View from Washington: Will Americans stop trying to ‘Run the World’?

Pic.: ‘The New Yorker’

When President Joe Biden was attempting to disguise his encroaching dementia, he told journalist George Stephanopoulos: “You know, not only am I campaigning, but I’m running the world.” No wonder everything everywhere is such a mess. War is raging in Europe and the Middle East. Multiple conflicts threaten Asia. Heckuva  job, Joe! – notes Doug Bandow, a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, at ‘The American Conservative’.

Unfortunately, America’s so-called allies are determined to entangle the United States in one war after another. For instance, South Korean officials demand “reassurance” that Washington will use nuclear weapons to protect Seoul. Taiwanese resist military service, expecting Americans to save them. U.S naval forces battle Yemeni insurgents interdicting Asian and European maritime commerce.  

The Baltic states repeatedly concoct military campaigns against Russia for America to mount, while France and other NATO members suggest introducing combat troops to Ukraine. Failed British politicians representing a country unable to defend itself urge U.S. officials to enable attacks on the Russian homeland, risking the sort of escalation only narrowly avoided during the Cold War. Kiev demands Washington make Ukraine’s conflict America’s own.

Actually, the best way to protect America’s citizens would be to stop trying to “run the world” and instead opt out of other nations’ battles. Unfortunately, America’s “friends” rarely act like friends.

Washington’s attempt to “run the world” reflects the grotesque surplus of ego, greed, illusion, vanity, and fantasy that overwhelms America’s imperial city. Even during the Cold War, when the U.S. could claim to lead the “free world” — which, of course, included many very unfree regimes — Washington was rarely in control. Remember Cuba and Vietnam, China and Egypt, India and Iran, Cambodia and Haiti. Remember tens of thousands of American lives lost, billions in Americans’ earnings wasted, and Uncle Sam’s reputation regularly ravaged.

Where is the U.S. in control today? Allied arrogance and recklessness in expanding NATO and ignoring Russian security interests led to Vladimir Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine. He bears responsibility for his action, but he reacted to American and European misbehavior, leaving allied officials, too, drenched in Ukrainian blood. Washington’s proxy war remains one mistake away from full-scale conflict, with Moscow unlikely to strike only so long as it believes it is winning. Yet Ukraine, along with European governments whose militaries would be rounding errors in any conflict, demand that Washington escalate American involvement.

The Middle East once seemed vital to U.S. policymakers. The region’s oil resources were important. Israel was vulnerable. The Soviet Union was threatening. No more. All those justifications have expired. Washington has no reason to intervene in Shia–Sunni hostilities. Israel is a nuclear power well able to defend itself. As the latter follows increasingly authoritarian and brutal policies against Palestinians, Washington should back away.

Asia, which contains the world’s most populous and prosperous nations other than America, matters far more globally than Europe or the Middle East. Yet Asia’s breadth makes it even more difficult for Washington to influence, let alone control.

The People’s Republic of China poses an even greater challenge. Just as Washington is supreme in the Americas, the PRC wants to reign in Asia. The U.S. is determined to remain a Pacific power, but that doesn’t mean it can “run Asia.” After all, it is far more expensive to project power thousands of miles away than to deter intervention from such a distance. Moreover, the region will always matter more to China than America.

Of course, it is impossible for the U.S. to assume away the possibility of war. Military action might become absolutely necessary. But only as a last resort, debated by the American people, and fought on their behalf, not for allies or other interests.

Unfortunately, most of Washington’s security guarantees act as transmission belts rather than firebreaks to war. For example, NATO expansion has added a gaggle of military midgets — the Baltic and Balkan states, most recently North Macedonia and Montenegro, for instance — which multiply U.S. obligations while doing nothing to aid America. Even Sweden and Finland, though more capable militarily, do nothing to protect Americans who are obligated to fight for them against a nuclear-armed power over territory with little connection to American security.

The Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia are even less relevant to America’s defense. America’s 20-year Afghan misadventure turned rural lands into a charnel house and converted residents to the Taliban’s cause. Why do American forces remain scattered about Iraq and Syria, serving no recognizable American security interest?

Finally, what could be worse than war between the U.S. and the PRC? Never before have two major conventional powers possessing nuclear weapons fought one another. The consequences would be incalculable. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which China would attack America. Instead, the issue is maintaining Washington’s Asian dominance. That has value, to be sure, but is it worth the possible destruction of both nations, America’s allies, and the global economy?

Unfortunately, foreign policy so far has not been a major campaign issue. Although Biden pretended to be “running the world,” he fooled few Americans. Most pay little attention to the arrogant cant that overflows Washington unless their money — and lives — are being ostentatiously squandered. Nevertheless, Biden’s withdrawal and Vice President Kamala Harris’s likely nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate will reset the campaign. Harris could scarcely do worse than the president and can reject Biden’s reflexive interventionism, applied everywhere but Afghanistan. She appears to be less enthused with Washington’s tight embrace of Israel’s Netanyahu government, though she has shown little difference on other issues.

There is greater hope of change from Trump if elected, although during his first administration he often retreated from promises to disengage from needless conflicts.

What Americans most need from the next president is someone who does not hope to “run the world.” Doing so is impossible. Doing so competently and effectively would require a double miracle. The next president should serve and protect Americans, while nudging the world toward a better future. After decades of misguided and costly wars, Washington should choose peace and allow America to again become a normal country.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs