Tell the US 'No, we can't'

[Fage]

January 23, 2009

WE all hope Barack Obama can rebuild the US's place in the world. But will that hope be fulfilled? To answer that, we need to do more than admire the new President. We must go back and look at what's gone wrong during the past eight years, because then can we say whether Obama has what it takes to overcome them.

For me, alas, the answer is no. The challenges to America's global position are not those of mere mismanagement. They arise from a profound mismatch between America's global objectives on the one hand and its power on the other, now and increasingly in the future.

To reconcile that mismatch, Obama needs to define new, more modest and more realistic and achievable objectives for his foreign policy.

This is not the way most Americans, including the new President, see the problem. Instead they blame the previous president. That's understandable enough. George W. Bush used American power so badly it seems natural to blame the setbacks of the past eight years on his errors. But America's problems are much bigger than Bush. His administration was arrogant, cynical, negligent, brutal and incompetent. But even if it had been wise and skilful, the aims Bush set for US policy were simply beyond the scope of US power to deliver, no matter how prudently and persuasively it was applied.

Consider Bush's key objectives: he committed the US to transforming Iraq, to rebuilding Afghanistan, to containing Russia, to disarming North Korea and Iran, and to sustaining US primacy in Asia in the face of China's rise.
He has failed in all of them, but would anyone else have done better? Bush's incompetence created America's problems in Iraq, but none of these other challenges are his fault. And no one - certainly not the new President - has any persuasive ideas about what new things the US can do to fix them that differ much from Bush's plans, or have any better prospects for success.

So far as we can judge thus far, including from this week's inaugural speech, Obama's aims are just as ambitious as Bush's. Like Bush, Obama believes the US can defeat the Taliban and transform Afghanistan. Like Bush, he believes the US can stop Iran building nuclear weapons. Like Bush, he believes the US can pressure North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons. Like Bush, he believes Russia can be denied a sphere of influence in its "near abroad".

Even on Iraq, Obama differs from Bush on matters of method, not purpose: like Bush, Obama believes the US can create in Iraq a stable, well-governed and broadly pro-Western counterbalance to Iranian power in the Persian Gulf.

Most importantly, like Bush, Obama believes the US can remain the dominant power in Asia, just as it has been for the past few decades, as China's economic and hence strategic weight grows to rival its own.

Of course Obama will bring to the conduct of foreign policy many advantages Bush lacked: charm, intelligence, sober judgement and a capacity for hard work, for a start. But not being Bush is not enough. He will find, as Bush did, that US power, great though it is, simply will not deliver the unrealistic agenda he has inherited from his predecessor.

And the reasons go deep; much deeper than today's economic problems or the threat of Islamist terrorism. They derive from a fundamental collision between Americans' expectations about their place in the world and the perplexing realities of global power. Having won the Cold War, Americans looked confidently forward to a new American century in which, unlike the conflict-riven 20th century, their primacy would be uncontested and their leadership would be absolute.

This expectation was founded on America's apparent pre-eminence in economics, in military force and in political ideas. But each has proved less potent than expected. Twenty years after the end of history, the US model of a modern society still faces spirited competition around the world. Its armed force turns out to be less omnipotent than we had thought.

The US economy - immense, dynamic and creative though it is - faces an unprecedented challenge from China. Within a few short decades China may have overtaken the US to become the most powerful economy in the world. That is the most consequential trend in the world today, and the most important for the US's future role in the world.

It cannot expect to exercise unchallenged political and strategic leadership in a world it no longer dominates economically.
This deep mismatch between ends and means, and not the failings of the 43rd president, is the real reason the past eight years have been so disappointing for Americans.

It turns out the US does not have the power to rebuild complex and fractured societies from the ground up. It turns out it cannot compel even quite weak states to forgo nuclear weapons. It turns out it cannot dictate to Russia what will happen on Russia's borders. And it appears the US cannot retain uncontested primacy in Asia as China's power grows. All that is just as true of Obama's America as of Bush's.

This is a pity. These grand aims are good in themselves, and the world would be a better place by far if they could be attained.

But it never does good to pursue noble aims with inadequate means. The essence of statecraft is to achieve the best outcomes possible with the means available.

The risk is Obama will never find that balance between means and ends. Instead, through muddled analysis, jingoism or political timidity Obama will fail to adjust his foreign policy objectives to the power available to achieve them. He will keep on saying to Americans, "Yes, we can" when the more honest, statesmanlike answer would be "No, we can't." Those are words that can take a lot of wisdom and courage to say. I'm not sure he's got it.

