Though some of you might find this article to be of interest. The article talks about how America might still prevail in spite of the odds.
######################################
From The Economist

American power
Still No.1

Jun 28th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Wounded, tetchy and less effective than it should be, America is still the power that counts



EVEN the greatest empires hurt when they lose wars. It is not surprising then that Iraq weighs so heavily on the American psyche. Most Americans want to get out as soon as possible, surge or no surge; many more wish they had never invaded the country in the first place. But for a growing number of Americans the superpower's inability to impose its will on Mesopotamia is symptomatic of a deeper malaise.

Nearly six years after September 11th, nervousness about the state of America's “hard power” is growing (see article). Iraq and Afghanistan (another far-off place where the United States, short of troops and allies, may be losing a war) have stretched the Pentagon's resources. An army designed to have 17 brigades on active deployment now has 25 in the field. Despite bringing in reservists and the National Guard, many American troops spend more than half their time on active duty; the British spend a fifth.

Other demons are jangling America's nerves. There is the emergence of China as a rival embryonic superpower, with an economy that may soon be bigger than America's (at least in terms of purchasing power); the re-emergence of a bellicose, gas-fired Russia; North Korea's defiance of Uncle Sam by going nuclear, and Iran's determination to follow suit; Europe's lack of enthusiasm for George Bush's war on terror; the Arabs' dismissal of his democratisation project; the Chávez-led resistance to Yankee capitalism in America's backyard.

Nor is it just a matter of geopolitics. American bankers are worried that other financial centres are gaining at Wall Street's expense. Nativists fret about America's inability to secure its own borders. As for soft power, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, America's slowness to tackle climate change and its neglect of the Palestinians have all, rightly or wrongly, cost it dearly. Polls show that ever fewer foreigners trust America, and some even find China's totalitarians less dangerous.
Power to the wrong people

A sense of waning power is not just bad for the self-esteem of Americans. It is already having dangerous consequences. Inside the United States, “China-bashing” has become a defensive strategy for both the left and the right. Isolationism is also on the rise. Most Democrats already favour an America that “minds its own business”.

Outside America, the consequences could be even graver. Iran's Islamic revolutionaries and Russia's Vladimir Pu*tin have both bet in different ways that a bruised Uncle Sam will not be able to constrain them. Meanwhile, a vicious circle of no confidence threatens the Western alliance: if Italy, for instance, concludes that a weakened America will not last the course in Afghanistan, then it will commit even fewer troops to the already undermanned NATO force there—which in turn prompts more Americans to question the project.

Yet America is being underestimated. Friends and enemies have mistaken the short-term failure of the Bush administration for deeper weakness. Neither American hard nor soft power is fading. Rather, they are not being used as well as they could be. The opportunity is greater than the threat.

It is hard to deny that America looks weaker than it did in 2000. But is that really due to a tectonic shift or to the errors of a single administration? Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld reversed the wise Rooseveltian doctrine, “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. After September 11th the White House talked up American power to an extraordinary degree. In that brief period of “shock and awe” when Americans were from Mars, their Venutian allies were lucky to get invited to the show (indeed, in Afghanistan some “old” Europeans were initially turned away). Meanwhile, Mr Bush declared a “war on terror”, rather than just on al-Qaeda, broadening the front to unmanageable dimensions (and paving the way for Guantánamo).

While the talk was loud, the stick was spindly. Defying his generals, Mr Rumsfeld sent too few troops to Iraq to pacify the country. Disbanding the Iraqi army compounded the error. Regardless of whether Iraq was ever winnable, it is hard to imagine any future American administrations making such schoolboy howlers when it comes to regime change.

America the indispensable

Yet in one way Mr Bush is unfairly maligned. Contrary to the Democratic version of history, America did not enjoy untrammelled influence abroad before he arrived. The country that won the cold war also endured several grievous reverses, notably Vietnam (where 58,000 Americans were killed—16 times the figure for Iraq). Iran has been defying America since Jimmy Carter's presidency, and North Korea for a generation before that. As for soft power, France has been complaining about Coca-Cola and Hollywood for nearly a century.

From this perspective of relative rather than absolute supremacy, a superpower's strength lies as much in what it can prevent from happening as in what it can achieve. Even today, America's “negative power” is considerable. Very little of any note can happen without at least its acquiescence. Iran and North Korea can defy the Great Satan, but only America can offer the recognition the proliferating regimes crave. In all sorts of areas—be it the fight against global warming or the quest for an Arab-Israeli peace—America is quite simply indispensable.

