american global political standing is at its nadir

November 3, 2003 8:27 AM

"American power worldwide is at its historic zenith. American global political standing is at its nadir." - Zbigniew Brzezinski speaking at the New American Strategies for Security and Peace Conference. [ via tpm ]
posted by specialk420 (31 comments total)

An interesting speech, also mentioned by y2karl in this thread.
posted by Ljubljana at 9:11 AM on November 3, 2003

IMO, American power zenithed quite some time ago. With the loss of respect caused by the idiocy of the current administration, the growth of free trade agreements, and the ever-increasing economic power of the Far East, and the united European countries, American power is on the wane.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:31 AM on November 3, 2003

America lost its MoJo.
posted by stbalbach at 9:37 AM on November 3, 2003

What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave.

Commencement Address at American University
President John F. Kennedy
Washington, D.C.
June 10, 1963
posted by matteo at 9:45 AM on November 3, 2003

"I think fairly can be called a paranoiac view of the world. Summarized in a phrase repeatedly used at the highest level, "he who is not with us is against us."

...

"I strongly suspect the person who uses that phrase doesn't know its historical or intellectual origins. It is a phrase popularized by Lenin""
posted by specialk420 at 9:48 AM on November 3, 2003

"American power worldwide is at its historic zenith."

This statement is self-evidently false.
posted by Slothrup at 10:07 AM on November 3, 2003

umm ... how?
posted by specialk420 at 10:08 AM on November 3, 2003

Well, if I'd had my druthers, I would have preferred this mention be mentioned. More quote, less snark. Not that any of the kneejerk Franco-phobes in said lame Secretary of State In His Own Mind Friedman Op-Ed thread bothered to note it.
posted by y2karl at 10:15 AM on November 3, 2003

Incidentally, over at Calpundit, one finds a link to this interview with Madeleine Albright, which has some resonance with the matter here:

I try very hard to stay out of the "was 9/11 our fault, was 9/11 their fault" debate, because I find it useless. But when we did transition briefings, the Bush administration was not interested in what we were telling them about terrorism. They were quite surprised when they saw how much time we spent on it. They really did not believe that they'd have to spend as much time.

Now, why aren't they turning over those documents to the Senate again?
posted by y2karl at 10:33 AM on November 3, 2003

thanks for the links y2karl - sorry about missing your previous quotes from the excellent brzezinski speech ... i have pretty much stopped reading friedman's columns - let alone threads about them.
posted by specialk420 at 10:50 AM on November 3, 2003

This speech well deserves a front page post of its own.
posted by y2karl at 11:21 AM on November 3, 2003

Can this guy run for prez?

Excellent speech, excellent post. Thanks specialk420.
posted by LouReedsSon at 12:24 PM on November 3, 2003

Can this guy run for prez?

Nope. He's a naturalized Pole.
posted by jpoulos at 12:50 PM on November 3, 2003

Pity.
posted by LouReedsSon at 12:57 PM on November 3, 2003

With the loss of respect caused by the idiocy of the current administration, the growth of free trade agreements, and the ever-increasing economic power of the Far East, and the united European countries, American power is on the wane.

What is your evidence for this? William Wohlforth has argued, I think convincingly, that the current global system is built around, and dependant upon, U.S. power.

I think Brzezinski is wise to make this distinction:
"American power worldwide is at its historic zenith. American global political standing is at its nadir."
posted by Ty Webb at 12:59 PM on November 3, 2003

What is this "power" of which you speak, then? There are 1.2 billion Chinese and another billion Indians. There are about 300 million Americans. In terms of potential economic power, the USA is up shit creek when faced with the likes of those populations. In terms of military power, China can afford to lose a lot more men than the USA.

So what power does the USA really hold in this rapidly modernizing world? It's not needed as a consumer, often can't compete as a designer, and doesn't have enough warm bodies to be a military power.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:33 PM on November 3, 2003

What is this "power" of which you speak, then?

The power to influence and affect the course the of world events, of course. No one has, or has ever had, absolute control over those two things, but neither has anyone had nearly the global preponderance that the U.S. currently enjoys.

the U.S...doesn't have enough warm bodies to be a military power.

