America has made the world freer, safer and wealthier

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

I like to categorize this as "you'll miss us when we're gone."
I know, I am as shocked as you are that CNN would post something vaguely positive about the USA. But then I read the comments and I am reassured.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/14/opinion/kagan-world-america-made/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

America has made the world freer, safer and wealthier
By Robert Kagan, Special to CNN
(CNN) -- We take a lot for granted about the way the world looks today -- the widespread freedom, the unprecedented global prosperity (even despite the current economic crisis), and the absence of war among great powers.

In 1941 there were only a dozen democracies in the world. Today there are more than 100. For four centuries prior to 1950, global GDP rose by less than 1 percent a year. Since 1950 it has risen by an average of 4 percent a year, and billions of people have been lifted out of poverty.

The first half of the 20th century saw the two most destructive wars in the history of mankind, and in prior centuries war among great powers was almost constant. But for the past 60 years no great powers have gone to war.

This is the world America made when it assumed global leadership after World War II. Would this world order survive if America declined as a great power? Some American intellectuals insist that a "Post-American" world need not look very different from the American world and that all we need to do is "manage" American decline. But that is wishful thinking. If the balance of power shifts in the direction of other powers, the world order will inevitably change to suit their interests and preferences.

Take the issue of democracy. For several decades, the balance of power in the world has favored democratic governments. In a genuinely post-American world, the balance would shift toward the great power autocracies. Both China and Russia already protect dictators like Syria's Bashar al-Assad. If they gain greater relative influence in the future, we will see fewer democratic transitions and more autocrats hanging on to power.

What about the free market, free trade economic order? People assume China and other rising powers that have benefited so much from the present system would have a stake in preserving it. They wouldn't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. But China's form of capitalism is heavily dominated by the state, with the ultimate goal being preservation of the ruling party.

Although the Chinese have been beneficiaries of an open international economic order, they could end up undermining it simply because, as an autocratic society, their priority is to preserve the state's control of wealth and the power it brings. They might kill the goose because they can't figure out how to keep both it and themselves alive.

Finally, what about the long peace that has held among the great powers for the better part of six decades? Many people imagine that American predominance will be replaced by some kind of multipolar harmony. But multipolar systems have historically been neither stable nor peaceful.

War among the great powers was a common, if not constant, occurrence in the long periods of multipolarity in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. The 19th century was notable for two stretches of great-power peace of roughly four decades each, punctuated, however, by major wars among great powers and culminating in World War I, the most destructive and deadly war mankind had known up to that point. The era of American predominance has shown that there is no better recipe for great-power peace than certainty about who holds the upper hand.

Many people view the present international order as the inevitable result of human progress, a combination of advancing science and technology, an increasingly global economy, strengthening international institutions, evolving "norms" of international behavior, and the gradual but inevitable triumph of liberal democracy over other forms of government -- forces of change that transcend the actions of men and nations. But there was nothing inevitable about the world that was created after World War II.

International order is not an evolution; it is an imposition. It is the domination of one vision over others -- in America's case, the domination of liberal free market principles of economics, democratic principles of politics, and a peaceful international system that supports these, over other visions that other nations and peoples may have. The present order will last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it.

If and when American power declines, the institutions and norms American power has supported will decline, too. Or they may collapse altogether as we transition into another kind of world order, or into disorder. We may discover then that the United States was essential to keeping the present world order together and that the alternative to American power was not peace and harmony but chaos and catastrophe -- which was what the world looked like right before the American order came into being.

**dogma**

I'm wondering when this "long peace" happened. The Soviet Union fell in 1991, prior to that there were all kinds of wars, and near wars; plus the threat of an impending nuclear holocaust. Not very peaceful.

After that, we get Iraq 1, Bosnia, Iraq 2, and numerous other armed conflicts throughout Asia and Eastern Europe. Even if we write all that off, its still only 21 years absent a conflict between two great powers.

Moreover, unless the US was the only great power during that period (making great power peace irrelevant) how is the order "American"? Reads more as "Western" to me.

Of course, I don't mean to claim America is "bad" or anything like that, its just good to keep a firm grip on perspective.

