The Shape of Things...

By Charlie Johnston

(Third in a series on a coming eclipse of American power)

The collapse of a great nation often comes suddenly, but it never develops quickly. In the aftermath of a great fall historians can see the seeds of destruction stretching back for decades, sometimes even centuries before the fall came. In this series I posit that America is about to take a great fall, to spend some time as a second-rate power in the world. Now, before the fall, much less the aftermath, I will trace some of the geo-political trends that have led us to this precipice.

In 1975, Congress cut off all money for aid to South Vietnam. Though we had negotiated a peace treaty, Congress' action destroyed every mechanism for ensuring the integrity of that treaty. We bugged out, American personnel being airlifted out by helicopter. Panicked Vietnamese allies who tried to board the helicopters were beaten back onto the roofs with rifle butts. North Vietnam had lost militarily, Congress insisted we surrender regardless, and those Vietnamese men and women who had allied with us were consigned to the killing fields.

In 1983 terrorists bombed a Marine barracks in Lebanon. We withdrew and left the country to the terrorists.

In 1991 in the aftermath of the first Persian Gulf War we urged Kurds and Shi'ites to rise against Saddam, broadly hinting we would be there for them if they did. They did. We left them to be slaughtered.

In 1993 one of the dead American soldiers caught in a massacre was dragged through the streets and publicly defiled. We withdrew.

Now Congress is determined to surrender in Iraq and negotiate with Iran and Syria. President Bush will press on gamely but time is not on his side. If Congress is not able to force withdrawal during his term, it can so hobble the effort that victory is impossible, thus increasing the body count and making the war all the more unpopular. At best when his term ends we bug out, the killing fields begin again, and a new American president declares peace in our time, with even more catastrophic results than the last time that phrase was in vogue.

For 40 years now we have been relentlessly teaching the rest of the world that if you are A) a strong nation, we are an unreliable ally and B) a weak nation, allying with us is a slow-motion death sentence. We showed some vigor in the Reagan years. For a time, early in the Bush administration, we looked for all the world like the great lion we once were. That our self-inflicted enfeeblement has happened on the watch of George Bush, a president resolute in defending American interests and keeping her commitments, is instructive to the rest of the world. Even more instructive is that it has happened in the aftermath of a massive attack on our own soil and while our enemies boldly proclaim that their aim is first, the destruction of Israel and then, in the fulness of time, the destruction of America.

Abraham Lincoln called America mankand's "...last, best hope." It was and is true. But we have been trying to abdicate for four decades now. With our withdrawal from Iraq the world will finally accept that abdication. Our foes rightly calculate they have nothing to fear from us over a long term. The oppressed of the world have looked to us with hope, but have internalized the lesson that to depend on us is death. The former will treat us as the minor power we have become - a nuisance to be managed rather than a force to be reckoned with. The latter will, with no little regret, cast their lot with others who are not as eager to offer them liberty but also less likely to abandon them to be massacred. The left will be astonished that we are not the invulnerable titans they imagined we were. The right will bitterly blame the left for our immolation. But the right will be wrong. Yes, the left has been invincibly ignorant for over half a century. But the right has been largely impotent, treating each incident as a discrete short-term political issue. The right has contented itself with raging at the follies of the left, abdicating its own responsibility to compellingly put these incidents coherently into the larger context. There is the occasional Rick Santorum who speaks with conviction, wisdom and largeness of spirit. But for every Santorum there are dozens of Mark Kirks and Tim Johnsons, counseling retreat and defeat in hopes it will spare them their seats in what they perceive to be a pacifist wave. I have often wondered why so many are so determined to hold on to their little piece of power that they will gladly enfeeble the entity they purport to serve.

The relief our enfeeblement brings will be short-lived. The Jihadists will not forget us. They know full well that if we should slip the bonds of irresolution decades of relativism have encumbered us with, we could again be the greatest power on earth. They will not consider their work finished until we are destroyed - actually as well as psychologically. They will use the period of our diminishment to consolidate and strengthen their force.

Meanwhile China is methodically establishing an Asian hegemony. China is the most duplicitous, dangerous and powerful nation on earth. She has no ambitions for world domination. She has too much contempt for the rest of the world to be willing to deal at such close quarters with them. Rather, China seeks to be the unchallenged hegemon in the east while the barbarian nations which comprise the rest of the world pay her tribute through trade. China is skilled at using the dysfunctions of other nations to further her agenda. If the Jihadists wish to conquer Israel, Europe and America that's fine with her. Such activity weakens nations that could be serious competitors to China while not saddling her with the problems inherent in direct confrontation with such competitors. North Korea is a powerfully useful, if occasionally troublesome, client state. Anyone who thinks our Korean problem is cooling down now that we have made a deal that is almost a carbon copy of the '94 Clinton deal that gave North Korea the time and material to refine her nuclear program isn't paying serious attention. North Korea is suddenly agreeable because she got what she wanted, just as she did 13 years ago, and because it is currently in China's interests to damp down tensions in that part of the world.

