UK think tank says US power is fading

[Van Gogh]

By RAPHAEL G. SATTER, Associated Press Writer Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press Writer – Tue Sep 15, 11:12 am ET
LONDON – A weakened United States could start retreating from the world stage without help from its allies abroad, an international strategic affairs think tank said Tuesday.
The respected London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said President Barack Obama will increasingly have to turn to others for help dealing with the world's problems — in part because he has no alternative.
"Domestically Obama may have campaigned on the theme 'yes we can'; internationally he may increasingly have to argue 'no we can't'," the institute said in its annual review of world affairs.
The report said the U.S. struggles against insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan had exposed the limits of the country's military muscle, while the near-collapse of the world financial markets sapped the economic base on which that muscle relied.
The report also claimed that the U.S. had lost traction in its efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program and bring peace to the Middle East.
"Clearly the U.S. share of 'global power,' however measured, is in decline," the report said.
The head of another respected London think tank, Robin Niblett of Chatham House, said the rise in the relative power of China, India, Russia and the European Union has made it harder for the U.S. to exercise its influence.
"America should apply changes in leadership style, but I wouldn't overplay the decline because decline is relative," said Niblett — who was not involved in drawing up Tuesday's report. "One should not doubt that the U.S. remains the most powerful nation in the world, but it's difficult to use the power and to use it to influence others."
In addition to a rise in regional powers, Niblett said the U.S. has long been viewed as being part of the problem rather than the solution on many issues — including climate change, the financial crisis, and the failure of the Middle East peace process.
"It's also carrying the baggage of failed policies and of a failed financial approach," Niblett said, referring to the Bush administration. "There's a lot of catching up to be done."
The IISS report praised Obama, saying that he recognized there was only so much America could do "to impose its views on others."
After years of often thorny relationships between the U.S. and its allies during Bush's administration, Obama has talked of the need to work with other nations on such issues as the financial meltdown, climate change and nuclear proliferation.
"These are challenges that no single nation, no matter how powerful, can confront alone," Obama said in April after attending the G-20 summit in London.
"The United States must lead the way," he said. "But our best chance to solve these unprecedented problems comes from acting in concert with other nations."
The think tank's report said Obama could help restore the United States' standing by working with other nations to contain emerging threats to its position as the world's pre-eminent power. Controlling the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea would require help from regional allies, the report said. The same was true of Afghanistan, where the U.S. has had difficulty persuading its NATO partners to follow its lead in boosting the number of troops sent to fight a resurgent Taliban.
"In the next year or two, the greatest demand on U.S. talents and power will be to persuade more to become like minded and adopt greater burdens," the report said.
Niblett said Obama was moving in the right direction.
"This administration is far more frank about the U.S. interdependence with rest of the world, and that's a good thing," Niblett said.
___
Associated Press Writer Karolina Tagaris contributed to this report.


in my opinion we're wrong with the overall operation enduring freedom strategy its too over the top, but its a bush admininstration strategy. instead of simply finding the men responsible for the twin towers and bringing THEM to justice, we're taking out the entire organization because apparently they've declared war on us. Its obvious they don't want full on war, so why should we go full scale? I was proud of Pakistans strategy, put them all in one place, promise them diplomatic immunity, their own laws, then when they move in bomb the **** out of them. lol. :bash:

[leloup46]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=165120

relate to above

[MichaelF]

Oh yeah. Our Power is declining. Until we start lobbing bombs and Infantry BCTs instead of diplomats and T-Bills.

Then, I imagine, our Power will be very much what it was.

[DaveDash]

I think the U.S. in relative terms is still much more powerful than it was through-out the 60's-90's. I think the U.S. was probably at its peak around the end of WW2, but I think it has grown in power since the collapse of the SU.

There is a definite perception driven by the media, but I think when it comes to back channels and so forth, the U.S. still has a lot of influence, more than what is currently perceived.

Right now there is a blip on the charts because of the financial crisis, but that will pass. I think OIF and Afghanistan has changed the perception of the U.S. being almost omnipotent, but that was a false perception in the beginning.

The fact of the matter is because of the way our economies work now, it's a lot more expensive waging war than it ever was. In relative terms, no one else on the planet had even the remotest chance of pulling off OIF and Afghanistan while suffering through an economic crisis (which IMO was worse portrayed than in reality). In relative terms, the U.S. is still way up there, just the perception is more realistic now.

[MichaelF]

The fact of the matter is because of the way our economies work now, it's a lot more expensive waging war than it ever was.

Incorrect. It's a lot more expensive waging a particular type of war.

If you refuse to allow yourself to be drawn into that type of war, and are ruthless (with yourselves as well as your enemies) enough to follow through on it, it's quite a bit more affordable.

