American Empire: Pax Americana

[Alnitak]

To what extent does the US have an empire?

Does US military dominance create a more peaceful world?

To the first question, there is no empire in the strict sense of extensive territory. Sovereign US territory outside of North America is restricted to a few islands in Oceania, whereas empire traditionally means a sovereign state that includes many nations, usually over a vast area of the globe. It can be argued however that the US holds territory formerly held by Hispanic and Native American nations.

In the sense of economic, military, and diplomatic power, the US does maintain a de facto empire.

Since US military presence overseas is controversial, it is difficult to locate reliable estimates on deployments and bases. One of the best sourced articles is actually from Wikipedia, which references documents from the Department of Defense. As of December, the US military deploys about 160,000 personnel in 150 countries. See Total Military Personnel and Dependent End Strength In addition to those countries, the US Navy deploys a considerable fleet of intelligent destroyers, submarines, and aircraft carriers. The US spends roughly 40% of the world's military expenditures, four times as much as the next country - China, and more than the next top 11 countries combined.

The US also has substantial control over the world economy, banking, and trade. It has effective power to impose sanctions and force the hand of small countries. Under the Obama Administration, the US has scaled down the Bush Doctrine mostly because of backlash and historical perspective over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, it has used sanctions to achieve goals, as prominently was done in Iran in the Joint Plan of Action and the disposal of Syria's chemical weapons. Despite this, the threat of military intervention is always maintained by the Pentagon's billions.

The main question is would a vacuum in the absence of US military dominance cause a breakout of war?

The breakout of WWI was due to intense militarization of a unified Germany, and partly the loss of overwhelming military dominance of the British Empire, although territoriality it was at its height after WWI. Before that time, the UK maintained Pax Britannica, a term that refers to the general lack of global war between Napoleon and WWI.

While American military dominance may be unsavory and unfair, history can and does repeat itself. A power vacuum should US military ever withdraw or ever become overshadowed by a new axis, perhaps joined by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, could lead to WWIII.

 

[Ninja108]

There are no easy answers, there truly isn't but the fact is we simply don't have the money or troops to be the world's policeman by ourselves.
And make no mistakes, those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have left us bankrupt and war weary.. and the countries you mentioned know it.
People want to blame Obama but make no mistake, what happened in the Middle East was the beginning of the end for U.S. Miltary might, simple as that.

 

[kallipolis]

The logic of your analysis might well be questioned by those here who recall the result of The Vietnam War....

Military dominance is not a guarantee of peaceful co-existence with the current Crimea crisis an example of the impotence of the United States in being able to "persuade" Tsar Putin to re-consider his policy.

That the English speaking nations remain close friends, and military partners indicates that the United States prefers to act in concert with other nations including, the nations of the NATO rather than assume the position of world police officer bearing the enlightened white man's burden.

The military/industrial complex will readily, and rapidly express its opinion forcefully when political crises appear to justify expanding military spending....whether the (bogeyman) potential enemy is Russia, China, North Korea, Iran or just those terroristic Muslims....

 

[Alnitak]

People want to blame Obama but make no mistake, what happened in the Middle East was the beginning of the end for U.S. Miltary might, simple as that.

The might is there, but the ability to use it is not, sort of like nuclear weapons. It will be quite a while before the US enters a war again, hopefully never. We, and I mean Americans, need to keep trigger happy Republicans out of the White House.

 

[Alnitak]

The logic of your analysis might well be questioned by those here who recall the result of The Vietnam War....

The Vietnam War was an internal affair. Going to war did not work, and could never have worked. Saigon was far too weak. Change had to happen as the nature of the conflict was, internally. Forty years on, Vietnam's economy is booming and relations with the US have never been closer.

The moral is that war, and even victory, no longer appears to solve world problems.

However, military dominance and war are two distinct concepts. Dominance is a deterrent, like nuclear weapons.

Military dominance is not a guarantee of peaceful co-existence with the current Crimea crisis an example of the impotence of the United States in being able to "persuade" Tsar Putin to re-consider his policy.