In the southern hemisphere Australia is what the United States was in the late 1800's: steadfastly devoted to liberty and both vigorous and robust in its defense. Not small enough to be ignored but not large enough to be a priority for the world's power players. Africa and South America, so often exploited by the heralds of western civilization have become the most reliable defenders of it - and the fullest repository of its source. If western civilization is to survive, the southern hemisphere will be the root from which new vigor and growth springs. Europe already is what America is destined to soon become; idle, smug and irrelevant. Ironic that Voltaire's Professor Pangloss should become the archetype of enlightenment man.

Then we come to Russia, the nation which will become key to everything. Commentators are baffled by the newly hostile and aggressive stance Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken towards the United States. Most interpret it in terms of the instincts of the old Soviet Union gaining fresh ascendency. That plays a minor role but is not at the heart of what is happening. If Russia has suffered a millenium-long identity crisis over whether it is an eastern or a western power (as I have previously written) it is perhaps the most sensitive nation on earth to shifts in the geo-political power equation, and among the quickest and most aggressive to pursue what it perceives to be its national interest during those shifts. When Hitler was rising, the Soviet Union first pleaded with European powers for mutual defense agreements. Seeing a lack of resolve and of understanding of what was at stake in the west, the Soviet Union then entered into a secret pact with Hitler. When Churchill transplanted a spine into Western Europe, the Soviets discovered that Hitler was a threat to Mother Russia, and switched course to alliance with the west - where they would have been to begin with had the west not dithered for so long.

Just a few years ago Putin and Russia were seriously talking about joining NATO. It is not some inexplicable assertion of his KGB origins that explains Putin's change of course. It is the canny instincts of a nation that has made a specialty of surviving by accurately assessing which way the wind is blowing. Five years ago it looked as if Osama bin Laden had made a terrible mistake in betting that the U.S. had not the stamina to fight determined and united Jihadists over a long haul - and would in fact cave after it became clear that victory could be neither easy nor fast. Today it is clear Osama was right. China is building her strength in a fairly non-provocative manner, but building it relentlessly. It is not America which concerns Russia. Russia has already dismissed us. She knows she must eventually come into conflict with China - and must be strong for the encounter. Russia cannot afford weak allies, for she is on the front line. Spewing venom at America carries no cost - and offers the potential of seducing some of the Jihadist strong-man states that are emerging in the region into alliances that will be useful in the eventual Russian confrontation with China. Uniting with America carries no lasting benefit and the likelihood of betrayal when things get difficult. Russia has developed no sudden enmity for America; just a realistic sense of how power is shifting and where her own national interests lie.

Yet Russia will play the decisive role in whether western civilization survives. China cannot complete its Asian hegemony without bringing Russia to heel. It's a simple fact of geography. Russia cannot submit. She can go it alone for a good long time, manipulating alliances with small powers to her advantage. But all the long term demographics (people, material, natural resources) vastly favor China. If, after a period of substantial eclipse, a weakened America finds its will again, it will be very much in the national interest of Russia to make alliance with us and firmly entrench itself in the west. Russia will become our most steadfast ally and we hers. She cannot forever withstand China without us and in our weakened state we will not survive the Jihadist assault without her. But neither China nor the Jihadists can stand against the united might and will of Russia and America.

What, though, can weld such an alliance into something more than a transient wedding of convenience? I'll discuss that in the next piece in this series on the coming eclipse of American power. Everyone knows that western civilization is the fruit of Christianity. Few understand that Christianity is the indispensable root which feeds the liberal ideals of liberty, universal justice and human rights. We'll get to the root next.

Comments

[Bogus]

Hey Charlie, should I slit my wrists now or later?

[Bruno]

Charlie wrote:

Meanwhile China is methodically establishing an Asian hegemony. China is the most duplicitous, dangerous and powerful nation on earth.
___

Duplicitous yes, but "most powerful?"

Not hardly.

At about the time America is up to 400 million (and greening), China will be in a full-fledged population collapse brought about by their evil and counter productive "one-child" policy.

Their forced march to industrialization will create a nation drowning in squalor, and the price of taking care of their aging population will make Europe's problems look small (and Europe isn't going to survive intact).

