Question of the Day: Can you name any part of the world, or our relationship with any other country in the world, in which our strategic posture is stronger or, by any measure, better today than it was in January 2001?
The best I can come up with is a couple of countries in the Caucusus and stretching into Central Asia. It’s a stretch, I know. Other possibilities?
Late Update: My terminology in this posts seems to have created some unclarity or confusion. I’m not asking about the quality of ties in this or that bilateral relationship. I’m asking whether we are weaker or stronger. More or less able to secure our strategic interests, either through ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ power. So, in the case of China for instance, I would say we are clearly weaker than we were five and half years ago. This doesn’t mean that I think China is a ‘threat’ in the sense that the China hawks do. But, among other reasons, our increased dependence on the Chinese because of the North Korea crisis, coupled with our growing national indebtedness to China and arguably the situation in the Middle East all make us weaker and the Chinese stronger, albeit of course in relative terms. We can hypothesize (i.e., fantasize) about what will be the case 10 or 20 years from now. But right now I don’t think anyone can deny that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have sharply limited our options and leverage with Iran. This is what I’m getting at — not whether mutual good feeling is better or diplomatic ties are strengthened (though these can be key components of national strength and security) but, in starker terms of power and leverage, where are we stronger? Where are we weaker? More able to secure our key interests or less so? Internationalists might say we get there through military muscle coupled with robust alliances. The Bush administration says we there through talking tough and the salutary effects of kicking the asses of small countries. But forget about means, after almost six years, what are the results?