Right and even the British could not contain all conflict when it ruled the 19th century's waves choosing not to get involved in the Franco-Prussian war for example, but intervention on the side of Napoleon III in that conflict could have prevented WWI.

That the English speaking nations remain close friends, and military partners indicates that the United States prefers to act in concert with other nations including, the nations of the NATO rather than assume the position of world police officer bearing the enlightened white man's burden.

I think the foreign policy of Obama appears to be weak, but ultimately will be viewed as no more effective than the Bush Doctrine.

 

[kallipolis]

Today's crises in Crimea, and Syria indicate that America's overwhelming military might is not all that effective...

 

[Alnitak]

Today's crises in Crimea, and Syria indicate that America's overwhelming military might is not all that effective...

I think the threat of military action brought Syria to the negotiating table, and we did get something substantial out of it. Syria has disposed of its chemical weapons.

Crimea: Obama could threaten if he really wanted to, but he's a softie. He will bring up the issue while he is in Europe. The thought of a US proxy war with Russia should put anyone on edge.

 

[Kulindahr]

Today's crises in Crimea, and Syria indicate that America's overwhelming military might is not all that effective...

No amount of might is effective unless others perceive that there is a will to use it.

 

[TX-Beau]

Today's crises in Crimea, and Syria indicate that America's overwhelming military might is not all that effective...

"US Military might" has not been used. Let's all hope it never comes to that. There is no threat of "US Military might," because everyone knows that the US is not going to war over Ukraine. If there was any kind of credible threat that we might, then you would have some kind of gauge how effective threat of force might be.

- - - Updated - - -

No amount of might is effective unless others perceive that there is a will to use it.

BASTARD!!!! Beat me to it.

 

[maxpowr9]

The EU is the worst thing that could happen to the "American Empire" but since it is also occidental, the USA is chummy towards it. America was stupid for forging an economic "alliance" with China who in turn is allied with Russia which means we have become a proxy ally to Russia.

For the USA to continue to be a superpower, it needs to exploit another third-world country for its labor [I suggest subjugating India further and dumping China]. If not, the USA needs to gracefully wane into the sunset like the UK.

 

[TX-Beau]

Russia and China have a long history of backstabbing and antagonism.

 

[TX-Beau]

I think that the concept of "superpower" is outdated and needs to pass into the dim mists where went the cold war.

 

[bankside]

The United States maintains an empire of the mind in the degree to which it captures undue fascination and attention around the world. Even now, here I am posting this to a largely American audience, so that a largely American audience better understands its place in the world - out of linguistic convenience to a large degree - when if I were intent on revising that status quo, I should be making this case to Turks or Indians or Australians or Algerians or Koreans or something.

I've said before, the US is only 4 percent of the world's population. From that baseline, it has genuinely earned a larger role in world affairs than its population would suggest, by setting an example of how to run a relatively stable system of government that supports a prosperous economy and that provides some basic safeguarding of freedom to its citizens. However it assumes a disproportionate role far beyond that, and for some ridiculous reasons this is granted by other countries who have the economic and institutional resources to do more.

There is a really good international framework for cooperation among sovereign states - the UN and all the attendant institutions and frameworks of international law - but these have sat largely unused and undeveloped for 20 years. Certainly the US has preferred to have relationships with client states rather than partner states in its foreign policy throughout that period. And to be fair some countries and "economic unions" have shirked actions rightly falling within their spheres of influence and competence and responsibility, leaving the US to fill the vacuum.

My impression is that this arrangement is unstable and unsustainable, and ultimately bad for both the US and the other countries who put up with it. There will be a tipping point where countries are no longer interested in joining Team USA. It would be a pity if the only alternative were a Team Anti-USA. Far better would be a truly joint effort where countries come together on a team of mutual interest. Or even where individuals come together as world citizens.

 

[Kulindahr]

Far better would be a truly joint effort where countries come together on a team of mutual interest. Or even where individuals come together as world citizens.

There are few places in the world where people are mature enough in the concepts of individual rights and sovereignty for coming together as world citizens. Thanks to the Big Two parties here, I don't count the US as one of them.