That is because America still has the most hard power. Its volunteer army is indeed stretched: it could not fight another small war of choice. But it can still muster 1.5m people under arms and a defence budget almost as big as the whole of the rest of the world's. And it could call on so much more: in relation to the country's size, its defence budget and army are quite small by historical standards. Better diplomacy would enhance its power. One irony of the “war on terror” is that Mr Bush's hyperventilation worked against him in terms of getting boots on the ground: neither his own countrymen nor his allies were sure enough that they were really under threat. (And why should they be? An American-led West spent four decades tussling with a nuclear-armed empire that stretched from Berlin to Vladivostok; al-Qaeda is still small beer.)

The surveys that show America's soft power to be less respected than it used to be also show the continuing universal appeal of its values—especially freedom and openness. Even the immigrants and foreign goods that so worry some Americans are tributes to that appeal (by contrast, the last empire to build a wall on its border, the Soviet one, was trying to keep its subjects in). Nor is it an accident that anti-Americanism has fed off those instances, such as Guantánamo Bay, where America has seemed most un-American. This is the multiplier effect that Mr Bush missed: win the battle for hearts and minds and you do not need as much hard power to get your way.

That lesson is worth bearing in mind when it comes to the challenge of China. China is likely to be more and more in America's face, whether buying American firms, winning Olympic gold or blasting missiles into space. Merely by growing, China is disrupting the politics of the Pacific. But that does not mean that it is automatically on track to overtake America. Its politics are fragile (see article) and America's lead is immense. Moreover, economics is not a zero-sum game: so far, a bigger China has helped to enrich America. An America that stays open to China—an America that sticks to American values—is much more likely to help fashion the China it wants.

If America were a stock, it would be a “buy”: an undervalued market leader, in need of new management. But that points to its last great strength. More than any rival, America corrects itself. Under pressure from voters, Mr Bush has already rediscovered some of the charms of multilateralism; he is talking about climate change; a Middle East peace initiative is possible. Next year's presidential election offers a chance for renewal. Such corrections are not automatic: something (a misadventure in Iran?) may yet compound the misery of Iraq in the same way Watergate followed Vietnam. But America recovered from the 1970s. It will bounce back stronger again.

Nice read...and agreed!!!No mofo's out there can even come close
America is a "buy"... I like that.

Not for long. The laws of gravity is going to take into effect soon. What goes up must come down. Just a half a century ago THE SUN NEVER SETS IN THE BRITISH EMPIRE TOO. And look at it now... he he its back to its orignal size. Biggest threat for US is going to be China in the near future(in all aspects of life).

Goddam Kung Pow Chicken^&^%$###

The last paragraph sums it up well "

Yes, American power will not last forever. What goes up will come down even in the case of global dominance. But I am willing to bet it will for at least a couple of decades if not another century before China or even India can come up to par. All bets are off after that.

Hubris has brought down empires more powerful than America and could bring this one down as well but as the article says, "More than any rival, America corrects itself." Yes, hopefully more than the Mongols, Romans, British or Soviets. So that when history looks back at America's moment under the sun, it will have some good things to say.

Just my thoughts.

No empire has lasted forever, and the American empire is not an exception. Imperial overstretch is what will bring America down.

Let's not underestimate China and Russia. In Asia, China will sooner or later take over the leadership role. Its simple. These days many Asians are learning Chinese, and the Chinese soft power is also on the rise in Asia. "China has been around for 3000 years, America has been around [in Asia] for 50 years and we don't know whether it [US] will still be around after 50 years.. so its in our best interests to be in friendly terms with China"-- remarked a former Thai Foreign Minister, which pretty much sums up what Asian diplomats think of China.

Russia has overtly started to challenge the US. For example, the new nculear shield penetrating missile, and billions and billions of dollars on R&D for other defense related products. Russia under Pu*tin seems to be regaining its military power.


Even the US hard power has failed it repeatedly. Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Iraq, Vietnam. You can bully small nations, but when it comes to heavyweights, you rely on diplomacy. When diplomacy fails, you rely on the UN or backtrack your position. Its simple. Even if the relationship between China and the US deterirates to the point of war, there will be no war between them. Historically speaking, America and China have never fought a war inside China. The only time they let their guns loose was in Korea and we all know what happned then. Also lets not forget the US state department and the Pentagon have always strongly opposed any beligerent action against China-- Wasn't Douglas McArthur fired for saying America should nuke China?


