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."
Returning Home
2 weeks ago
2 comments:
Having been "called out" in private for not paying attention I will make an initial comment and then retreat to find more ammunition and fire again.
Yes, the EU is moving along, although I think we can count Tony Blair out as the first real President of the EU. Sarkozy and Merkel will see to that.
The EU is not quite a nation state, but more than a confederation and that is all to the good. And judging from how things are going in the UK, it looks like the Napoleonic side has won out over the Anglo-Saxon side. That is sad.
I do wonder how Russia fits in all this. Outside, one would think, but holding the gas hose, ready to crimp it if they are not happy. That needs to be fixed before anything is certain.
But, the big problem is, it looks like the EU has "lost" Turkey to the East. How did they let THAT happen? We will all suffer for that.
Also, this Turkey issue (and the ongoing war in Iraq) is a sign that World War One is not yet quite over.
I see the EU assuming great responsibilities in the 21st Century and good on them. The US natural situation is to look to North and South America and, to paraphrase Leo Carrillo, let Europe and Asia take care of themselves.
I am dubious about the idea that Europe will evolve a brand of capitalism that is not socialism in sheep's clothing. But, that is not the big problem for Europe. Demographics is the real problem. While the birth rates are exploding in the Banlieues, amongst the native strains the birthrates are down toward 1.4, with 2.1 being needed for replacement only. Demographics is destiny.
And, being a follower of evolution, I find that to be appropriate.
Regards — Cliff
And then there is this, from a blogger who lives in the Christian Hill part of Lowell.
This blogger does no editing and takes no comments.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment