Why the U.S. is increasingly unfit for world leadership

 

Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

Andrey Sushentsov, the leading professor at the Russian Foreign Ministry’s MGMO University, and one of Russia’s top geostrategists, headlined on June 28th, “Why the Russia-US conflict will outlast the Ukraine crisis: Moscow must look at Washington as a long-term threat”, and he opened:

The desire of the US to dominate and its refusal to see other countries as equals, willing and able to assume equal responsibility for peace and stability, is the short answer to the question of why Moscow-Washington relations cannot get out of the current state of crisis. This attitude also leads the US to the same difficulties in its relations with China, India and even some of its own allies, such as Turkey. 

The Russian and Chinese position is buttressed by the principle that peace is the result of compromise between the major centers of power, and that without their mutual agreement – without equality, mutual respect, a willingness to recognize each other’s interests, and adherence to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs – a stable order is impossible. The US believes, however, that peace is a deterministic given, and that no special effort is needed to maintain it. This leads to paradoxical solutions: the more weapons, the more peace. The West is not yet ready to become just one of the Atlanteans holding up the sky. It still believes it should be in charge. …

All of that is correct, and the reason why it is, is that ever since George W. Bush became America’s President in 2001, the U.S. Government has been ruled not only by neoconservative (i.e., pro-U.S.-imperialistic) Presidents, but by U.S. Congresses whose seats have been filled more than 95% by fellow-neoconservatives; and, as a consequence, America now spends more than $1.5 trillion each year on its military (half of which is funded outside of the U.S. Defense Deprtment so as to fool the world to think that it’s instead only around $900 billion per year), while its federal Government’s debt has risen by $5 trillion in the past four years, which is only $1.25T per year, which is only 83% as much as the nation’s annual military expenses are, which means that all other expenses by the U.S. federal Government will inevitably soon be reduced each year by around $250 billion per year. Those non-military annual expenses constitute $5T ($6.5T minus $1.5T), so that from now on, the non-military part will be reduced by 5% ($.25T/$5T) each year, or else the growth in the federal debt will be $1.5T per year instead of $1.25T per year, or else the current $1.5T U.S. annual spending on its military will be cut down to $1.25T per year, which would mean that the very top priority of the almost 100% neoconservative U.S. Government, which is its military spending, will have to become annually reduced at least by 5%, by that almost 100% neoconservative Government, which won’t happen unless there is a Second American Revolution, which replaces all of these officials by Government officials who will be like what professor Shushentsov says will be needed in order to prevent yet further build-up to a WW3 global nuclear annihilation.

Alternatively: the growth in the federal debt will no longer be $1.25T annually, but instead $1.5T annually; but, if that happens, then global investors will disinvest in U.S. industries, which will also mean that the billionaires who control the U.S. elected officials by means of their political donations, lobbyists, news-media, think tanks, etc., will see their net worths decline because foreign investors will be withdrawing. So, that path forward will be even less acceptable to them than the other paths will be.

Perhaps the neoconservatives will say that this is Russian propaganda, or Chinese propaganda, or Iranian propaganda, or by some other country that neoconservatives hope to conquer, but they won’t be able to contest any of this by the numbers, because all of these numbers come from the U.S. Government itself. The actual propagandists are the neocons themselves, and they are funded by U.S. billionaires, who have been profiting from all of this. By contrast, nobody has paid me anything in order to research and write this. I always write only what the data display. In the case of my own country, the U.S., what the data display is why the U.S. is increasingly unfit for world leadership. The neoconservatives (including all U.S.-and-allied billionaires) are that reason why. They, themselves, are the reason. And they have enough money to be able to destroy America — and maybe the world.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

https://theduran.com/why-the-u-s-is-increasingly-unfit-for-world-leadership/

AMERICA WAS NEVER FIT TO "LEAD THE WORLD"... IT ALWAYS WAS A SELF-APPOINTED "LEADER" TO PLUNDER AND ENSLAVE OTHER COUNTRIES.... STILL TRYING TO, WITH LESS AND LESS SUCCESS....

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

The Republican Establishment’s Sterile Foreign Policy Perspective

 

by Ted Galen Carpenter

 

Those Americans who might hope that the growing public opposition to continuing U.S. aid to Ukraine might signal a wave of fresh thinking about foreign policy in the Republican party are likely to be disappointed. Most members of the establishment cling to the idea that the principal worry about Republican policy views is the growing appeal of “isolationism.”  A recent example was a Washington Post column by Marc A. Thiessen. Thiessen was responding to a speech by President Biden at the Normandy battlefield, and the exchange illustrated the utter sterility in America’s current foreign policy debate.

Thiessen is annoyed because Biden had accused GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump of isolationism. Instead of pointing out that isolationism has long been a vacuous epithet used to discredit critics who want to move beyond the policies created during the Cold War, Thiessen’s goal is quite different. It is to make the case that Trump is part of the Republican hawkish establishment: “Biden’s latest attack on Trump is wildly inaccurate.” The essence of Thiessen’s defense is that Trump is at least as hawkish as his more conventional Republican colleagues. He asserts, in essence, that “Trump is as hawkish as we are.”  Thiessen heaps praise on the former president for Trump’s hardline policies against Iran, including the assassination of General Quasem Soleimani.

Thiessen also points out that contrary to the mythology fostered by the Democrats that Trump was Vladimir Putin’s puppet, Trump had launched cyber attacks against Russia and, unlike the Obama administration, had provided weapons to Ukraine. Echoing allegations by Mitch McConnell and other GOP congressional leaders, Thiessen contends that there are indeed isolationists in the Republican Party, most notably Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio).  But, according to Thiessen, “Trump’s record suggests he is not the isolationist they hope him to be.”

Leaving aside Thiessen’s silly isolationist epithet, he’s likely correct that the foreign policy of a new Trump administration would differ little from the collection of obsolete assumptions and counterproductive policies that have plagued U.S. foreign policy for decades.  For real, beneficial change in U.S. foreign policy, a new administration would need to recognize the actual conditions of the world in the 21st century and make necessary policy adjustments.

The Biden administration clearly is incapable of doing that. Its policies, both in the Middle East and in Europe, have been disastrous. Entangling the United States in the Russia-Ukraine war and serving as Israel’s enabler for its brutal actions in Gaza are not effective or beneficial strategies for the American people.

To actually implement the strategy of “Peace through Strength” that Thiessen and so many other Republicans advocate requires fresh thinking on multiple fronts. It certainly requires going beyond the interventionist cliches that Thiessen and his colleagues embrace. Among other changes, it would require Washington to accept the reality that spheres of influence exist and will continue to exist in world affairs. Launching emotional crusades against Russia, Iran, and other major powers is precisely the dangerous, unrewarding approach that the U.S. must avoid. No longer confining America’s foreign policy options to the kind of thinking embraced by Mark Thiessen or Joe Biden is an essential first step.

The sterility of the Biden faction’s ideas is evident in multiple cases. Contrary to the expectations of many U.S. foreign policy experts, the Biden administration’s policy toward the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has been far more confrontational than anticipated. In fact, there is little difference in Washington’s actions on either economic or strategic issues regarding China between the Trump and Biden years. In particular, Biden has continued Trump’s buildup of U.S. security support for Taiwan.  Moreover, the Biden administration has actually taken a harder line toward North Korea than Trump had adopted.

The United States is now in the ill-advised position of being on bad terms simultaneously with Moscow and Beijing. If productive policy change is to come, it will not likely take place  with either Joe Biden or Donald Trump in the White House.

Ted Galen Carpenter, Senior Fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute, is the author of 13 books and more than 1,300 articles on international affairs. Dr. Carpenter held various senior policy positions during a 37-year career at the Cato institute. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy(2022).

https://original.antiwar.com/ted_galen_carpenter/2024/07/01/the-republican-establishments-sterile-foreign-policy-perspective/

 

READ FROM TOP.