Good question

Good question. Anne-Marie Slaughter at TPM Cafe takes on the Bush Doctrine that holds the United States has to remain the global hyperpower. She asks an obvious question:

Let's think about the world [a commenter] posits for a moment - a world in which the U.S., EU, India, China, Japan, and perhaps Russia are all major powers. Is that such a terrible vision? Imagine now that China and Russia are either democratic or moving gradually that way. What would we be so afraid of? More importantly, why would it matter to us so vitally to try to be so much more powerful than anyone else in that system - in the words of the National Security Strategy, "to have no peer competitor"? We would want enough military and economic capacity to defend ourselves, of course. And enough to project military force when necessary either to defend ourselves or to engage in genuinely humanitarian interventions - in which case we would likely have company any way.

But since when does America have such an obsession with being and staying no. 1? (my emphasis)

The question is so obvious that even Democrats in Congress should be asking it.

After the Iraq War, though, I have a whole new level of caution about "humanitarian interventions". War is war. And taking over a country or a part of it, as in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq, also requires in practice some significant and realistic commitment to nation-building if it's going to be done right. Not only is the Pentagon not have the capability for that right now. But our infallible generals are opposed to developing it.

| +Save/Share | |