 

[kallipolis]

The result of the Vietnam War is evidence that superpower status has its limitations...

 

[Alnitak]

I've said before, the US is only 4 percent of the world's population. From that baseline, it has genuinely earned a larger role in world affairs than its population would suggest, by setting an example of how to run a relatively stable system of government that supports a prosperous economy and that provides some basic safeguarding of freedom to its citizens.

Population is not the relevant number, but the size of the economy. American workers are also the most productive per capita, which is why the US share of the global economy is 23%, despite being home to 4% of the population.

There are a lot of domestic factors that go into that figure, for example innovation and technology, human capital, but I can tell you simply that US workers are routinely forced to come to work early and leave late after work despite an official 40 hour work week for hourly employees. Just for example, our flight attendants don't get paid until the plane takes off. On my days in the office I go in early for a quiet hour to prepare for the coming crush of people and phone calls. I don't get paid for it, but I am expected to get my work done in the midst of all those distractions. New clients are the lifeblood of a law firm, but for a paralegal a lot of them in one day might mean not getting off work on time and having to take anxiety medication. Greedy fat cats can get away with it because the laws are lax on paying employees for their time. We are not seeing wage growth either. So not only are the fat cats taking our wage growth earnings, they are stealing from us for our labor. If I ever complained about it I would get fired. In a lot of countries that protect their workers better, employers would get fined.

So anyway, yes, we have earned it honey.

 

[bankside]

Okay not paying people for the work they do is economically inefficient. The point of using money to denominate work is to be able to track it. Failing to pay for that work is just an accounting failure that should embarrass any professional accountant at the micro level, and embarass any economist at the macro level.

This error has allowed you to believe per-hour productivity is greater in the states. I spent a few hours last Wednesday evening and most of Saturday afternoon at my office because I too am expected to keep up with all my calls and reports and analyses and so on. Let's assume we are just as diligent in these hours worked. There is no difference in our material productivity. However I am paid for that time and it is accounted for accurately.

Perhaps those productivity stats are off, at the finely grained level. Though clearly both of us are more productive than the average Somali due to our greater acces to tools provided by capital investment, education and training through a robust tertiary education system, and we can participate in an open, stable, rules-based labour market (your unpaid OT notwithstanding..) backed by a social safety net of pensions, medical benefits, employment insurance.

Even then, to assert that economic advantage entitles anyone to a wildly disproportionate share of world influence and power, is to make the case for plutocracy, not freedom.

So anyway is your overtime truly unpaid or is it just paid in bulk, through a salary larger than it would have otherwise been? I have a feeling that my employer's scrupulous accounting of overtime may allow them to offer lower salaries in the first place.

Also, last stats I saw said hourly productivity was higher in Europe than the US, but annual productivity was lower due to their habit of giving everyone 6 weeks of holiday each year. Of course that probably also reduces the amount spent on anxiety medicine, further hobbling the productivity of European pharmaceutical companies.

 

[Kulindahr]

The result of the Vietnam War is evidence that superpower status has its limitations...

No, the result of the Vietnam War is evidence of what happens when you aren't really interested in fighting so you let politicians run the war.

 

[Kulindahr]

Population is not the relevant number, but the size of the economy. American workers are also the most productive per capita, which is why the US share of the global economy is 23%, despite being home to 4% of the population.

The beginning of the end for population being the most relevant factor in military might was the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon was defeated not by overwhelming numbers, but by better application of tactics to technology (or the other way around, depending on one's perspective), and by the power of industry.

The US currently stands at the apex of that long trend, which has yet to reach its height; the future may hold robot factories supplying powered battle armor for infantry than makes one man the equivalent of a WW II Panzer, while drones overhead support him at the direction of his thoughts*.




(*for the doubtful, all that is in the Pentagon's research pipeline)

 

[Alnitak]

There are 145 million workers in the United States, with a GDP of 17.4 trillion. The productivity of the average American worker is $120,000, but the average salary is far lower than that figure.