Russia is dangerous only in that is probably the nation dying the fastest, and may wish to cause serious mischief in it's death throes.

In 10 years, they will be importing Africans and Mexicnas by the boat load, just to wipe their alcoholic, over-aborted, dying butts.

Since 2003, the USA GDP has grown more than China's entire economy. They may catch us in size, but it won't be anytime soon, and it won't hurt us too much as long as we don't get stupid and drive off the Dobbsian, Webbian, Malthusian cliff.
__

Britian, the South, Spain, Germany, Russians, Japanese (dying out too, based upon racist xenophobia and birth dearth), and China...

...all dangerous enemies that were 10 feet tall, until they collapsed at our feet.

1) Hold to the 10 Commandments and the 10 Amendents, and we are invincible.

2) Any nation that holds to same has essentially already become "American."

3) And which "American" institution does the most to undermine these twin pillars of our culture?

We can only be defeated from with in. China an Russia are chumps compared to the NEA.

[Oldster]

"Third in a series on a coming eclipse of American power."

Charlie, you are right to note a reshuffling of international relations, but are way behind the power curve. I take issue with the word "coming".

It is obvious to all but the most diehard ideologues that American power has already eclipsed. Your pieces are correct in noting that it will continue to decline in the future, but the downhill slide has already begun.

It eclipsed in 1945 with the dropping of the first nuclear weapon on Hiroshima. Since that time we've been humbled in Korea, Vietnam, etc. Sure, we've had a success or two against pathetic, non-nuclear, third world countries (Grnada, Panama, & Iraq 1991 come to mind), but the trend, as evinced in Iraq 2007 is down.

Overseas military occupations are practically indistinguishable from empires. They stretch the resources of occupying powers (military occupations are prohibitively expensive) and notwithstanding promises that natural resources such as oil will pay for costs provide little in return. Sooner or later, the bills will come due.

An American contraction, retraction, redeployment, or whatever you want to call it was inevitable from the day we started stationing troops overseas. Yes, I know it goes back to Republican William McKinley and peaked under Democrat Harry Truman. It was justified by the myth of American exceptionalism and sustained by the myth of the infinite supply of US dollars 'creatio ex nihilo'.

It's either keep the empire overseas and ruin the economy, or bring them home and attempt some type of economic stability. It should be no surprise that we will choose the latter.

[Bruno]

Oldster,

What is more "diehard," those who believe in American exceptionalism, or those who studiously ignore the fact that we are an "Empire" and that the world is much the better for it.

The Buchananite idea that we can be a benign trading republic (Switzerland on steroids) is a quaint one, but far more dangerous than maintaining our far flung empire.

Power abhors a vacuum, and retreat will guarantee more danger, not less.
___

That said, I'm in agreement with you that we are in an imperial overstretch at this moment. This has been addressed well in that we are now tightly allied with India and Australia (Anglosphere).

The first thing we should do is dump NATO troops out of Europe and Korea, where our spoiled children have the $$ to defend themselves.

[Oldster]

Bruno, you make a good point and I will be the first to admit that as I advance in age I am increasingly "diehard". But you present only two of many positions.

I recognize that we meet all the criteria for empire. However, I would disagree that "the world is much the better for it".

First, I am a conservative, Old Right, Taft Republican. The idea that we must be militarily engaged around the world promoting our values is Wilsonianism ("Hard Wilsonianism" when we go it alone, according to Max Boot), which is radicalism, the furthest thing from conservatism that you could imagine. I am surprised that a conservative with any sense of history would advocate it, mush less defend it.

Second, I think the many thousands of dead foreigners (maybe we'll discuss the pro-life implications of this later), or at least their survivors, might disagree. Add to them the multiplied thousands more who are wounded and maimed who will live decades with their infirmities, and their loved ones who must care for them and provide for their medical care. And also add to these the ones who escapred with their life and health and merely had their earthly possessions destroyed.

According to Lockean theory, these people have the God given right to consent to their government. Who are we to deprive them of life, liberty, their pursuit of happiness, and the government of their choosing?

One might respond that the government of their choosing would kill more if them than we. Besides being speculation, even if conceded to be true, the blood would be on their hands, not ours.

I'm afraid that the idea that "[p]ower abhors a vacuum, and retreat will guarantee more danger, not less" is pure Thomas Hobbs, and carries with it tremendous moral baggage.

[charlie johnston]

No need to slit your wrists, Bogus. Just a matter of acknowledging realistically what we are facing. Others have gone into serious decline before. Some survive, some don't. I am actually quite optimistic about our odds after the decline. I have worried for decades about this, hoping we could get the renewal without the decline. The robust vigor of the Reagan years gave me some hope. The unity post 9-11 did the same. But each of these just held back the darkness a little longer.

