Heg unsustainable- military decline
Wallerstein 7- Senior Research Scholar at Yale University. He is also the former President of the International Sociological Association (Immanuel, Spring 2007, Harvard International Review, “Precipitate Decline The Advent of Multipolarity”, pdf page 59)
But the most important consequence of this unilateralism was the exposition of the severe limitations of US military power, which turned out to be essentially unusable. Military power is generally termed ineffective when a state cannot send in enough land troops to stabilize a conquered territory, which certainly was the case with the US intervention in Iraq. Whenever a state uses military force, anything less than overwhelming victory actually reduces that state’s real military power. And this is why, by 2007, it had become common currency to talk of the decline of the United States. Many in the United States feel that the solution to this dilemma is a return to the “multilateralist” program of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. However, Bush has undone that. No one is prepared to allow the United States to be anymore the unquestioned leader in the world-system, even if it professes multilateralism. Yet the reality is that the United States has been reduced to the position of being one strong power in a multipolar world. It is also destined to become even less influential as the world moves forward in this new geopolitical situation. The adventurism of the Bush administration has transformed a slow US decline into a precipitate decline. The United States’ economic, political, and ideological position had already become tenuous by 2001. The only advantage the United States seemed to retain was in its absolutely enormous military capability, and it was on this power that Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the neoconservative policymakers were relying. But they made two fundamental mistakes. The first was failing to realize that air power and special forces are sufficient to make the armed forces of even strong powers retreat, but they are not able to bring wars to a conclusive end. For that, land armies are necessary—and against popular resistance, very large land armies. But the United States does not and will not have a significantly large land army primarily due to political reasons. The US public is ready to cheer on military victories, but they are not ready to sacrifice the lives of their children. Invasions like those of Iraq are thus destined to fail. And that leads to the second mistake of the neoconservatives. Military power is feared as long as it is successful. But anything less than overwhelming victory reduces the fear of others, and therefore the effectiveness of expensive and advanced military hardware as an intimidating factor in world politics. In the 1990s, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is said to have exploded in a discussion with Colin Powell and other military leaders who were reluctant to engage in an initiative that she was pushing. She asked: “What is the point of having the most powerful armed forces in the world if one can never use them?” The answer, as we can now see clearly, is that there is not much point at all.
Heg unsustainable- changing world
Larison 4/5- Ph.D. graduate from the University of Chicago (Daniel, 4/5/10, “ A Bright Post-Hegemonic Future”, http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/04/05/a-bright-post-hegemonic-future/)
Too many American policymakers and policy analysts remain devoted to restoring a degree of American preeminence that existed in 1991-92 and will probably never come again. The reality is that we may not even see American preeminence c. 2008, much less the way it was twenty years ago. Our policies and our military deployments around the world have not adjusted to this reality. Now some of our closest allies are forcing us to come to terms with the way the world has changed.
Multipolarity Inevitable
Multipolarity inevitable- empirical similarities to other fallen hegemons
Hiro 7- contributes to The Observer, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post and is a commentator on the BBC, Sky News, and CNN (Dilip, 8/20/07, “ The Sole Superpower in Decline: The Rise of a Multipolar World”, pdf page 6)
The Sole Superpower in the Sweep of History This disparate challenge to American global primacy stems as much from sharpening conflicts over natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas, as from ideological differences over democracy, American style, or human rights, as conceived and promoted by Western policymakers. Perceptions about national (and imperial) identity and history are at stake as well. It is noteworthy that Russian officials applauding the swift rise of post-Soviet Russia refer fondly to the pre-Bolshevik Revolution era when, according to them, Tsarist Russia was a Great Power. Equally, Chinese leaders remain proud of their country's long imperial past as unique among nations. When viewed globally and in the great stretch of history, the notion of American exceptionalism that drove the neoconservatives to proclaim the Project for the New American Century in the late 20th century - adopted so wholeheartedly by the Bush administration in this one - is nothing new. Other superpowers have been there before and they, too, have witnessed the loss of their prime position to rising powers. No superpower in modern times has maintained its supremacy for more than several generations. And, however exceptional its leaders may have thought themselves, the United States, already clearly past its zenith, has no chance of becoming an exception to this age-old pattern of history.
US Security causes Japan to Minimal Role in East Asian Policy
Bandow 5/12 senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to Reagan J.D [Doug, May 12, 2010. from Stanford University Japan Can Defend Itself; http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11804&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+
CatoRecentOpeds+(Cato+Recent+Op-eds); WBTR]
Nevertheless, both domestic pacifism and regional opposition have discouraged reconsideration of Japan's military role. Washington's willingness to continue defending an increasingly wealthy Japan made a rethink unnecessary. Fears of a more dangerous North Korea and a more assertive People's Republic of China have recently increased support in Japan for a more robust security stance. The threat of piracy has even caused Tokyo to open its first overseas military facility in the African state of Djibouti. Nevertheless, Japan's activities remain minimal compared to its stake in East Asia's stability. Thus, Tokyo remains heavily dependent on Washington for its security. The then opposition Democratic Party of Japan promised to "do away with the dependent relationship in which Japan ultimately has no alternative but to act in accordance with U.S. wishes." The party later moderated its program, calling for a "close and equal Japan-U.S. alliance."
Share with your friends: |