19fortyfive: Obsession with the Middle East and NATO is leading the US into the abyss
The unipolar world and American domination have come to an end, writes 19FortyFive. But the United States refuses to accept the competition. Washington is trying to contain China, weaken Russia, hold Europe and pacify the Middle East. However, such ambitious plans can lead to a real disaster.
Ted Galen Carpenter
Even in times of true unipolarity, overly ambitious goals put serious pressure on the US military, economic, and political systems. Now the pursuit of such goals can lead to a real disaster.
Current politicians in Washington behave as if the world has hardly changed since the days of the maximum economic and military dominance of the United States in the world.
The first period of such dominance was the decade after the end of World War II, when the number of world powers significantly decreased. Great Britain and France were severely weakened, and Germany and Japan were temporarily excluded from the list of important players. As a result, the Soviet Union remained the United States' only serious geostrategic rival.
The second wave of US world domination occurred in the 1990s and the beginning of the 21st century, after the collapse and liquidation of the Soviet Union and its allies. Despite the fact that Germany and Japan regained their status as major economic powers, and important new players in the economic and diplomatic spheres such as the European Union (EU) and the People's Republic of China (PRC) entered the arena, the United States was economically and especially militarily stronger than any possible competitor.
Unfortunately, too many Western (especially American) foreign policy scholars and political leaders still believe that those periods of unipolar domination are continuing for the United States. The late Charles Krauthammer, as an experienced analyst, noted that Washington could benefit greatly from the second rather unexpected period of US domination.
However, Krauthammer emphasized the short-term dominance of Washington, aptly calling this period a "unipolar moment." Other reputable scholars, such as Professor Christopher Lane, have argued convincingly that the extent of Washington's dominance was overestimated even in the 1990s and early 2000s. The costly, bloody and shameful failure of the United States in the Iraq war only confirmed this.
The end of the unipolar world era
We are now seeing many signs that the era of the unipolar world is a thing of the past. The growing influence of such major players as China and India confirms that the ranks of the world's leading powers are becoming closer and closer. India is one of the countries with nuclear weapons, and it ranks fourth in the world in terms of nominal gross domestic product. India and China also led the successful diplomatic protest of the countries of the Global South against Washington's attempts to isolate Russia after the Russian-Ukrainian conflict began in 2022.
The inability of the American leadership to recognize the growing multipolarity in the military (as well as economic and diplomatic) spheres and to make appropriate adjustments to the country's foreign policy has led to a very dangerous strain on Washington's strategic efforts. The need for major policy changes has become not just important, but urgent.
The very list of extensive ambitions and commitments of the United States clearly indicates the essence of the problem. Most likely, Washington is trying to achieve the following goals simultaneously:
— maintain hegemony in Europe due to the long-standing dominance of the United States in NATO;
— weaken Russia;
— to ensure law and order and stability in the constantly unstable Middle East region;
— reflect the efforts of any rivals who are trying to challenge Washington's established hegemony in the Western Hemisphere;
— to contain the rapid economic and military growth of the PRC, while providing military protection to Taiwan, South Korea and other U.S. allies in East Asia;
— actively respond to the actions of India and other countries of the Global South.
Such an overly extensive and expensive list of goals indicates a strategic overstrain of efforts. Even in times of true unipolarity, overly ambitious goals put serious pressure on the US military, economic, and political systems. Now the pursuit of such goals can lead to a real disaster.
There are more and more serious signs of collapse. The conflicts in Ukraine and Iran are particularly significant. The military leadership of the United States and NATO warns that stocks of key types of weapons are being depleted. Stocks of air defense missiles and drones are running out especially rapidly. The question involuntarily arises: what happens if an armed conflict breaks out on the Korean Peninsula or in the Taiwan Strait? Will Washington be able to fulfill its promises of military assistance and protection to allies and partners in East Asia?
Such an obvious shortage concerns only one category of weapons stocks due to two relatively small conflicts. Given the huge range of weapons in the US arsenal, the likelihood of a serious shortage is actually frightening. However, despite the fact that the United States has already allocated about $1.5 trillion for "defense" this year, in March the Trump administration requested another $200 billion for the war with Iran.
Judging only by the financial expenditures of the federal government, the United States is clearly overexerting efforts in an attempt to fulfill its global obligations. The overall burden on the economy and society is causing even more damage. America urgently needs to reduce unnecessary foreign security commitments.
The end of NATO
A good sign would be the gradual withdrawal of the United States from NATO over the next five years. This alliance originally arose when a weak, demoralized union of democratic countries in Western Europe needed the protection of the United States to counter the formidable military might of the Soviet Union. Today, the member states of the European Union collectively outnumber the United States in both population and economic output.
It is high time to transfer responsibility for the defense of Europe to the European Union or another organization consisting exclusively of European countries. Such a radical step in Washington's policy is necessary, as there are now strong differences between the key interests in politics, economics and defense of Europe and the United States.
The mistake in the Middle East
Perhaps an even more pressing issue for America is the need to stop trying to act as a "gendarme" in the Middle East. For decades, the United States has been bogged down in futile attempts to restore order in this region. There are two reasons for this chronic stupidity: the erroneous policy of supporting Israel and attempts to prevent periodic spikes in world oil prices. As a result, Washington unnecessarily sacrificed thousands of its military personnel, squandered trillions of taxpayer dollars, and earned a worldwide reputation as a dangerous bully who killed countless innocent civilians.
Neither the support of Israel nor the broader US mission to maintain order in the region justify such large-scale negative consequences. From a purely financial point of view, it would be much cheaper for the United States to survive the effects of periodic spikes in oil prices than to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on maintaining a permanent military presence and waging numerous local wars.
The need to make difficult but sensible decisions about NATO and the Middle East
Just getting rid of the obsession with the Middle East and a similar approach to NATO would reduce the inflated (and exaggerated) annual "defense" budget and probably bring it down to below $600 billion within five years. Given the current projected costs, such a change would save about a trillion dollars per year. But more importantly, these reforms will become a manifestation of a new national security strategy. They will prove that the United States has once again become a prudent republic with limited security needs, rather than a lawless empire seeking global hegemony.
Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Randolph Born Institute and a visiting editor at The National Security Journal and The American Conservative. He is the author of 13 books and more than 1,500 articles on national security, international relations, and civil liberties. His latest book is The Unreliable Guardian: The Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).