But yet, as if by magic, it is. The point about "warm bodies" might be relevant if we were preparing to re-fight World War I. The fact that the U.S. is, by a very large margin, currently the dominant military power in the world is not really in dispute, the main point of contention, as I see it, is whether other countries or coalitions will decide it is in their interest to go along with the U.S. or balance against.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:46 PM on November 3, 2003

doesn't have enough warm bodies to be a military power

Bodies are not the relevent dimension to judge military power by. Corpses on the other hand...
posted by srboisvert at 1:46 PM on November 3, 2003

If would be disappointing if this speech were to be dismissed as partisan simply because it fails to toe the Bush administration's line. He seems genuinely more interested in putting the current situation within its historical context and proposing solutions, but I think the overdefensiveness of many conservatives on specific security issues also extends critiques of their general policies and their worldview. Shame, that.

Of course, it's also easy to take pot shots at those in power for not being more open-minded.
posted by DaShiv at 2:17 PM on November 3, 2003

Can this guy run for prez?

Nope. He's a naturalized Pole.

Not so fast...
posted by soyjoy at 2:27 PM on November 3, 2003

All of that cumulatively testifies to a fundamental shortcoming in our national security policy. If we want to lead we have to have other countries trust us. When we speak they have to think it is the truth. This is why De Gaulle said what he did. This is what others believed us. This is why they believed us prior to the war in Iraq.

It isn't that the Norwegians or the Germans or whoever else had their own independent intelligence services. They believed us, and they no longer do. To correct that we have to have an intelligence that speaks with authority, that can be trusted, and if preemption becomes necessary can truly tell us that as a last resort preemption is necessary. Right now there's no way of knowing.


It's a nice speech but i think the conclusion is flat out wrong. Sure the U.S. needs to beef up their intelligence services but the real crux of the recent diplomatic failure wasn't one of quality, though the quality was piss poor, but rather one of integrity. Other nations no longer trust the U.S. to tell the truth.
posted by srboisvert at 3:13 PM on November 3, 2003

"I think fairly can be called a paranoiac view of the world. Summarized in a phrase repeatedly used at the highest level, "he who is not with us is against us.

"I strongly suspect the person who uses that phrase doesn't know its historical or intellectual origins. It is a phrase popularized by Lenin"

Just to be fair, consider this quote:

"For he who is not against us is on our side."
--- Jesus, Mark 9:40
posted by SPrintF at 6:21 PM on November 3, 2003

For he who is not against us is on our side

Pretty arrogant if you ask me, who does he think he is.
posted by stbalbach at 8:07 PM on November 3, 2003

"For he who is not against us is on our side." doesn't quite jive with: 'You are either with us or against us' especially in context.
posted by specialk420 at 9:06 PM on November 3, 2003

Actually, it's Matthew 12:30: He that is not with me is against me..... Meanwhile I can find no authoritative source for the attribution to Lenin (though it wouldn't surprise me). Sorry, Zbig. But I liked what you said about bipartisanship and Russia.

Which Democratic candidate will lure ZB to his kitchen cabinet?
posted by dhartung at 1:52 AM on November 4, 2003

Meanwhile, in lieu of a front page post, three links:

Iraqification: Losing Strategy By Fareed Zakaria, Washington Post, Tuesday, November 4, 2003; Page A25:

If the American footprint is reduced, it will not make the guerrillas stop fighting. ("Hey, Saddam, we've scared the Americans back into their compounds. Let's ease up now and give them a break.") On the contrary, the rebels will step up their attacks on the Iraqi army and local politicians, whom they already accuse of being collaborators. Iraqification could easily produce more chaos, not less.

The idea of a quick transfer of political power is even more dangerous. The Iraqi state has gone from decades of Stalinism to total collapse. And there is no popular national political party or movement to hand power to. A quick transfer of authority to a weak central government would only encourage the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds to retain de facto autonomy in their regions and fragment the country...

There are no shortcuts out. Iraq is America's problem. It could have been otherwise, but in the weeks after the war the administration, drunk with victory, refused to share power with the world. Now there can be only one goal: success. The first task of winning the peace in Iraq is winning the war -- which is still being waged in the Sunni heartland. And winning it might take more troops, or different kinds of troops (send back the Marines). It might take a mixture of military force and bribes -- to win over some Sunni leaders. But whatever it takes, the United States must do it. Talk about a drawdown of troops sends exactly the wrong message to the guerrillas. In the words of one North Vietnamese general, "We knew that if we waited, one day the Americans would have to go home."

Mission demolished By Eric Boehlert (Salon)

In the last 10 days, the security situation throughout much of Iraq has raced from bad to disastrous, with an increasingly brazen, yet unknown enemy (Baath loyalists, al-Qaida guerrillas, foreign jihadis?) unleashing deadly hit (the al-Rashid hotel), after hit (the International Red Cross), after hit (a U.S. transport helicopter).

