It's been roughly 20 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, which means that the U.S. has experienced two decades of being the world's sole superpower. The experience hasn't been positive. Under the sway of neocon ambitions, in particular, the Bush era was marked by a failed attempt to dominate the globe militarily. Mired in Afghanistan and scarred by Iraq, those ambitions proved to be shameful and foolish. A group of misguided gunslingers led to a catastrophe. Have we come to the point where disillusionment will lead us where we need to go: the end of playing the superpower role?
This is a relevant question in the aftermath of President Obama's visit to Russia, a country that yearns to return to its former status and does everything it can to posture as its old superpower self. Yet other than a bloated nuclear arsenal and swaggering oil production, present-day Russia doesn't fit the bill and never will again. Its diminished threat is the first reason why the U.S. should abandon the thankless task of policing the world. The second is the enormous waste of resources involved in being a superpower. Sheer inertia keeps fueling the production of new armaments to replace outworn ones that were useless to begin with. Has the Stealth bomber justified its staggering cost? Has the nuclear submarine, Polaris missile, Titan missile, not to mention Star Wars? Most of these weapons haven't seen the slightest use. Billions of dollars have been spent on a defense system that is protecting us from a foe who long ago neutralized its threat.
The third reason to stop being a superpower is that Nixon's specter of the U.S. as a pitiful helpless giant hasn't decreased since Vietnam but only become worse. Crude terrorism lurking in the shadows of side streets is a match for advanced weapons systems if you are measuring in terms of psychological threat, anxiety, and a creeping sense that the enemy can strike at will. Atomic arsenals, a massive standing army and space-age technology aren't justified when a single dirty bomb can sneak in under the fence. It's time to accept what every insurgency expert tells us, that asymmetrical warfare is here to stay and must be fought on a smaller, smarter scale that is closer to neighborhood policing than conventional, World War II-style combat.
That's only the beginning of the list. During this crippling recession, there's the need to spend money on productive jobs and rebuild infrastructure, not more arms. There's the moral question of the fear we inspire internationally by our aggressive militancy, which is tragically at odds with our pronounced aim of world peace. Peace is achieved by being peaceful, no matter what the military-industrial complex claims to the contrary. Other factors center on the ideals of a functioning democracy. Is it fair for a few senior congressmen to hold the power to fund massive, largely secret arms programs without check? Should the arms lobby be able to write its own ticket, year after year? It's deeply wrong that a tiny portion of our populace should fight wars abroad, bearing the full burden of suffering, while reactionary politicians promise tax cuts and no consequences for the enormous harm we do by invading other countries.
America leads the world in arms dealing, starting wars, and developing new methods of mechanized death. Even if you leave aside the basic insanity of the Cold War and its stockpiling of nuclear weapons on a scale that can potentially decimate life on earth, all the reasons listed above should be enough to make anyone think twice. We may be accustomed to feeling like a superpower, but that isn't the same as feeling safe and secure. Having tried militarism for the past 60 years, perhaps we can give peace a chance and see if genuine safety and security lies there instead.
Published in the San Francisco Chronicle
It is with great respect for your ability to energize people to action and ecourage thoughful living that I disagree with this piece on peace. In the unviverse of the mind, peace should be a goal. In the post modern age- it is best way to lose your life, your country and your freedom. Peace does not exist in nature until conflict is initiated by competing organisms. America is not really a super-power the way we saw it 100 years ago anyway. We are way too selfconscouis for that even with attack on 911 and our current pursuit if terror-devotees. A super power dominates it neighbors, we supply ours with opportunity. A super-power is in complete control of its destiny. America is, like never before, waiting to see if we can really catch-up to "the angels of our better nature."
America still gives most the defenseless in the world hope, instead of stealing it. Hope is all we got friend. Hope for a better tomorrow is simple everything.
DenverJJ
I also prayed that the collapse of the Soviet Union would usher in an era of peace, and, like Dr. Chopra, wonder why it did not. War profiteering is clearly one reason. But equally to blame is the notion that "democracy" (remember Gore v. Bush?) is the only acceptable form of government. Or rather, that any other form is ipso facto a "totalitarian" government imposed on the populace. What we have witnessed recently is that democracy is neither wanted nor accepted either in tribal societies or in societies where religious authority is paramount. In those societies popularity contests among "politicians" (an alien species to them) seem bizarre. And this alien species, outside of its natural habitat, is more corrupt even than it tends to be here -- if that can be believed.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
It's all greed. Believe it, ridicule it...whatever. Money money money.
