US Contemporary Power: The Reality; The Sentiment
Last week the US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced proposed cuts to US forces reducing their 'boots on the ground' to pre Second World War levels, the closure of some domestic military bases, redundancy of U2 spy planes and A10 attack jet aircraft . On the face it these reductions sound quite dramatic as at present the US spends around $600 billion per year on hard power; more then the next twelve highest defense spending nations put together. So, what does this proposal suggest ? At a time of numerous 'real time' conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, and the threat of others in Asia and Eastern Europe, why has the executive decided to draw in the wings of the American eagle at this particular juncture ?
Logically, this could just be a decision driven by economic necessities, after all the national debt stands at $17.4 trillion and continues grow in spite of reduced public spending, reduced unemployment and a growing economy. Moreover, after 9/11 defense spending has doubled reflecting the costly engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as maintaining the United States military global reach. The underlining strategy of the US military has long been to finance and equip the armed forces with the ability and facility to fight two major wars simultaneously - this thinking is obviously now under serious political review as I cannot conceive that the Pentagon has willingly bought into this new approach. Finally, the reduction in manpower could also simply be a reflection of greater reliance on technology as the monitoring and intervention into other nation-states affairs is being increasingly undertaken as much by the NSA, CIA and other covert services as it is by the regular army, air force and navy.
However, I feel there could be a further reason for this military reduction that is not so rational but just as powerful - public sentiment. There exists a potent atavistic characteristic that has sat within the US mindset ever since 1776 if not before - the view that much of the behaviour outside of the nation's natural borders is an anathema to the American way of life. Moreover, although the US has to involve itself in foreign affairs to protect its self interests it is more important to insulate the nation from any contagion that this un-American world might contain. This 'small screen' republicanism is not an uncommon sentiment and if you place these feelings alongside a nation-state that been at war for over ten years then no wonder the average citizen has become weary of conflict, often unsure or unaware as to the reasons why they are fighting and financing in nation-states that have little in common with the American creed.
KK
An after thought...
Barack Obama has been nicknamed the first 'Pacific President' by many, I wonder if this should not be just a nod to geo-politics but a reflection of a nation that just like numerous imperial powers before it is getting tired of having to continually fight its corner to retain its pre-eminent crown.
KK
Logically, this could just be a decision driven by economic necessities, after all the national debt stands at $17.4 trillion and continues grow in spite of reduced public spending, reduced unemployment and a growing economy. Moreover, after 9/11 defense spending has doubled reflecting the costly engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as maintaining the United States military global reach. The underlining strategy of the US military has long been to finance and equip the armed forces with the ability and facility to fight two major wars simultaneously - this thinking is obviously now under serious political review as I cannot conceive that the Pentagon has willingly bought into this new approach. Finally, the reduction in manpower could also simply be a reflection of greater reliance on technology as the monitoring and intervention into other nation-states affairs is being increasingly undertaken as much by the NSA, CIA and other covert services as it is by the regular army, air force and navy.
However, I feel there could be a further reason for this military reduction that is not so rational but just as powerful - public sentiment. There exists a potent atavistic characteristic that has sat within the US mindset ever since 1776 if not before - the view that much of the behaviour outside of the nation's natural borders is an anathema to the American way of life. Moreover, although the US has to involve itself in foreign affairs to protect its self interests it is more important to insulate the nation from any contagion that this un-American world might contain. This 'small screen' republicanism is not an uncommon sentiment and if you place these feelings alongside a nation-state that been at war for over ten years then no wonder the average citizen has become weary of conflict, often unsure or unaware as to the reasons why they are fighting and financing in nation-states that have little in common with the American creed.
KK
An after thought...
Barack Obama has been nicknamed the first 'Pacific President' by many, I wonder if this should not be just a nod to geo-politics but a reflection of a nation that just like numerous imperial powers before it is getting tired of having to continually fight its corner to retain its pre-eminent crown.
KK
RSS Feed