**Joey**

Yeah, and bears gak in the woods.
Only morons think a world dominated by China would be better than a world dominated by America. I doubt the Chinese would send millions of men overseas to fight for the liberty of others.

**dogma**

Joey wrote: I doubt the Chinese would send millions of men overseas to fight for the liberty of others.

In all fairness, we don't really do that either.

**Joey**

dogma wrote:
Joey wrote: I doubt the Chinese would send millions of men overseas to fight for the liberty of others.

In all fairness, we don't really do that either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_2

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Joey wrote: I doubt the Chinese would send millions of men overseas to fight for the liberty of others.

In all fairness, we don't really do that either.

He do send carrier groups and the military to help after major disasters (Tsunami, Haiti...)

**dogma**

Joey wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_2

That was rational self interest, not benevolence.

Nazi Europe, and Imperial Japan don't positively affect the US.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
He do send carrier groups and the military to help after major disasters (Tsunami, Haiti...)

That's a better example, but still possibly a case of rational self interest.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:He do send carrier groups and the military to help after major disasters (Tsunami, Haiti...)

That's a better example, but still possibly a case of rational self interest.

**Grakmar**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
He do send carrier groups and the military to help after major disasters (Tsunami, Haiti...)

That's a better example, but still possibly a case of rational self interest.

If you define that as self-interest, then you may as well define EVERYthing anyone ever does as self-interest. You volunteered at a soup kitchen? You only did that to feel good about helping people.

**dogma**

Grakmar wrote:
If you define that as self-interest, then you may as well define EVERYthing anyone ever does as self-interest. You volunteered at a soup kitchen? You only did that to feel good about helping people.

I generally do.

The only reason I've ever volunteered for anything is resume fodder.

Well, and cute girls.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
One could make that claim, but it would tenuous, as at that point most things could be argued to be for rational self interest.

Sure, and most things could be argued to be the result of benevolence.

"That guy is delusional, he's clearly suffering, I should kill him."

*gun shots*

"You spared him suffering, you were benevolent."

Its a messy distinction, which is why I try to throw the issue of qualitative assessments regarding national policies out the window.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
If you define that as self-interest, then you may as well define EVERYthing anyone ever does as self-interest. You volunteered at a soup kitchen? You only did that to feel good about helping people.

I generally do.

The only reason I've ever volunteered for anything is resume fodder.

Well, and cute girls.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
One could make that claim, but it would tenuous, as at that point most things could be argued to be for rational self interest.

There we differ.

Sure, and most things could be argued to be the result of benevolence.

"That guy is delusional, he's clearly suffering, I should kill him."

*gun shots*

"You spared him suffering, you were benevolent."

Its a messy distinction, which is why I try to throw the issue of qualitative assessments regarding national policies out the window.

**Kilkrazy**

Could America come over here and make me a bit wealthier?

I'm about to buy a house and need some extra money.

**Ahtman**

Kilkrazy wrote:Could America come over here and make me a bit wealthier?

I'm about to buy a house and need some extra money.

I'll make a note for our weekly meeting and bring it up with the council.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:Could America come over here and make me a bit wealthier?

I'm about to buy a house and need some extra money.

I'll send you a check. Can you go ahead and deposit. It may take some time. In the interim, I'm a bit cash tight. Could you wire me some money? The proceeds from the check should more than cover it.

**Polonius**

While I agree with Dogma that little of America's foriegn policy is benevolent, I really don't care why people do things. I'm a results oriented guy, at least with regards to public and foriegn policy.

Why does it matter why the US is giving food to North Korea? We're helping people not starve.

**Corpsesarefun**

How can you possibly know this?

Do they have a secret portal to an earth without america to check?

**Joey**

Kilkrazy wrote:Could America come over here and make me a bit wealthier?

I'm about to buy a house and need some extra money.

Well I assume German administration of the UK would make it harder to buy property.

**Ribon Fox**

corpsesarefun wrote:How can you possibly know this?

Do they have a secret portal to an earth without america to check?

I agree. in this alternitive-verse is the British Empier is still around? It would own a good 60% of the planet.
Would it make a better world policeman?