Hugh White is a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute and professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University.

Source:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24949759-5013480,00.html

[helomech]

Nobody better say "no" to Emperor Palpatine-Obama,he'll send his enforcer Darth Hilliary to 'persuade' you to think otherwise

p-)



The world is a much smaller place than it was 50 years ago,his goals are ambitious to say the least;I'm sure there will a number of foreign officials who will tell him no

[tluassa]

He seems to be someone that is not afraid to name Problems. That alone is more than most Politicians. And hes popular in Europe, contrary to his predecessor ^^ If he uses his skills and popularity bonus he was given, he can do something even as things look bad at the moment.

[DetailedEntrails]

Nobody better say "no" to Emperor Palpatine-Obama,he'll send his enforcer Darth Hilliary to 'persuade' you to think otherwise

p-)



The world is a much smaller place than it was 50 years ago,his goals are ambitious to say the least;I'm sure there will a number of foreign officials who will tell him no

Darth Hillary aint got **** on Darth Cheney.

[Dragonscript]

He seems to be someone that is not afraid to name Problems. That alone is more than most Politicians. And hes popular in Europe, contrary to his predecessor ^^ If he uses his skills and popularity bonus he was given, he can do something even as things look bad at the moment.

Hitler was popular at one time and Stalin is still popular today.

I'm not comparing Obama to either of them, just saying that just because someone/something is popular doesn't make it a good thing.

[ZeroZen]

Its too hard to tell. pessimistic professor writes about America's worldly faults which I see one country benefits from this rubling. The Harmonious, Peaceful rise of....

[Moledet]

He seems to be someone that is not afraid to name Problems. That alone is more than most Politicians. And hes popular in Europe, contrary to his predecessor ^^ If he uses his skills and popularity bonus he was given, he can do something even as things look bad at the moment.
Bush was very popular in Arab countries when he was elected due to his family's good relations with the oil countries and the Republicans' relations with Israel that were never good (until 9/11).

[domokun]

Darth Hillary aint got **** on Darth Cheney.

Don't underestimate power of liberal side.p-)

[damagejackal]

I'm a bid disheartened after watching that inaguration ceremony. I get the impression that he thinks of himself as some sort of Grand Statesman, who listens to both sides and uses his charisma to bring people closer, unity etc...
Unfortunately what America needs is a straightforward conservative minded economically literate President,
forget the whole civil rights bulli**** for now this is urgent

[DetailedEntrails]

Hitler was popular at one time and Stalin is still popular today.

I'm not comparing Obama to either of them, just saying that just because someone/something is popular doesn't make it a good thing.

Case in point, backstreet boys, nsync, and 50 cent. Although im not comparing obama to those musical holocausts.

[deagle]

thats pretty preposterous considering article was posted 1-day after his inauguration, and i guess technically, he'll be on the job just recently.

2009 looks bad already, and "no we can't" is just a pessimestic tone.

[commanding]

"Hugh White is a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute and professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University"

where is he visiting from? Mars? Tell him to put down the crack pipe.

[matthew.manhorn]

Case in point, backstreet boys, nsync, and 50 cent. Although im not comparing obama to those musical holocausts.

Backstreet boys were awesome, they represent your memories of the 90's. I find modern indie / emo / sissy rock more irritating than BSB.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

"Hugh White is a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute and professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University"

where is he visiting from? Mars? Tell him to put down the crack pipe.

Agree. What a steaming load that was. Hey gang we may not be able to succeed, so let's not try.

This is my favorite bit:

Having won the Cold War, Americans looked confidently forward to a new American century in which, unlike the conflict-riven 20th century, their primacy would be uncontested and their leadership would be absolute.
...kind of tells you where his mind is at. Thankfully, during the "conflict-riven 20th century" we also attempted to do things when the outcome was not assured.

[dindin]

Hitler was popular at one time and Stalin is still popular today.

I'm not comparing Obama to either of them, just saying that just because someone/something is popular doesn't make it a good thing.


OBAMA Smart

[Lokos]

Agree. What a steaming load that was. Hey gang we may not be able to succeed, so let's not try.