After two decades America senses, with some level of desperation, that its time has come. But are there any takers for the title? Why does the world need a superpower, when we are irrevocably headed towards self destruction unless we join f.o.r.c.e.s and acknowledge our interdependency?
Do we have to see an extra-terrestrial threat emerge in order for us to unite?
We have to rise above fear based politics and forign policy. I think there is a 'fear' generation that is slowly dying off and the youth will do much better as a whole. In younger gens you see far less racial and sex discrimination, more compassion and a sense of unity amongst man and nations. This thinking scares the hell out of necons! None the less, there is hope.
I am convinced that my personal safety is better served by arming a police force and disarming the populace, than by the reverse.
The minute we turn inward and focus on ourselves and stop "policing the world" as you call it, is the minute we turn our back on mankind, our brothers and sisters all over the world. I don't call it policing the world...it's called coming to the aid of the downtrodden in the name of humanity and compassion.
Your kind of compassion sounds like hate to me, and murderous at that.
This sounds like what happened in Rwanda under Clinton, while he made the executive decision to stand on the sidelines and not come to the aid of that country while thousands of its citizens were brutally slain. I call it cowardice.
We can't even police our own banks. Our FDA is a corporate sham. One way or another our over-bloated self-congratulatory empire will end.
Yet like California (and other states) we are staring the problem of merely spending in the face. The federal govt. can borrow lot more than California. Yet, California should be a forerunner that at some point the people say "enough is enough".
Americans today are saying so, though few are prepared to 'Walk the Talk'. The next generation will say it louder, when they have to pay the tab for something they did not order. Very likely they will 'Walk the Walk', while we watch in awe and horror.
For those who think of it as insurance, what about Canada, Spain, Australia, and so many others countries that spend almost nothing compared to us? They are not trying to be the policemen of the world. They are also not paranoid and under constant fear of attack. We are a nation that overreacts to any threat. How many other countries xray people's shoes before getting on a plane? All because 1 person had explosives in his shoes. More billions spent for the fear of one threat.
We need more sanity in our leadership instead of, "Bring it on." That's the Bush Legacy.
Shia Islamic leadership has issued a fatwa against producing or acquiring nuclear weapons stating their use could only be to kill civilians and thus is contrary to Islam. Why does everyone insist Iran (the most Shia dominated nation) is trying to have these weapons (which I believe they should as their only guarantee of sovereignty) ? And how do you think Iranians feel having America's (the one nation who has demonstrated a willingness to use this horrible weapon) current nuclear missiles pointed at them ?
Until America gets rid of ALL its nuclear weapons it needs to shut its mouth about other nations. You are not the only people who want and deserve security.
"For those who think of it as insurance, what about Canada, Spain, Australia, and so many others countries that spend almost nothing compared to us? They are not trying to be the policemen of the world".
The reason that they are INCAPABLE of being the policemen of the world is because they don't spend as much. Many rely upon the United States to help defend them.
"They are also not paranoid and under constant fear of attack". Which one is it? Paranoid or "under constant fear of attack".
"How many other countries x-ray people's shoes before getting on a plane? All because 1 person had explosives in his shoes. More billions spent for the fear of one threat.". - You ARE kidding me, right?? Gee, why don't we let knives on board planes anymore??? There's a difference between being paranoid and preventing the re-occurrence of tragedies.
"More billions spent for the fear of one threat.". Or Trillions spent against "Global Warming"??
If the US is to lay down its arms, then who do we trust more than us to lead militarily? That's what this all truly boils down to.
Deepak makes sane arguments. Unfortunately they fall on insane ears.
This Zionist country helped ethnic Muslims by beating back the Christian-majority government that was trying to inflict genocide on them. Then we helped them rebuild and secure their country to stabilize the peace. But Einstein says we can't simultaneously prepare for war and peace?
German trade was of huge international scope up until WWII. So, why had Germany attack its neighbors. Thanks to a sane accessment, the USA used its full military force in order to completely destroy the enemy.
I will give my definition of The Meek if anyone is interested. I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but I think it applies to what Mr. Chopra is saying.
If you can survive by eating basketballs follow his advice, but the question is, "Who is going to be making the balls?". I doubt that Mr. Barkley could make one. The Making of basketballs is a cooperative rather than a competitive effort.