K k lekhiyo lekhiyo... its a crazy friday afternoon here.

IF,

GYANE Bhakti le kam garna chhadeko le CHINA Bhakti tira lege jasto chha ni?

Goodluck!

Neutral
------------------------------

Hey IF!

How's it going? Yeah, I think I am with you on the end result of it ie US power will eventually subside. The only question in my mind, and indeed on the minds of many others, is when. Since there isn't much of a science there to predict it, it will probably remain an open question.

Hope all else is well.

This is why I read the economist. Solid analysis, but some enough bias that you can poke holes in the argument. There no mention of the US currency - arguably the single largest economic source of american influence. Reference to the greenback was conspicuously missing from the article. Granted, the greenback has been on the decline lately, but it still remains the numero uno weapon of choice for foreign reserves all the way from the banks of the nile to the yang-tze. It will be a while before the reserve bank of china replaces the greenback with the euro.
Also, the article focuses primarily on american military might. The world today is different from that of the vietnam era. Wars are more economic than military in nature. For example, many would concur that america's foray into baghdad was driven primarily by a greed for oil rather than a moral imperative to replace a vicious dictator.
If you look at the list of the richest people in the world, most of them live in the US. Most of the world's weight is in the US. When the price of oil rises and arab coffers overflow with $$, that money finds its way back to wall street. China buys US treasury bills and US companies (Blackstone is a good case in point).
At the end of the day, nothing in this world is truly forever. That goes without saying. People talk about China and India overtaking the US. What do they mean? I mean, what's the metric of comparison? Rather, what should be the right metric of comparison? Annual GDP? Per capita GDP? Literacy rate? Poverty rate? Military spending? Cultural influence (e.g. ppl prefering to watch chinese idol vs american idol)? Employment rate? # of new patents? size of largest company? average income level? # of sattelites in space?

The list goes on and on. This is why I think that at the end of the day it does not really matter. Being #1 or #2 is ultimately simply serves a sentimental purpose. For most ppl, it does not affect their day to day living. In the long run, china might even "overrtake" the US in per capita GDP. But in the long run we are all dead.

I beg to differ with some views expressed above.

The United States of America will be the most powerful nation for most, if not all, of 21st century.


You talk about China and India as next super powers but I don't think so. Compared to good ole' US, they are so far behind the comparison itself ceases to exist.

Reminds me of Japan in the 80's. Everybody thought that Japan will rule the world with batallions of Sony and Panasonic. Droves of people queued to learn Japanese because they wanted to learn the language of the coming master. But then what happened? Haatti aayo haatti aayo, foossa!

American economy is so far ahead of these two wannabe super powers - China and India - that it will take more than a century for them to catch up, if they ever do.

American politics is firmly established on democratic institution. This cannot be said by far of China. India is in better standing there, but it is so messy with feudalistic stain that fair politics can barely rise above.

American greenback is and will remain the world currency and dominance of which is hard to approach by any other. Chinese Yuan is artificially buoyed. Once that is brought to the market level, as it eventually will come to, Chinese purchasing parity will plummet.

American defense is formidable. Though China has been steadily increasing its defense budget it cannot afford to match the US's which is greater than all of the world's combined.

American technology is paramount. Sure your t-shirt might be made in India and your flash-light may be manufactured in China, but your airplane, your space shuttle, your latest computer chip, your most advanced pharmaceutical drug, etc. are all built in... yes, you guessed it right... in the U S of A.

American culture is predominant. Sure there are Bollywood and Beijing Opera, but can they match Hollywood and Rock 'n Roll? I think not!

I can go on... but I think the point is made. So, those of you who are counting on your Chinese and Indian brothers to surpass America, keep counting.

" Yes, American power will not last forever."

"No empire has lasted forever"

These are useless tautological statements.

No one will live forever - also true, but just as useless.

My take is that US will continue to be the dominant power during the lifetimes of anyone living today.

Rise of China and India is highly exagerated. They may not be the complete basketcases that they used to be. But a gulf of ages exists between where they are and world domination.

Very interesting points there Casper and Riten.

