The Cost of Being a Superpower
Published in Izvestia
(Russia) on 28 February 2011
by Dmitry Kosirev (link to original)
Actually, this book was published in August 2010, and it’s already been on sale at a discounted price of $7.83 for a slightly damaged copy. But in the January–February budget battle in the U.S. Congress, the book got a second life.
Its author, the famous professor of “American foreign policy” Michael Mandelbaum (who now works at the prestigious Johns Hopkins University), was invited to The Washington Post for an interview. They cite it here and there. Why? The title of the book is enough of an explanation — “The Frugal Superpower: America's Global Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era.”
This is a very American question: How much? In this case, [how much does it cost to be a] superpower. For a superpower like George Bush the second, there was not enough money. And exactly what kind of superpower is affordable then?
The author’s reply in August, which means he was busy writing during the spring and summer of 2010, was as follows. [There is not money] enough to return to the politics of the “Bush” or, to be more precise, the “Cold War” era. Mandelbaum says that America’s old obligations were important to the world arena at the time, but the new ones — everything that has emerged since 1991 — are not. That’s why there should be no more military sallies like Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and especially no sallies into Afghanistan and Iraq. The last two are worst of all. There you have to build a new society and state, and these are far too expensive. America cannot afford others’ internal affairs.
As far as the old obligations — there is the Middle East (because there is oil), where it is necessary to protect the Arabs and Israel from Iran. But you can protect from a distance; for this purpose, there are cruise missiles. And oil, by the way, they should produce themselves. There is also Europe, which needs protection from Russia, and Asia, where it is necessary to help allies who live close to China. That seems to be everyone. The numbers agree: [for these old obligations, there will be] enough money.
This is, of course, just one point of view of a very conservative person. At least [his] approach to the matter is clear. Under the old policies, there were no budget deficits. Now, if [the U.S.] carries on borrowing and does not cut anything, U.S. debt will rise to 716 percent of GDP by 2080. The budget will not be enough to cover even the interest. Therefore, the military budget cuts of $78 billion spread over 10 years are just the beginning. Generally, Barack Obama will not reduce spending but increase it, from $3.7 trillion in 2012 to $5.7 trillion in 2021. Rising pension and health care expenditures will account for 60 percent of the budget increase, but 31 percent of this increase is bad — it is the growing interest on servicing the domestic debt.
It is clear, Obama is right: He intends to win the future by investing in people. For this, it is worth enduring not having any wars. But there are questions.
The first question is regarding the Middle East. Mandelbaum wrote his book before the current crisis happened. Of course, the Obama administration concluded that it was appropriate to call the events happening there “the fight for democracy” and to support any or all kinds of “liberal forces.” But everybody understands that it’s only propaganda; the reality is much worse. How much a new Middle East will cost, nobody can imagine, because nobody knows what will happen there next.
The second question concerns China. This country is even better than America at calculating the cost of being a superpower. That’s why China is perennially suspicious that everybody wants to involve them in costly operations abroad and ruin them. Therefore, so far there is nobody who will take the U.S.’s place in terms of interfering in everything and other people’s business.
But will everybody stay in the same position after seeing that America has become more frugal? During the past era, especially the Bush period, all world politics was static and, in fact, hinged on opposing the U.S. So far, what the world will look like devoid of this axis and how much — and who — it will cost, nobody knows.
Its author, the famous professor of “American foreign policy” Michael Mandelbaum (who now works at the prestigious Johns Hopkins University), was invited to The Washington Post for an interview. They cite it here and there. Why? The title of the book is enough of an explanation — “The Frugal Superpower: America's Global Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era.”
This is a very American question: How much? In this case, [how much does it cost to be a] superpower. For a superpower like George Bush the second, there was not enough money. And exactly what kind of superpower is affordable then?
The author’s reply in August, which means he was busy writing during the spring and summer of 2010, was as follows. [There is not money] enough to return to the politics of the “Bush” or, to be more precise, the “Cold War” era. Mandelbaum says that America’s old obligations were important to the world arena at the time, but the new ones — everything that has emerged since 1991 — are not. That’s why there should be no more military sallies like Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and especially no sallies into Afghanistan and Iraq. The last two are worst of all. There you have to build a new society and state, and these are far too expensive. America cannot afford others’ internal affairs.
As far as the old obligations — there is the Middle East (because there is oil), where it is necessary to protect the Arabs and Israel from Iran. But you can protect from a distance; for this purpose, there are cruise missiles. And oil, by the way, they should produce themselves. There is also Europe, which needs protection from Russia, and Asia, where it is necessary to help allies who live close to China. That seems to be everyone. The numbers agree: [for these old obligations, there will be] enough money.
This is, of course, just one point of view of a very conservative person. At least [his] approach to the matter is clear. Under the old policies, there were no budget deficits. Now, if [the U.S.] carries on borrowing and does not cut anything, U.S. debt will rise to 716 percent of GDP by 2080. The budget will not be enough to cover even the interest. Therefore, the military budget cuts of $78 billion spread over 10 years are just the beginning. Generally, Barack Obama will not reduce spending but increase it, from $3.7 trillion in 2012 to $5.7 trillion in 2021. Rising pension and health care expenditures will account for 60 percent of the budget increase, but 31 percent of this increase is bad — it is the growing interest on servicing the domestic debt.
It is clear, Obama is right: He intends to win the future by investing in people. For this, it is worth enduring not having any wars. But there are questions.
The first question is regarding the Middle East. Mandelbaum wrote his book before the current crisis happened. Of course, the Obama administration concluded that it was appropriate to call the events happening there “the fight for democracy” and to support any or all kinds of “liberal forces.” But everybody understands that it’s only propaganda; the reality is much worse. How much a new Middle East will cost, nobody can imagine, because nobody knows what will happen there next.
The second question concerns China. This country is even better than America at calculating the cost of being a superpower. That’s why China is perennially suspicious that everybody wants to involve them in costly operations abroad and ruin them. Therefore, so far there is nobody who will take the U.S.’s place in terms of interfering in everything and other people’s business.
But will everybody stay in the same position after seeing that America has become more frugal? During the past era, especially the Bush period, all world politics was static and, in fact, hinged on opposing the U.S. So far, what the world will look like devoid of this axis and how much — and who — it will cost, nobody knows.