**SilverMK2**

Some of the comments on that page are just crazy. Is it not possible to have different views without automatically hate all that the other person holds dear?

FFS...

Anyway, I think the world would be a better place if the USA sent out armies of teachers, builders and doctors rather than soldiers.

**juraigamer**

corpsesarefun wrote:How can you possibly know this?

Do they have a secret portal to an earth without america to check?

Yup, it's called the eye of terror. CHAOS IS STRONG SUCKAS!

**Amaya**

I'm sure South and Central America are extremely grateful for American aid.

**Poppabear**

When I saw the topic name. It took me a lot of effort to click on it. I like the average American but the way they are governed is just... wow. (I'm not talking about Obama or his administration but mainly the right wingers and conservatives)

What the American Government has bin doing to countries world wide is preatty much another form of terrorism. Now I'm not saying the troopers are committing terrorism. There just following orders and have no say, well pretty much have no say. America has no right to be in anyone's borders unless they have bin directly and visually attacked. Most people who are in the said country hate Americans because they have "Invaded them" and "striped them of their dignity". Most Americans think otherwise. But it's not their fault. They get bombed by the media *cough* *cough* Fox News (Which I might mention is not allowed to be portrayed has a New Channel here in NZ, because it actually has to bring "NEWS" to the table). And most people in the States think their Government and troops are doing the right thing, but their not....

Why does America have a policy to enter foreign lands and commit acts of terrorism (my main of example this is pretty much the whole Iraq war) that did nothing to their own country or people (directly). The American Government has broken so many laws of war thats it stop being funny.

So why America? Why?

**Amaya**

Prior to the Cold War America could move freely in Central and South America because of military and naval superiority in that hemisphere. During the Cold War only the USSR was a legit rival. Post Cold War America can do whatever they damn well please because of military superiority. Only China and perhaps Russia can really challenged the US military and neither of those two countries have any reason to engage in a direct confrontation.

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:Some of the comments on that page are just crazy. Is it not possible to have different views without automatically hate all that the other person holds dear?

FFS...

Anyway, I think the world would be a better place if the USA sent out armies of teachers, builders and doctors rather than soldiers.

Or just as the Great Cartman often said: "Screw you guys. I'm going home."

No Blood for Broccoli!

**Ketara**

I wouldn't say that this kind of phemonena is unprecedented (Pax Britannia after all). It's also not quite as exaggerated as the article makes out.

**dogma**

Amaya wrote:Post Cold War America can do whatever they damn well please because of military superiority.

Well, that's the myth anyway.

We can do more than most, but anything that we want. In part because we don't know what we want, but also because some things are beyond us. It was easier during the Cold War because there was a clearly defined opponent. This made FP choices produce predictable results.

**Amaya**

Well, American can't simply waltz over and take over half the world, but it has no desire to do so.

It is free to interfere where it is not wanted thanks to a very powerful and fast military that can make life hell for your country in a matter of days.

**Ahtman**

Amaya wrote:Well, American can't simply waltz over and take over half the world, but it has no desire to do so.

Oh really? This T-Shirt says different!

**Blackskullandy**

Joey wrote:Yeah, and bears gak in the woods.
Only morons think a world dominated by China would be better than a world dominated by America.

How about a world dominated by no-one?

dogma wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
If you define that as self-interest, then you may as well define EVERYthing anyone ever does as self-interest. You volunteered at a soup kitchen? You only did that to feel good about helping people.

I generally do.

The only reason I've ever volunteered for anything is resume fodder.

Well, and cute girls.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
One could make that claim, but it would tenuous, as at that point most things could be argued to be for rational self interest.

Sure, and most things could be argued to be the result of benevolence.

"That guy is delusional, he's clearly suffering, I should kill him."

*gun shots*

"You spared him suffering, you were benevolent."

Its a messy distinction, which is why I try to throw the issue of qualitative assessments regarding national policies out the window.

Dogma, you are easily the single most cynical person it has ever been my pleasure to encounter... I mean that as a compliment, by the way

**Frazzled**

How about a world dominated by no-one?

Killing, lots and lots of killing (Middle East) or not (South America).