This, while Iraqi pipelines continue to be sabotaged, disbanded Iraqi soldiers roam the country instead of defending it, the constitutional process that was supposed to usher in free elections remains months, if not years, behind schedule, and at the center stands a crumbling Iraqi infrastructure that administration officials concede is far worse than they anticipated. Not surprisingly Iraqis themselves are turning more and more anti-American. A recent poll conducted by the Iraqi Centre for Research and Strategic Studies on behalf of the U.S. State Department showed just 15 percent of Iraqis see U.S. forces as liberators, down from 43 percent six months ago.
Meanwhile, a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office suggests that the military costs for the occupation of Iraq going forward could reach an additional $200 billion over the next decade, even if the Pentagon sharply cuts its forces.

"We're stuck in a real no-win situation," says Charles Peña, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington.

Bush’s National Security Strategy Is a Misnomer by Charles V. Peña:

Many people mistakenly assume that al Qaeda hates the United States for "who we are" as a country. But the reality is that hatred of America is fueled more by "what we do," that is, our policies and actions, particularly in the Muslim world. That does not mean that the United States deserves to be attacked or that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were justified. But if the United States is to take appropriate steps to minimize its exposure to future terrorism, it must correctly understand what motivates terrorists to attack America. The obvious conclusion to be drawn by American policymakers is that the United States needs to stop meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and regions, except when they directly threaten the territorial integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States.
posted by y2karl at 12:32 PM on November 4, 2003

...the United States needs to stop meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and regions, except when they directly threaten the territorial integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States.

Bear repeating.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:57 PM on November 4, 2003

In other words, sacrifice Israel.

Barbarians.

As if Islamists would be eternally happy and peaceful if they could just rid the middle east of those pesky jews.

Your "strategy" for fighting terrorism is not only ignoble in conception but catastrophically self-defeating as well.
posted by techgnollogic at 5:48 PM on November 4, 2003

The USA has handed over almost two trillion dollars to Israel since 1948. Imagine what that money could have done if it had been spent on American education, healthcare, infrastructure, or small business funding. Isn't it time to say enough is enough? American needs to look after itself first, and Israel a distant second. Why should it be the USA's responsibility to protect Israel from itself?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:31 PM on November 4, 2003

How much oil money (and free aid) went to all those Arab countries? And lookie whose culture spawned the ideology we're at war with.
posted by techgnollogic at 6:51 PM on November 4, 2003

From Brzezinski's speech:

We will not turn the Middle East into a zone of peace instead of a zone of violence unless we more clearly identify the United States with the pursuit of peace in the Israeli/Palestinian relationship. Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall.

Let us not kid ourselves. At stake is the destiny of a democratic country, Israel, to the security of which, the well-being of which, the United States has been committed historically for more than half a century for very good historical and moral reasons. But soon there will be no option of a two-state solution.

Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50 percent unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering.

Indeed as some Israelis have lately pointed out, and I emphasize some Israelis have lately pointed out, increasingly the only prospect if this continues is Israel becoming increasingly like apartheid South Africa — the minority dominating the majority, locked in a conflict from which there is no extraction. If we want to prevent this the United States above all else must identify itself with peace and help those who are the majority in Israel, who want peace and are prepared to accept peace.

All public opinion polls show that and the majority of the Palestinians, and I believe the majority of the Jewish community in this country which is liberal, open-minded, idealistic and not committed to extremist repressions.

The United States as the government, but all of us as citizens and Democrats particularly, will soon have an opportunity to underline their commitments to a peaceful solution in the Middle East because in the next two weeks a group of Israelis and Palestinians are going to unveil a detailed peace plan on which they have been working for months and months. It's a fifty-page document with maps and detailed compromise solutions for all of the major contentious issues, solutions which public opinion shows 70 percent of the Israelis would accept.

When that happens what will be the stance of the United States? Sharon has already condemned it, and not surprisingly. I hope we do not decide to condemn it. I hope we will show at least a positive interest, and many of us as citizens, as people concerned, should I think endorse it because if we count on the people who want peace eventually we will move towards peace. But they have to be mobilized and given support.

I think one of the reasons that that support from the United States has not been forthcoming is in fact political cowardice which I think is unjustified because I have real confidence in the good judgment, both of the Israeli people and of the American Jewish community and more basically of the basic American preference for a moderate peaceful solution.

--and how do you get sacrifice Israel from this?
posted by y2karl at 7:23 PM on November 4, 2003