To get the renewal without the decline would take a genuine miracle now. We are simply going to learn anew that actions have consequences. I have a great deal of faith in the native vigor of the American people. We have fancied ourselves invincible for so long, though, and been shielded from the consequences of our errors by our raw power, that our torpor will only be shed by the type of crisis I describe.

Bruno, you and I agree that we can only be seriously wounded from within. Where we disagree is that I insist we have already so wounded ourselves - and that deep wound makes us vulnerable to the challenges from without. Honestly, we could have devastated the Jihadists within three years had we had the national resolve - but if we have the temerity to serve prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Hamburger Helper, you've got Dick Durbin up comparing it to Nazi atrocities - and the MSM and fellow travelers gleefully parroting such tripe. Not the sort of thing a serious nation does.

Oldster, I finally think I get you. You're a genuine old-fashioned isolationist. You throw up some smoke obscuring that essential stance and some of your examples are tendentious, but at its core it is a coherent, respectable position. It is wrong, disastrously so, I am convinced, but it is a coherent worldview. It is largely pre-1960 Republicanism. But many, perhaps even most, of us who make up conservatism today, are classical liberals. Up until the statist, authoritarian turn the Democrats began taking in the 60s, that is the party we were more comfortable with.

It is odd, the Democratic Party of today is in many ways just a libertine version of the Country Club Republicans of a few generations ago.

[TheReallyRightGuy]

There is no doubt that respect for the U.S. has declined. This is because we have an administration that is duped, delusional, and dishonest in the thrall of traitorous neocons.

[Oldster]

Charlie, I am glad that you are seeing that an inversion has taken place. But I don't think you see how this flip has negatively affected what passes for 'conservativism' today.

BTW, the label 'isolationist' is inaccurate unless in the modern political lexicon Geo. Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Monroe (of the Monroe Doctrine) are also isolationists. These men were all for foreign relations--but not as they exist today. In fact, trade and private foreign relations are to be promoted, and political relationships discouraged. This is the exact opposite of the foreign policy of the current administration (and to be fair existed long before under Democrat and Republican presidents).

How modern conservatives forget (I'm being charitable here rather than say ignore) the founders warnings that war is the greatest enemy of liberty and comprises the germ of every other threat to liberty- standing armies, debts and taxes. Of that emergency is the father of tyranny.

But if someone did remember these warnings from the founders, might they be suspicious of government programs that seek to grow government and raise debts and taxes, such as wars on abstract concepts as varied as poverty, inflation, illiteracy, and this disastrous "War on Terror"?

I heard Limbaugh the other day (as is not my usual custom) waxing eloquent about how liberals used to use fear of nuclear weapons to push for expanded government, and with the fall of the Soviet Empire searched for a threat and have now settled on global warming as a pretext for expanded government. I agree with his half story.

The half not told is that conservatives also raised the red flag about the nuclear armed Soviets as a reason for defense budgets larger than the rest of the world combined. When the Soviets collapsed (something foretold for true classical liberals such as Mises but catching Robert Gates' CIA by surprise), conservatives also looked for another threat justify their favorite big government programs, namely defense and security spending.

Shazaam! They found one in the ridiculous term 'islamofacism'. An ideal, never ending war with unlimited opportunities to grow government, spend, incur debt, raise taxes down the road. And modern conservatives have swallowed it, hook, line & sinker.

Pardon my skepticism, but I do remember a young Bill Buckley advocating a temporary abandonment of limited government so that we could defeat the communists. Well, we won, but never went back to limited government.

This policy is political suicide, not to mention morally. American voters ditched Democrats in 1920, 1946, 1952, and 1968 over wars with varying degrees of justification. War is never popular; Republicans merely got a downpayment in 2006. Look for the balance in 2008.

But Charlie, back to your series. The US is in decline. But think of the implications. The Republican brand took it on the chin in '06 because of these policies (it wasn't Bob Kjellander, who is committing slow suicide with his cigars, indoor smoking, and obesity). And thinking ahead, Republicans will again take it on the chin in '08 because of a disastrous foreign policy.

[charlie johnston]

The advice of most of the founders was to a small, isolated country that was not a significant power. Their advice was to keep out of other nations' fights - only get involved if it posed a genuine threat to America. Because of our isolation, few such wars posed any threat to us.

But even early on, founders recognized that our national interest did encompass things beyond our borders, hence the Monroe Doctrine.