That's not what he's saying, though. What he's saying is that the United States does not have the power to impose its will unilaterally, in every contextual scenario - and won't in the near future. He's using widely perceived trends in geo-strategic terms to back up his arguments. Like the economic rise of China, the co-dependency this has created with the United States and the global economic engine, the realization of the global village etc. etc. The United States is no longer the world's creditor. Nor is it the world's manufacturing powerhouse. It's a consumer driven service economy that realistically began its decline at some point in the early 90s, despite strong growth throughout that decade and the first part of the 00s.

Let's not perceive that message as some sort of criticism of the US. It isn't. It's a statement of fact. The hard power of the United States has been curbed by its integration in the global system. No one can afford to be making waves, right now. That's why Russia got away with the Georgia episode more or less cleanly. Pick a very small target that ostensibly won't make ripples in global financial markets, and do what you need to do. The major powers can't afford actual conflicts with each other.


This is my favorite bit:
Quote:
Having won the Cold War, Americans looked confidently forward to a new American century in which, unlike the conflict-riven 20th century, their primacy would be uncontested and their leadership would be absolute.
...kind of tells you where his mind is at. Thankfully, during the "conflict-riven 20th century" we also attempted to do things when the outcome was not assured.

On the one hand, I really like your positive attitude.

On the other hand, he's right. Again, he's referring to Post-Cold War perceptions of the American worldview. The Soviet Union is gone. Who's the next pretender to America's throne at the top of the food chain? The obvious answer is: no one. Or China. Which, allegedly, is decades away from meaningful potential challenges to American power, because their military needs modernization. Well... yes and no. Contrary to popular notions, America actually experienced its relative heyday during the 1950-1990 period - not thereafter. This was a time when the Soviet Union had some sort of military parity, but America led the world in everything. Production, consumption, expenditure, R&D... everything. Now, I'm not talking about the Golden Age for the American consumer. Clearly, that period has been the last fifteen years, or so.

I'm talking about the United States itself.

In the space of a decade following the end of the Cold War, the US has lost the ability to unilaterally impose its will on practically any nation state the world over. Someone does need to point out that 'No we can't' is, in today's climate, a more realistic proposition than 'Yes we can, under any circumstance'. It's not 'No we can't do anything'. It's 'No we can't be unrealistic with regards to the power we can exert'. That means less involvement in smothering Russia out of its near abroad (I don't know any conflict analyst who would deny this has been a consistent foreign policy aim of the United States in the last six decades). More multilateral and bilateral engagement. Less aggressive posturing (or aggressively defensive posturing) when dealing with Chinese ambitions in Taiwan.

Before you (the figurative you) jump me, I will say this: the United States is the most powerful single state on the planet. It's unmatched in terms of hard power. It is unassailable by any conventional means. No other state approximates it in affluence or current potential. China is decades away from matching today's United States. The US is not at the end of its history, like some failing 4th century Western Roman Empire.

BUT...

There are increasing strains on the application of American power. Especially in comparison to the status quo of 1990-2003. And I in all honesty believe that this is the core of my compatriot Hugh White's message. He's not smoking a pipe. And he's not disrespectin', yo'.

IMHO.

L.

[matthew.manhorn]

I always don't get how can China become a world power when USA is currently in a financial crises. China and US are still too interdependent to each other to be rivals nations right now. Another propaganda by thread by Fage.

[Expert Marksman 126]

He seems to be someone that is not afraid to name Problems. That alone is more than most Politicians. And hes popular in Europe, contrary to his predecessor ^^ If he uses his skills and popularity bonus he was given, he can do something even as things look bad at the moment.

I dont give a flying f#$k if he's more popular than God in Europe. That doesnt matter. He's our president, not yours.

[Expert Marksman 126]

I always don't get how can China become a world power when USA is currently in a financial crises. China and US are still too interdependent to each other to be rivals nations right now. Another propaganda by thread by Fage.

We are dependent on China, but not the other way around. The trade deficit Clinton caused is sickening.

[Havoc345]

That's not what he's saying, though. What he's saying is that the United States does not have the power to impose its will unilaterally, in every contextual scenario - and won't in the near future. He's using widely perceived trends in geo-strategic terms to back up his arguments. Like the economic rise of China, the co-dependency this has created with the United States and the global economic engine, the realization of the global village etc. etc. The United States is no longer the world's creditor. Nor is it the world's manufacturing powerhouse. It's a consumer driven service economy that realistically began its decline at some point in the early 90s, despite strong growth throughout that decade and the first part of the 00s.