[wildcat]

in my opinion we're wrong with the overall operation enduring freedom strategy its too over the top, but its a bush admininstration strategy. instead of simply finding the men responsible for the twin towers and bringing THEM to justice, we're taking out the entire organization because apparently they've declared war on us. Its obvious they don't want full on war, so why should we go full scale? I was proud of Pakistans strategy, put them all in one place, promise them diplomatic immunity, their own laws, then when they move in bomb the **** out of them. lol. :bash:

I don't agree, after 9/11, I recall we did ask the afghans to turn over the people responsible, but they choose to stand behind bin laden and his crew. hence the reason why we went into afghan to remove al qada and the Taliban.

[Ritual]

The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

[zema_06]

i think this think thank business should be closed down, as they are usually saying exactly that whats clear to everyone, only that a report will cost the taxpayer hundred of thousands of €s...

[Atlantic Friend]

If you refuse to allow yourself to be drawn into that type of war, and are ruthless (with yourselves as well as your enemies) enough to follow through on it, it's quite a bit more affordable.

What kind of affordable war do you have in mind?

[Stolly]

Oh yeah. Our Power is declining. Until we start lobbing bombs and Infantry BCTs instead of diplomats and T-Bills.

Then, I imagine, our Power will be very much what it was.

If the US ever finds itself with more enemies than allies no amount of military might will be enough.

[Mofreaka]

Affordable as in, one nuke to wipe out everything?

[Euroamerican]

Oh well. Once we're not number one, someone else can starting being simultaneously Uncle Sugar and Everyone's Whipping Boy

[MichaelF]

What kind of affordable war do you have in mind?

The kind where you don't pick up the repair bill when you're done.

[James]

If you refuse to allow yourself to be drawn into that type of war, and are ruthless (with yourselves as well as your enemies) enough to follow through on it, it's quite a bit more affordable.

The U.S. waterboarded like 3 people in 2005 and Congress is still losing it's mind.

There are plenty of people who can make hard choices, but they don't want to be persecuted by our own government.

[James]

If the US ever finds itself with more enemies than allies no amount of military might will be enough.

Who are you, the Sphinx?

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6999/thesphinx1.jpg (http://img225.imageshack.us/i/thesphinx1.jpg/)

[2495]

The kind where you don't pick up the repair bill when you're done.



There are plenty of people who can make hard choices, but they don't want to be persecuted by our own government.

Now there is two voices of reason. Stop picking up the tab after handing your enemy their arses in a hat, and let war fighters off the leash to do the jobs they are paid to do without fear of being used as political pawns.

As for the UK saying the USA is in demise? well, thats rich, especially as the Uk is so damn broke we will be cancelling one of the carriers and a whole slew of F-35s.

:roll: The political spineless maggots make my blood boil they really do.

[James]

I don't agree, after 9/11, I recall we did ask the Taliban to turn over the people responsible, but they choose not to.

Fixed it. For 99% of the people here, the worst thing they did up to 9/11 was to be apathetic and let those thugs run the country in the first place.

[DaveDash]

Incorrect. It's a lot more expensive waging a particular type of war.

If you refuse to allow yourself to be drawn into that type of war, and are ruthless (with yourselves as well as your enemies) enough to follow through on it, it's quite a bit more affordable.

So what, lob cruise missiles into empty camps again, or ineffectively bomb from the air?

Wrong. Been there, done that. 9/11 happened.

This war required boots on the ground and a friendly government in Afghanistan. Can't operate with impunity in Afghanistan with the Taliban rooling the pooch, can you? Can't ferry special forces around to find Al Q operatives, no drone flights, no pressure on Pakistan, etc etc etc
The only thing that is being done "wrong" in that war, is Afghanistan AND Pakistan should have been the focus from the word go, and stayed that way.
However times are a changing and we'll all get to see the result. The U.S. was getting hammered in the Pacific at one point too.

This isn't exactly sign of U.S. weakness, but more a reality check for many that these kinds of wars are won not just militarily, but politically and economically as well. The type of war the U.S. is now engaged in Afghanistan is heavily favored towards it's enemies strengths while highly reducing its own strengths, so it's always going to look "weaker" because of it.

[MichaelF]

So what, lob cruise missiles into empty camps again, or ineffectively bomb from the air?

Wrong. Been there, done that. 9/11 happened.

Which is not at all what I meant.

You can invade (with military force across the spectrum), attrit the infrastructure and population capital (the ability of the enemy to project economic or military power).......then leave. Thus removing the easy access to your forces that is the lynchpin of the enemy's "asymmetric" strategy.

That used to be the order of the day. Wreck the country and go home, leaving the survivors to pick through the wreckage. It tended to remove the competition for a generation or so.

The "you broke it, you bought it" method has yet to shown to work. And has certainly worked to our disadvantage.

