's policy-making sphere.

It's the rising Asian powers that America has more reason to react to in its own, relative decline. The EU can only serve as a buttress, or at the least, an old, reliable ally who, as you rightly said, has a stake in the US survival as a Great(est) Power.