Let's not perceive that message as some sort of criticism of the US. It isn't. It's a statement of fact. The hard power of the United States has been curbed by its integration in the global system. No one can afford to be making waves, right now. That's why Russia got away with the Georgia episode more or less cleanly. Pick a very small target that ostensibly won't make ripples in global financial markets, and do what you need to do. The major powers can't afford actual conflicts with each other.



On the one hand, I really like your positive attitude.

On the other hand, he's right. Again, he's referring to Post-Cold War perceptions of the American worldview. The Soviet Union is gone. Who's the next pretender to America's throne at the top of the food chain? The obvious answer is: no one. Or China. Which, allegedly, is decades away from meaningful potential challenges to American power, because their military needs modernization. Well... yes and no. Contrary to popular notions, America actually experienced its relative heyday during the 1950-1990 period - not thereafter. This was a time when the Soviet Union had some sort of military parity, but America led the world in everything. Production, consumption, expenditure, R&D... everything. Now, I'm not talking about the Golden Age for the American consumer. Clearly, that period has been the last fifteen years, or so.

I'm talking about the United States itself.

In the space of a decade following the end of the Cold War, the US has lost the ability to unilaterally impose its will on practically any nation state the world over. Someone does need to point out that 'No we can't' is, in today's climate, a more realistic proposition than 'Yes we can, under any circumstance'. It's not 'No we can't do anything'. It's 'No we can't be unrealistic with regards to the power we can exert'. That means less involvement in smothering Russia out of its near abroad (I don't know any conflict analyst who would deny this has been a consistent foreign policy aim of the United States in the last six decades). More multilateral and bilateral engagement. Less aggressive posturing (or aggressively defensive posturing) when dealing with Chinese ambitions in Taiwan.

Before you (the figurative you) jump me, I will say this: the United States is the most powerful single state on the planet. It's unmatched in terms of hard power. It is unassailable by any conventional means. No other state approximates it in affluence or current potential. China is decades away from matching today's United States. The US is not at the end of its history, like some failing 4th century Western Roman Empire.

BUT...

There are increasing strains on the application of American power. Especially in comparison to the status quo of 1990-2003. And I in all honesty believe that this is the core of my compatriot Hugh White's message. He's not smoking a pipe. And he's not disrespectin', yo'.

IMHO.

L.

Quoted for Truth

[dindin]

I dont give a flying f#$k if he's more popular than God in Europe. That doesnt matter. He's our president, not yours.

thats true

[California Joe]

I'm a bid disheartened after watching that inaguration ceremony. I get the impression that he thinks of himself as some sort of Grand Statesman, who listens to both sides and uses his charisma to bring people closer, unity etc...
Unfortunately what America needs is a straightforward conservative minded economically literate President,
forget the whole civil rights bulli**** for now this is urgent

How do you know what he thinks of himself? What did you want him to do at his Inauguration? Pick his nose or flash gang signs? Are you angry cause he's actin' all uppity?


Backstreet boys were awesome, they represent your memories of the 90's. I find modern indie / emo / sissy rock more irritating than BSB.

Um yeah, turn in your man card and then choke yourself.


I dont give a flying f#$k if he's more popular than God in Europe. That doesnt matter. He's our president, not yours.

World getting smaller. Allies important. Global economy. Fire good.


We are dependent on China, but not the other way around. The trade deficit Clinton caused is sickening.

Yeah, that rat f*ck Clinton, it's all his fault. Oh wait. He's not the Noo Cue Ler retard that's been borrowing bazillions of dollars for clusterf*ck financing for the last 8 years. You realize that we have literally sold the country to the Chinese right? That if we were George Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life, Mr. Potter would have slanty eyes and there wouldn't be any Clarence.

Sonofabitch.

[Laworkerbee]

Yeah, that rat f*ck Clinton, it's all his fault. Oh wait. He's not the Noo Cue Ler retard that's been borrowing bazillions of dollars for clusterf*ck financing for the last 8 years. You realize that we have literally sold the country to the Chinese right? That if we were George Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life, Mr. Potter would have slanty eyes and there wouldn't be any Clarence.

Sonofabitch.

You really need to get into stand up, it's your true calling. rofl

[Adux]

Clinton caused the trade deficit?

PS


Um yeah, turn in your man card and then choke yourself.


Out of the Park!!