The issue you say is ignored has been the subject of debate for over a hundred years. By the late 1800s it had become clear to European powers that the U.S. was rapidly becoming a world-class power. Much of their diplomacy was geared towards forestalling that.

In the prelude to WWI we were largely disabused of the notion that the disruptions on the European Continent were not our concern and would have no effect on us. This did not eradicate the American isolationist instinct, but tempered it according to significant new realities. WWII underscored that we could not safely withdraw. Technology had made the world smaller - and we were no longer protected by our geographical isolation.

Still, America has been the uncertain empire. We are not comfortable with the responsibilities our pre-eminence and power have foisted on us and would love to believe we can hunker down in our hemisphere while the rest of the world leaves us alone.

When the Napoleonic Wars raged through Europe and Asia, it was largely true that America could sit it out and rest relatively unscorched. But now, if Europe burns, so does America. Our national interest in what happens in the mideast is far more profound and immediate than our national interest was in what happened in the western hemisphere at the time one of the youngest of the generation of founders proclaimed the Monroe Doctrine.

The founders never argued we should avoid conflicts where our national interest was at stake. They argued we should avoid conflicts and alliances that did NOT involve our national interest.

You believe we can retreat to Fortress America and remain unmolested. It is a pleasant fantasy shared by quite a few in America today. But I do not believe it would be shared by our founders. They were not given to fantasy on such matters.

[Oldster]

Charlie, you are contradicting yourself here. I stated that it was inaccurate to characterize the founders, with whom I agree, as isolationists, and you agreed. But then you state "[y]ou believe we can retreat to Fortress America and remain unmolested. It is a pleasant fantasy...I do not believe it would be shared by our founders. They were not given to fantasy...".

No, you can't dismiss the founders argument as isolationism, any more than you can mine.

But Charlie, you are laying here the same foundation the liberal activist of the last several decades have been using--that the founders couldn't or didn't address today's complex problems. The liberals said that about the Constitution and domestic issues. Are we to gather that modern conservatives say the same of foreign policy issues?

Am I reading you right, or are you saying that the founders endorsed Wilsonianism?

I argue that the founders in their wisdom did contemplate future events. Thus no entangling alliances. Free commerce. And don't forget-- the Congress declares war.

But does the US Constitution as written by the founders and amended matter today? Apparently not.

The biggest problem with the current policy of Wilsonianism is its DIRECT violation of the US Constitution. Ask youself, has Congress declared war on Iraq, or even Iran? Really? When? The AUMF? Don't make me laugh. Please don't tell me a state of war existed the day after the AUMF became law. No, the 'decider', who I voted for twice, took us into the disastrous war in Iraq. He admits it. And he admits that he'll take us to war with Iran if he feels like it, the Congress be damned.

Our current foreign policy is unconstitutional, immoral, unconservative, unAmerican, etc. It is accelerating America's downhill slide.

[Bruno]

Oldster and RRG,

Interesting points.

I suggest you and others read "Dangerous Nation." or at least the Reviews on this page.

http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Nation-Robert-Kagan/dp/0375411054

I'm undecided as to how accurate Kagan is, but he has a point.

If I have him on my show, I'll announce it here for all to listen to.

[charlie johnston]

Good comment, Oldster. I do not believe I am mimicking the left in saying the founders knew nothing of our time. Their habit is to say since the founders were not familiar with, say, automobiles or tractor combines, they have nothing useful to say about transportation or agriculture.

Rather, I am trying to put their comments on a specific situation into a specific context. My case would be stronger if asny of the founders had spoken or written at length about the obligations of great nations, but they were very reticent in offering advice to other nations. They all had opinions on the French Revolution, but mainly in the context of comparing it to our own. The most powerful evidence I have is the Monroe Doctrine - but it was propounded by James Monroe who, though involved by the time of the founding of the Constitution, was only 18 when the Declaration was signed. While he can legitimately be placed within the ranks of the founders, his involvement was late because of his age. The Monroe Doctrine was widely approved in America, but that was by Second Generation Americans, not the first generation of leadership.

The founders who counselled staying away from foreign entanglements always noted our geographic security and that it was not necessary for us, but that is inferential rather than overt. It is difficult to determine what the founders would have made of our situation. What most said about our situation at the time was pretty isolationist, but they did note the context of our geographic security, which no longer applies. Of course, they weren't unanimous - Jefferson and Hamilton were notably more adventurous than most. Obviously, I give great weight to what the founders had to say about statecraft. If I could determine with certainty that the majority would counsel isolationism in our current context, it would be one of the few areas in which I disagree with them.