US Seeks To Offload Cost of Hegemony on Allies
A short time ago, the Obama administration released the second National Security Strategy of its tenure. The document serves as an overview of the administration's foreign affairs strategy and policy direction, and is divided into four sections: security, prosperity, values and international order. The topics are the same as those under the portion dedicated to advancing U.S. interests within the 2010 iteration of the report.
The new edition of the National Security Strategy is continued evidence that Obama does not turn to military measures lightly. This caution is both compensation for and a reflection upon the previous Bush administration's misuse of military power, as well as a necessary product of the Obama administration's own military strategy and attempts to parcel out the burden of responsibility. In February 2012, the United States released a new military strategic guide entitled "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense." In analyzing the basis of changes to the modern international security environment and threats to U.S. security, it explicitly referred to a need for a shift in military strategy and efforts to create a capable and flexible military force that can be readily adapted to new security challenges. Of course, even this is only a temporary measure for the administration, as it must dedicate further finances to the revitalization of the economy, the true source of U.S. power.
In the 2011 Libyan Civil War, the "leading from behind" policy adopted by the Obama administration won clear results. Through this, the United States came to realize that even without large-scale military deployments, it can realize its strategic goals by strengthening cooperative relationships with its partners and allies and acting in a leadership role when necessary. By doing so, it can lighten the burden of U.S. hegemony while at the same time guaranteeing the continued existence of that same hegemony, and has therefore become a key feature of Obama's international strategy. In his new National Security Strategy, Obama expressed a desire to utilize collective action, and not unilateral action, to protect the United States' core interests. He emphasized that the United States is "stronger when we mobilize collective action."
The truth is that at present, moving with caution is simply the wisest strategy for the U.S. government. This is because the United States currently lacks imminent threats to its security, its responsibility-sharing coalition strategy has gained considerable results and its interests around the globe have not suffered as a consequence. In international strategy, at least, the Obama administration has been somewhat withdrawn and relatively low key, reallocating resources toward helping the U.S. economy recover.
But in this, it has also undertaken certain risks. The primary risks for the United States are twofold, with the first part lying in the confidence of its allies. Both European allies and Asian ones like Japan harbor concerns about Obama's international strategy, especially as they have all come under security pressures of their own. Obama has stressed many times that the United States will honor its security promises to its allies. In other words, the loyalty of its allies to the coalition is a factor of how many security benefits they stand to receive in the bargain. The second risk is that the United States will likely be pulled into regional disputes and conflicts. In order to gain the trust of its allies, the United States will occasionally need to take substantive action on behalf of those allies and partner nations in international disputes, including providing military armaments, deploying sophisticated weapon systems to certain regions, and holding joint military exercises. The U.S. government is seeking a balance between its obligations from agreements with allies and avoiding involvement in regional conflicts.
In sum, this all arises from the need to maintain U.S. power and its continued position as global leader. Obama is well aware that without the support of the coalition that this system provides, the United States would be hard pressed to keep its claim to that leadership. But from this perspective, it also seems likely that we will never again see a return to an age where the United States is "second to none."
The author is an associate research fellow at the CPC Central Committee Party School's Institute of International Strategic Studies.
The new edition of the National Security Strategy is continued evidence that Obama does not turn to military measures lightly. This caution is both compensation for and a reflection upon the previous Bush administration's misuse of military power, as well as a necessary product of the Obama administration's own military strategy and attempts to parcel out the burden of responsibility. In February 2012, the United States released a new military strategic guide entitled "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense." In analyzing the basis of changes to the modern international security environment and threats to U.S. security, it explicitly referred to a need for a shift in military strategy and efforts to create a capable and flexible military force that can be readily adapted to new security challenges. Of course, even this is only a temporary measure for the administration, as it must dedicate further finances to the revitalization of the economy, the true source of U.S. power.
In the 2011 Libyan Civil War, the "leading from behind" policy adopted by the Obama administration won clear results. Through this, the United States came to realize that even without large-scale military deployments, it can realize its strategic goals by strengthening cooperative relationships with its partners and allies and acting in a leadership role when necessary. By doing so, it can lighten the burden of U.S. hegemony while at the same time guaranteeing the continued existence of that same hegemony, and has therefore become a key feature of Obama's international strategy. In his new National Security Strategy, Obama expressed a desire to utilize collective action, and not unilateral action, to protect the United States' core interests. He emphasized that the United States is "stronger when we mobilize collective action."
The truth is that at present, moving with caution is simply the wisest strategy for the U.S. government. This is because the United States currently lacks imminent threats to its security, its responsibility-sharing coalition strategy has gained considerable results and its interests around the globe have not suffered as a consequence. In international strategy, at least, the Obama administration has been somewhat withdrawn and relatively low key, reallocating resources toward helping the U.S. economy recover.
But in this, it has also undertaken certain risks. The primary risks for the United States are twofold, with the first part lying in the confidence of its allies. Both European allies and Asian ones like Japan harbor concerns about Obama's international strategy, especially as they have all come under security pressures of their own. Obama has stressed many times that the United States will honor its security promises to its allies. In other words, the loyalty of its allies to the coalition is a factor of how many security benefits they stand to receive in the bargain. The second risk is that the United States will likely be pulled into regional disputes and conflicts. In order to gain the trust of its allies, the United States will occasionally need to take substantive action on behalf of those allies and partner nations in international disputes, including providing military armaments, deploying sophisticated weapon systems to certain regions, and holding joint military exercises. The U.S. government is seeking a balance between its obligations from agreements with allies and avoiding involvement in regional conflicts.
In sum, this all arises from the need to maintain U.S. power and its continued position as global leader. Obama is well aware that without the support of the coalition that this system provides, the United States would be hard pressed to keep its claim to that leadership. But from this perspective, it also seems likely that we will never again see a return to an age where the United States is "second to none."
The author is an associate research fellow at the CPC Central Committee Party School's Institute of International Strategic Studies.