|
RESURRECTING PAX AMERICANA Pax Americana refers to the period of American economic and military dominance and relative peace enjoyed in the West since the end of World War II. Pax Americana is similar to Pax Romana, or the relative peace that coincided with Roman economic and military dominance several thousand years ago. Peace in this context means that the empire prospered not only militarily, but in matters of commerce, trade, manufacturing, and agriculture as well. Unless there is a radical departure from the failed policies of the past America’s power and prosperity will continue to decline. To the permanent optimists who dismiss such statements as unpatriotic and counter argue with remarks such as: “If things are so bad, why do immigrants continue to come here in droves?” I say: Immigrants are not only coming to America, they are going to Canada, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East—90% of the population of the United Arab Emirates is made up of immigrants. No one is suggesting that America will turn into a third world country or become an unbearable place to live. However, compared with the rest of the world, America is in relative decline and losing its position of preeminence. For America to rise again, three essential changes must take place. First, the U.S. must pursue sound fiscal and monetary policies. Second, U.S. foreign policy must be guided by realist principles. Third, there must be an increase in general knowledge. AMERICA THE BANKRUPT According to the outgoing U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, the United States is $53 trillion in debt, $9 trillion in existing debt and $44 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare, with the total debt increasing to the tune of $2 to $3 trillion a year. If the U.S. was a company it would be bankrupt, and its stock would have been delisted from the New York Stock Exchange long time ago. Fundamental and radical reforms are needed urgently beginning with stringent budget controls and a massive restructuring of the whole entitlement program. What is also needed is a real strong dollar policy. The Federal Reserve must realize that its constant attempts at suppressing the natural economic cycle with artificially low interest rates have exacerbated the economic problems through the creation of successive asset bubbles and dangerous levels of inflation. What is amazing is that none of the current presidential candidates or leaders in Congress or the White House seem to be aware of the adverse inflationary effects of a weak dollar and the excess liquidity flowing into commodities of all stripes and colors. For the high price of oil they blame speculators, Arabs, and greedy oil companies instead of focusing their criticism on the real culprits, the lunatics at the Federal Reserve, who will not rest before having completely incinerated the currency. AN URGENT RETURN TO THE REALIST TRADITION “What made war inevitable between Athens and Sparta is the growth of Athenian power and the fear which that caused Sparta.” Thucydides, 400 B.C. The growth of Athenian power led the Spartans to launch a preventive war against Athens. A preventive war is different from a preemptive strike. A preemptive strike is limited in nature; for example if the U.S. was to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities, that event would qualify as a preemptive strike. A preventive war on the other hand is a full-scale war aimed at defeating one’s rival before the rival becomes too powerful. The concept of relative gains forms the basis of Thucydides’ explanation of the war between the two Greek city-states. The Spartans were thinking in terms of relative gains as opposed to absolute gains; in others words Athens’ gains are Sparta’s loss. This is exactly what is missing today in American foreign policy. I am not suggesting that the U.S. launch a preventive war against anyone; rather, U.S. policymakers must begin to think in terms of relative gains as opposed to absolute gains. Following the end of the Cold War, liberal idealists proclaimed that it was the end of history and the beginning of a new era of global cooperation and progress with absolute gains—meaning what is good for Latin American and Asia was good for the whole world, including the United States. However, that kind of thinking is not only naïve but dangerous. China competing for resources and growing economically 10% a year is not good for the United States. Brazil becoming a creditor nation and the United States becoming the world’s largest debtor nation is not good for the American people. The U.S. dollar’s demise lowers the standard of living of the average American family. Warren Buffet diversifying out of the U.S. dollar into the Brazilian real is not a sign of progress but a sign of decline. Balance of power theory and other realist principles, which can be traced all the way back to the ancient world, are still relevant and useful today. Almost all realists in the United States opposed the Iraq War, mainly because in their view Iraq was a Third World country headed by a paper tiger lacking the capacity to threaten the U.S. and its allies. And if the costs of the Iraq War are not enough to discredit neo-conservative military adventures against evil to spread democracy, I do not know what would be. WHEN KNOWLEDGE IS POWER Lastly, knowledge regarding the other world is essential if America is to become great again. In his new book titled What Happened (2008) former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan accuses the media of not adequately criticizing the Bush administration’s case for war prior to Iraq’s invasion in the Spring of 2003. Not addressed by McClellan is why the mass media was and still is susceptible to spin and propaganda campaigns. The reason is simply ignorance. In a democracy, a critical media, an opposition in parliament, and mass public opinion are supposed to act as restraints on the executive’s ability to wage unnecessary aggressive military campaigns. However, prior to the 2003 Iraq War, the American press did not adequately scrutinize the case for war, prominent liberal Democrats like John Edwards voted in support of the war, and majority mass public opinion was in favor of the war. Why? Because they were not well informed regarding the nature of the threat. Who was the enemy? Who are the terrorists? Where and how do they operate? And the biggest proof that the regime in Iraq was not the enemy is what is happening today in Iraq. The remnants of the Baathist regime that formed the heart of the insurgency at the beginning of the Iraq war are now America’s most reliable ally. The relative decline in violence in Iraq has little to do with the military surge and a lot to do with the fact that the Sunni Muslim Arabs of Iraq are now on the U.S. payroll fighting the Islamist Al-Qaida. In the end, Muslims and Arabs, who are more likely to be victims of terror than any one in the West, are the ones that must defeat the violent Islamist terrorists. One would think that after Iraq there would be a greater awareness regarding the rest of the world’s religions, cultures, politics, and history. Sadly, however that is not the case. Consider the controversy regarding Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s religion. For several months heavyweight talk radio and prime time network news program hosts debated whether Obama was a Muslim or not without any one of them once pointing out that Arabic is a language and not a religion. One cannot ascertain from a person’s Arabic name that person’s religion. There are Arabic-speaking Muslims, there are Arabic-speaking Christians, there are Arabic-speaking Jews, and there are Arabic-speaking atheists. I am not suggesting that we should be aware of these differences in order not to offend the sensibilities of Arabs and Muslims, neither am I my making an argument for political correctness. Instead, being aware and having the proper knowledge is in America’s interest. When we know the difference between an Arab and a Muslim or a Muslim and an Islamist, committing costly strategic blunders like Iraq becomes less likely.
Contact
Information
|
