In the last week, I've read a number of opinions and articles reflecting on the role of the U.S in today's world and the future. Two pieces in particular resonated with me. One article (thank you John K!) dealt with the geo-political realities and the "Grand Strategy" of US administrations, Obama's in particular. George Friedman's piece on "
Obama and the U.S Strategy of Buying Time" made me think about graduate school and the discussions we had on realism versus interdependence and the implications for empires, alliances, and world peace. The second article "
The Modest Superpower" reflects on the roles of Europe and the US in light of the ongoing financial crisis and economic downturn.
The first article's main thrust is that the US tries (for good reason, according to the author) to stall for time before taking action. The second article concludes that Europe may be the next Superpower, at least economically, if not militarily. To me, these two articles complement each other and illustrate the advantages and dangers of the "wait and see" approach.
I am more inclined to side with the first article's approach, although that makes me sound like an isolationist perhaps, which I most assuredly do not see myself as. The second article, while I agree with the observations and implications, evokes a "where did we hear that before?" response in me. As I recall those graduate school days, it was Japan set to inevitably unseat the mighty American economic machine. But Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" put economic power and military might in perspective for me then, as it does now. Although he did forecast the fall of Pax Americana....
What did I conclude, you might ask? That it is a big bad world out there; that nothing is for certain; and that I am hopeful, dare I say optimistic, about the changes of the US. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens: "the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated."