<There's only one nation which commands the resources, military and economic, to hold such a position.. And that's the US>
We can't afford 400-500B$ deficits indefinitely. Our economy is about 25% of the global total, yet we spend as much on our military, as the rest of the world put together. That level of effort, and the disparity between US and non-US military funding, is unsustainable. Would you prefer raising taxes by 400B$, cutting non-military programs by that amount.........or scaling back our Global Reach? Don't try to finesse this, those are the choices.
One of the disquieting un-intended consequences of 9/11, is that all the second-ranking powers are spending more on their military, and adopting more aggressive and independent military doctrines:
Japan is changing their Constitution, to make it easier to resume their former habit of Wars of Aggression. They are also quietly acquiring the materials and technologies, so they can quickly assemble nuclear weapons, if they ever want to.
The U.S. may have caused the death of NATO, by going to Baghdad. An independent European military policy will require an independent ability to Project Force, to go to places like Bosnia, or maybe even Afghanistan. The Greens and Socialists will hold their noses, and vote for higher defense budgets.
This moment of U.S. Hegemony is transitory.
Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. - Mahatma Gandhi |