In the end, foreign lives are worth less than those of your own citizens. If you're going to bring the hammer down, you should do it without regard for the enemy.

[DaveDash]

Which is not at all what I meant.

You can invade (with military force across the spectrum), attrit the infrastructure and population capital (the ability of the enemy to project economic or military power).......then leave. Thus removing the easy access to your forces that is the lynchpin of the enemy's "asymmetric" strategy.

That used to be the order of the day. Wreck the country and go home, leaving the survivors to pick through the wreckage. It tended to remove the competition for a generation or so.

The "you broke it, you bought it" method has yet to shown to work. And has certainly worked to our disadvantage.

In the end, foreign lives are worth less than those of your own citizens. If you're going to bring the hammer down, you should do it without regard for the enemy.

I don't know of many wars in recent history where you go in, win, then pack up and go home. Normally you invade another country either for Prestige or Resources, and in the later part you need to actually keep a hold of what you've just won. God knows how much money the U.S. poured into Japan and Germany for example, and yes, it reaped large benefits from that.

Regardless of that, Afghanistan is completely different. Go in, kill lots of people, and leave and all you've done is increase your enemies power. They will come back after you leave, with 10x the number of recruits, rebuild.

May I point you to recent operations in Somalia at the moment, which is fast becoming a Al Qaeda haven. The U.S. of course didn't know it at the time, but if they stayed and finished the job properly there they wouldn't have to go back today.

The U.S. HAD to act after 9/11. And due to the nature of the war, it could not act cheaply. It will still be there for a long time to come too, I think. The real problem lies in when people start thinking war can be done on the cheap, ala 1991 (Well look what happened, the U.S. went back in the end anyway).

You don't have a simple one rule fits all for political action, as each action is quite different. And to keep what you've just won requires long term commitment. No one likes that in the west in this day in age, well these wars just may go and change that perception.

[MichaelF]

I don't know of many wars in recent history where you go in, win, then pack up and go home. Normally you invade another country either for Prestige or Resources, and in the later part you need to actually keep a hold of what you've just won. God knows how much money the U.S. poured into Japan and Germany for example, and yes, it reaped large benefits from that.

Regardless of that, Afghanistan is completely different. Go in, kill lots of people, and leave and all you've done is increase your enemies power. They will come back after you leave, with 10x the number of recruits, rebuild.

.

Who is talking about Afghanistan??

The discussion is about the "decline" of American Power. My argument is that that is only true so long as it doesn't come down to military action. Which action is the final arbiter of Power.

[MG 3]

in my opinion we're wrong with the overall operation enduring freedom strategy its too over the top, but its a bush admininstration strategy. instead of simply finding the men responsible for the twin towers and bringing THEM to justice, we're taking out the entire organization because apparently they've declared war on us. Its obvious they don't want full on war, so why should we go full scale? I was proud of Pakistans strategy, put them all in one place, promise them diplomatic immunity, their own laws, then when they move in bomb the **** out of them. lol. :bash:
The only difference is that Pakistan's strategy requires sort of a till death commitment.

The world today is a better place as compared to what it was before 9/11 because the Taliban/AQ are not free to do what they want. I having lived under their oppression and terror can say without a doubt that the Taliban need to be wiped out. A NATO and the US need is to grow a pair and understand that ppl do die when they fight a war.


Coming back on topic. It was less than a decade ago that my country could not refuse to give Visas to US diplomats and journalists such was the image of the US of A, but now its a different story. This was just an example of how things have changed. The biggest reason in my view has been mismanagement of everything and the sissi-iziation of the American society.

[DaveDash]

Who is talking about Afghanistan??

The discussion is about the "decline" of American Power. My argument is that that is only true so long as it doesn't come down to military action. Which action is the final arbiter of Power.

The original article cited the Iraq and Afghanistan as reasons of declining American power.

My original post was pointing out this was a perception decline more than anything, and in relative terms is more an indication of current American power being far above that of other nations in the last 10 years.

I bought up the perceived cost of using military action as expensive based on the way our economies are structured these days, you said that only certain wars are costly, implying the U.S. had been "sucked into" a costly war when there were other alternatives.

I argued that there was only one real alternative for the U.S. and that is a costly one.

And here we are.

As for your argument, I see American power being stronger now than through-out much of the post WW2 era. The perception of invincibility after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been proved false, but that was a false perception to begin with.

The main problem the U.S. faces is the fact that there is no big evil bad guy, such as the Soviet Union, to unite against. Thus the U.S. is heavily critiqued for doing things it has always done.

[bigbillybear]

If the US ever finds itself with more enemies than allies no amount of military might will be enough.

Bros,

Great then we should shut our doors, turn off our charity to everyone and quit trying to keep genocide from taking place...

As Bill and Ted would say, most excellent dude...

BBB