From the end of the Cold War in 1989, as symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall, to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. was undoubtedly the world’s greatest power militarily, economically and therefore politically. However, this time in which the U.S. operates as the only superpower and therefore the world’s dominant force, known as the ‘unipolar moment’ was first, superficial to begin with and second, fleeting. The Soviet Union’s collapse left the U.S. as the lone superpower, and it quickly showed a willingness to operate unilaterally when pursuing its interests. This unipolar moment was, of course, a myth because a gap has always existed between the U.S.’s military capacity and its capability to control world events to its liking. This myth should have been apparent to the U.S. following its involvement in Vietnam and certainly is today. By acting unilaterally in military actions to serve its own selfish interests, the U.S. has created a political chasm between it and the rest of the world, a circumstance that favours no one.
The U.S. certainly enjoyed and took full political advantage of the widely accepted perception of its unipolar status following the Cold War’s end. It is this perception, this myth that should be examined when attempting to understand the concept of a world superpower and its limitations in an era of globalization.
A unipolar world never existed, it was a term made up by observers that only saw the surface effects of the Cold War’s end. The U.S. was also referred to as the first hyperpower by the French, but both of these terms are misleading at best and, if believed, especially by the U.S., dangerous, as has been shown by the arrogance displayed in the invasion of Iraq. There are other descriptions of the supposed power wielded by the U.S., including ‘leader of the free world’ and ‘indispensable power’ that should be re-thought when defining America’s political position in the world community today. A vast disparity exists between America’s perceived capacity to wage war and its actual capability to twist events in accordance with its ambitions (Olney, 1990 p.78).
The hard lesson learned, seemingly, from America’s involvement in Vietnam was that possessing an overwhelming military force does not guarantee victory. Though three million enemies were killed compared to 58,000 on the American side, the ‘big dog’ in the fight eventually had to run home with its tail between its legs, beaten and humiliated. Thanks to the unprecedented media covering the truth of the war, the U.S. rapidly lost credibility worldwide, including within the borders of its own country. The U.S. position as the world’s only superpower is a short-lived scenario. It takes money to build and maintain a military force, a lot of it to fund a nation’s superpower status, money which the U.S. no longer has. The most imminent threat to U.S. security is not the ‘red menace’ or the terrorist ‘evil-doers.’ The National Debt, currently at more than $8 Trillion, is spiraling out of control and threatens to not only diminish the military but plunge the nation into the ‘third world’ category (Ignatieff, 2003 p.3).
The U.S. military has also been involved in worldwide humanitarian ventures too numerous to mention. If a major war was to break out somewhere on earth, the U.S. would undoubtedly be called to quell the situation. No other country has near the capability to intervene in a major outbreak. America is indeed by default the policeman of the world regardless of whether it wants this title or not. Because of its military, political and economic prowess, the U.S. occupies the position of world leader. However, when the U.S. intervenes in foreign conflicts, such as in Vietnam, it ultimately loses economic and political capital both at home and abroad. The U.S. military has become increasingly involved in foreign affairs for an ever-widening range of rationalizations. At this same time, the advancement of information technology has enabled the transparency of a conflict on a global scale. War is brutal which translates to U.S. brutality depending on an individual’s perspective. No matter where the conflict or the reasons for deploying military forces, much of the world will likely be against the action.
No other country is remotely as well supplied with technologically advanced weapons, but apparently, any other country, region or even loosely coordinated group can defeat the U.S. The advantage of the U.S. nuclear arsenal has been largely mitigated because Russia, India, and China all have access to a practically endless supply of troops and a nuclear weapon stockpile as well. Even engaging the small nation of North Korea would be an immensely challenging and complex undertaking, and it only has a handful of short-range nuclear missiles.
The latest threat to the U.S. is terrorism. Clearly, the ‘war on terrorism cannot be won by military means alone, no matter how all-powerful it might believe itself to be. The unconventional characteristics of terrorist actions do not provide an obvious enemy to pursue, no certain nation or axis of nations upon which to declare war.
Innovations such as jet airplanes and computers have accelerated the globalization process and blurred territorial boundaries defining nations, increasingly making customary conceptions of a nation’s sovereign authority irrelevant. Terrorist groups do not recognize or try to circumvent the traditional definition of a sovereign state and utilize all the technologically advanced tools that have accelerated globalization. Additionally, terrorists, specifically Muslim fundamentalists, are concerned that their ancient culture is being replaced by a Western culture they despise. Globalization has allowed deviant Western traditions such as the exploitation of workers, sexual permissiveness and capitalistic icons such as Coca-Cola and McDonalds to seep into and change their cherished way of life. Allowing unfamiliar ideologies and customs into their lifestyles is difficult for religious fundamentalists of any description. Add the fact that the U.S. has built military installations on Muslim Holy lands and, along with the ‘coalition of the coerced,’ recently invaded two Muslim countries and killed many innocent civilians. Western nations are invading the culture, governments and sovereignty in a region of the world where religious fanaticism exceeds the fervor of what is commonly known in the U.S. as the ‘Bible Belt.’ It is little wonder that these people are fearful of the West and possess sufficient motive for terrorist acts.
With the ready access of other regions of the world aided by globalization, they have the opportunity for retribution (Porter, 2004).
Technology has played a major role in U.S. military actions and in the decision to act. This same advantage that allows America to intercede in foreign affairs when and wherever it wants is creating a divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world, including its closest allies. The advanced technology of the U.S. military is far superior to that of any other country, even those who are closely allied to the U.S. This makes the efficient integration of forces all but impossible. “Frequently, integrating allied forces means that the United States must compromise doctrinally” (United States General Accounting Office, 2001). A coalition of allied forces is not a proficient method by which to fight a battle, but such a coalition is necessary to justify the action to other world governments.
The U.S. cannot unilaterally invoke military force, although it would be a preferred method, tactically speaking. Going to war alone would give the world the impression that the U.S. is acting as pirates, thugs and mercenaries, thereby diluting the credibility and legitimacy of what the country is supposed to stand for. The limitations of American power have been clearly evidenced by the misuse of its military superiority. The U.S. has gained many enemies and lost respect and prestige worldwide. In addition, if Vietnam and Iraq had never happened, the limitations of the military would not be as apparent to the world-at-largeat large and the U.S. would today be perceived as stronger and more effectual than it actually is thus would have more political clout than it presently does. Had it used this real or perceived power for good and not evil, the international order would be positioned much differently today.
References
- Ignatieff, Michael (2003). “The Burden” The New York Times.
- Olney, Richard (1990) “Growth of Our Foreign Policy.” The Atlantic Monthly. Vol. 85, N. 509, cited in Niall Ferguson Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004.
- Porter, Keith (2004) “Globalization and Terrorism; Coming to grips with the new shape of the world.” Global Envision Mercy Corps.
- United States General Accounting Office. (2001). “Kosovo Air Operations: Need to Maintain Alliance Cohesion Resulted in Doctrinal Departures.”
- Report to Congressional Requesters, Report number GAO-01-784. Washington D.C.: General Accounting Office.