[Templar@Large]

Darth Hillary aint got **** on Darth Cheney.

WoW ! The past was scary indeed :-(

[California Joe]

I meant "It's a Wonderful Life" I was just on a roll....But you get the idea...

In fact, I'm such a pedantic asshole that I'm going to edit that...

[firemedic]

America is for the most part hesitant to use the full capabilities of its military due in large part because we feel pressured by the rest of the world to use kid gloves, and because we want to appear to be the nice guys, but if push ever came to shove, and the gloves were forced to come off it would be a very bad day for whomever was on the receiving end. We try to achieve these lofty goals around the world with good intentions and because we truly believe that it will make a better world for everyone but we are continuously chastised and criticized in the world of public opinion. I for one am sick of my tax dollars being spent to help other countries that dont really seem very thankful for lack of a better term. Americas intentions are good albeit misguided at times. I hope that through the sacrifice of our many lives and resources, that the world is at least a little bit better off. And as far as China goes we are thier best customer. they have the US to thank for their success. They could have been living under the rising sun today if it had not been for America.

[FlintHillBilly]

Backstreet boys were awesome, they represent your GAY memories of the 90's. I find modern indie / emo / sissy rock more irritating than BSB.


Fixed for you.

[Supe]

There are increasing strains on the application of American power. Especially in comparison to the status quo of 1990-2003. And I in all honesty believe that this is the core of my compatriot Hugh White's message. He's not smoking a pipe. And he's not disrespectin', yo'.


Hugh White's credibility has been tarnished when in an article, he referred to Abrams, AWD and LHD purchases as white elephants (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/23/1203467452248.html). The utility of maintaining heavy armour capability as shown in ongoing conflicts have shown they have their uses outside of 'battling Soviet tank armies to paraphrase White and provide the ADF with firepower, protection and flexibility. At the price they were a bargain. The interoperability point is just gravy. It also means ADF can piggy back the US military logistics chain for urgent parts.

The LHDs. White points out they are primarily used for opposed Amphibious assaults. There's no way ADF would ever deploy them in that manner. What they do offer, is space (and plenty of it). You can support operations for longer duration/deploy greater numbers of troops/materiel, than you can on smaller ships and they are much more stable in inclement sea states. And of course, having a proper flight deck to manage simultaneous flight operations will be mean higher rate of logistics/troop flow. Lessons learn't from East Timor.

AWDs. We were supposed to have replacements for the 3 x Adams class Destroyers decommissioned years ago. The AWDs are it. They are merely filling in the gap that has been left in the surface fleet. Though White's opinion predates Rudd's talk on expanded Navy capability (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24323745-953,00.html), the addition of these ships to the RAN will at least give the Govt of the day choice that in previous years has been lacking.

If White's opinion in his latest article is true (a diminished US), then Australia will need to focus on even more closely on Defence matters than it has in the past. It also renders his 'white elephant' argument as null.

[khaz]

We are dependent on China, but not the other way around. The trade deficit Clinton caused is sickening.

Actually china is far more dependent on the US the the US is on china. The trade deficit where we import far more from china then we sell to them is the key if we lose thier market it is not a major blow to the US. China however cannot afford to lose the US consumers, the market cannot be replaced US stops buying and the factories in china close and the people newly unemployed put pressure on the goverment.

[Lokos]

Hugh White's credibility has been tarnished when in an article, he referred to Abrams, AWD and LHD purchases as white elephants.

I would suggest that what you describe is a difference in opinion, and not anything empirically damning to White's reputation or credibility...

L.

[Supe]

I would suggest that what you describe is a difference in opinion, and not anything empirically damning to White's reputation or credibility...

L.

Lokos. It's a kneejerk reaction. Whenever I see a Hugh White opinion piece, I think of his 'white elephant' comments. Those proposed procurements were relevant at the time and are even more so now. I thought his 'white elephant' line lacked a proper assessment of the worth of these procurements and sans application of the lessons learn't post East Timor and ADF operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. You start to wonder if Whites comments were politically or ideologically motivated, whether he was lazy, or he's just plain clueless. This is not to say he's wrong or his views on other subjects are not valid but his 'white elephant' rhetoric raises a red flag. This speaks of a fundamental failure to grasp that the world has changed since the Dibb report (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/25/1038173691409.html).

[KB]

You really need to get into stand up, it's your true calling. rofl

No sh*t-X2