In addition to what I expressed above, one other lesson the US must learn is that empires often times collapse suddenly and quickly. In 1987, four years before the collapse of the USSR, many people didn't see it coming. People said the Soviet Union would be a formidable competitor to US power for a very long time. I dont know how long American dominance will last but American policy makers hopefully understand that things can change pretty rapidly in politics - especially things that are not in their control.

Bewakuf - LOL! And you chose what seems to me to be a tautological phrase itself ("useless tautological" - when tautological might have sufficed) to describe the situtaion. But anyways, the style of delivery aside, it remains a technique in debate, IMO, to sometimes remind people of some simple, perhaps reduntant points. After all, it is the often-stated fact that empires dont last forever that is raising the questions and fuelling the whole article in the first place, or so it seems to me.

Have a good weekend.

Captain saab,

When? now that's a question only God can answer. It won't happen overnight though. Its going to take a long time, that's for sure.

I personally don't find it relevant to compare the past American experiences, for example, Vietnam war, oil crisis etc. and say, well, look, America didn't lose its superpower position even then, so, today's troubles too won't make America lose its superpower position. I personally feel its quite errorneous to think along that line because in the last 30 eyars the world has changed a lot, and along with it, the classic notions of super-power, hegemons etc. You can still ahve a lot of hard power but that's not enough to continue your global dominance or prominance (you can choose the former or the latter depending on your political viewpoint.) I am not saying the US will give up easily, no. The State department hires the best brains to maintain its worldwide influence, but smart brains are not alone to ensure your continuing dominance. There comes a point when the shit hits the fan and there's nothing one can do much. Of course you can delay the shit-hits-the-fan scenario, but you cannot avoid it.

America still has the soft power, but its not going to last forever either. Given the new immigration law and the $$ to attend the US universities (i.e., good universities) many Asian stduents are choosing to attend universities in China and Europe. You can even find many American students attending undergraduate and graduate classes in A grade Chinese universities (Qinghua, Peking, Renmin and Hong Kong Universities.) You can watch Chinese movies almost everywhere in the world. And this is also quite important because once these students go back to their home countries, once they become who-is-who of their countries, they will tend to be more sympathetic or more tilted towards China. This is one important aspect which the western analysts predicting China's rise (or the hype of it) fail to grasp. You cannot really predict China sitting in your office in DC, you have to be in Beijing or elsewhere in China to actually see for yourself how in less than 30 eyars time China has come a long way.

You cannot imagine China to have all the modern weapons that Ameica has for a long time, and China may not be a super-power in military terms for a long time to come, but in terms of economy and soft power, China will be able to take over the US in maybe, 30 years or so.

India is another example. India will continue to grow too. Let's not underestimate India. Its our Nepali tendency to underestimate India's growth, but if we can be unbiased for a second and really look at what's happening, we have to admit that India too, has come a long way since its economic modernization.

To sum up, let's be a bit technical: The US led unipolar world system is not going to last forever because it is abnormal. In the Westphalian state system that we live in today there are always two or more powers that check-and-balance each other, and that's what ensures stability and peace. Its just a matter of time, sooner or later a nation or a group of nations will team up to challenge the US dominance. And China will be in that group of nations, if not "THE" nation to challenge the US dominance.

---

Captain saab, everything is well here. Thanks for your concerns. How are things there?

Captain, point noted. However, when you say "things" can change quickly, what constitutes "things"? Only then can the disucssion be any meaningful. I am assumging that you are thinking of US hegemony being eroded. However, "hegenmony" is still a pretty vague and subjective term. When the "what" is so subjective, discussions on the "when" is bound to be meaningless.

On a related note, I dont think empires collapse suddenly and quickly. First of all, there have not been that many empires to being with - less than 20 significant ones in the last 2 millenia. And these did not collapse suddenly and quickly - but rather declined slowly over the lifetime of several succeeding leaders. Its true that the decline may have been fast compared to the entire time that the empire was in existence, but the decline lasted many decades. Like someone said, i too think that even if chinese per capita gdp eventually exceeds that of the US, it's gonna take several decades (my guess: at least 50 yrs).

Also, many ppl didnt anticpate the SU collapse because they had no useful info on which to base their decisions. Info behind the iron curtain tended to stay there. There was no michican consumer sentimetn, or the inflation index, or the unemployment rate, gdp growth rate, balance of trade, or housing price index to really know what was going on in the soviet union. The space (and sputnik) nuclear programs aren't the best indicators of performance. The heads of the politburo knew quite well that they were in dire straits for a few decades.