Zbigniew Brezinski’s new book Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power seeks to address these four questions:

Zbigniew Brzezinski (Photo: Polish Government / Wikimedia Commons)
1. What are the implications of the changing distribution of global power from the West to the East, and how is it being affected by the new reality of a politically awakened humanity?
2. Why is America’s global appeal waning, what are the symptoms of America’s domestic and international decline, and how did America waste the unique global opportunity offered by the peaceful end of the Cold War? Conversely, what are America’s recuperative strengths and what geopolitical reorientation is necessary to revitalize America’s world role?
3. What would be the likely geopolitical consequence if America declined from its globally pre-eminent position, who would be the almost immediate political victims of such a decline, what effects would it have on the global-scale problems of the twenty-first century, and could China assume America’s central role in world affairs by 2025?
4. Looking beyond 2025, how should a resurgent America define its long-term geopolitical goals, and how could America, with its traditional European allies, seek to engage Turkey and Russia in order to construct an even larger and more vigorous West? Simultaneously, how could America achieve balance in the East between the need for close cooperation with China and the fact that a constructive American role in Asia should be neither exclusively China-centric nor involve dangerous entanglements in Asian conflicts?
You might detect an optimistic note in the way that Brezinski has asked the questions, but reading between the lines what is apparent is that Zbigniew Brezinski is granting that the US imperial adventure launched in the idea of the American Century is over. The US empire with its veneer of the US being first among equals is giving way to a transitional period that is highly risky. And Brezinski is not sure that the US has the domestic politics, economy, or national leadership that can avoid catastrophe. When Brezinski was in the Carter White House, the administration that negotiated the Camp David agreements and brought Deng Xiaoping to Atlanta to finesse the “one China, two systems” cover for China becoming a permanent UN Security Council member–when all this progress happened, it was not supposed to end this way with US power dramatically weakened within a decade.
There are four audiences for Brezinski’s book outlining a strategic vision: general audiences like you and me, intellectual policy elites, US powers-that-be, and foreign ministries. To the first Brezinski offers a short comprehensive strategic view of how he sees the world (likely shared with other members of the intellectual policy elite). To the second he brings an academic argument to which they will respond with alternative strategic visions rooted in their own particular framework of ideas; out of such debates came the Project for a New American Century, to cite a relatively recent example. To the third he brings a wake-up call that the domestic political stalemate and loss of power through two needless wars potential dangers down the road if they continue business as usual. To the fourth, there is a message to be patient with the US while cooler and more realistic heads work through the issues brought about by American overreach.
What scares Brezinski is not the possibility of the rise of the power of China, but the potential conflicts that that might cause with nations on China’s periphery–India, Russia, South Korea, Vietnam, Phillipines, Taiwan, Japan. He is also scared about Russian reassertion of its imperial claims, which could affect Georgia, Belarus, and Ukraine. He is scared of the collapse of Afghanistan and instability in Pakistan as the US withdraws from Afghanistan. He is scared of the consequences of a decline of US power in the Middle creating general conflict around Israel.
And then there is Mexico, already beleagered by a US drug war, deportation of immigrants, an increased internal violence from drug gangs–the American “good neighbor” policy replaced by bigoted hectoring. (No, Brezinski does not state it this bluntly). What happens with declining American power and populist resentment in Mexico and areas of the US? The implications taken to reasonable conclusions point to the dangers of significant border conflict.
Finally, there are the implications of the withdrawal of US power, influence, and concern for what Brezinski calls the “global common” — the strategic common (sea and air) and the environment. Both require globalized management to, for example, suppress piracy on the seas. The BRICS countries are playig a greater role in this managment responsibility but the need for consensus among a larger number of countries delays effective responses. Three areas of special concern to Brezinski are the Internet (cyberspace), space, and the Arctic. All three are dominated by American power now but are devolving toward more international management.
Brezinski argues the following in transition:
The argument that America’s decline would generate global insecurity, endanger some valuable states, produce a more complicated North American neighborhood, and maake cooperative management of the global commons more difficult is not an argument for US global supremacy. In fact, the strategic complexities of the world in the twenty-first century–resulting from the rise of a politically self-assertive global population and from hte dispersal of global power–make such supremacy unattainable. But in this increasingly complicated geopolitical environment, an America in pursuit of a new, timely strategic vision is crucial to helping the world avoid a dangerous slide into international turmoil.
By “international turmoil”, Brezinski means turmoil on the order of World War I and World War II. Situations that could suck in alliance of large military forces with seeming inevitability–that would cause even an isolationist America to be drawn into significant war. Like I said, Brezinski is in a quiet panic about US politics and policy although he cannot say this except obliquely.
What he proposes as a strategic vision will be received as bold, even impossible or dangerous. It is none of these; it is a clear attempt at salvaging and restoring American global influence over events. The first part of the vision is to unify Russia and Turkey into the Atlantic alliance to create what he calls a revitalized West. Geographically, it really is the circumpolar North. The second part of the vision is to cooperate with China and Asian nations to ease the tensions that exist between China and each of them on certain issues, the US role being the military shield that allows more regional countries not to have to get into an arms race with China. Importantly, the vision depends on continued good relations with China and general Chinese economic and political stability. In other words, a pretty conventional NATO-like strategic vision that even builds on NATO as an institution. But to do it, the US must get its economic and political house back in order. And that’s where the issue is for Brezinski and no doubt a purpose for the book.
All well and good. Big whoop. Except that Brezinski as a part of the elite is in a quiet panic about what comes after America.
So he plays out one scenario. What are some other scenarios?
When I got back to North Carolina, I relaxed by reading the last volume of John Birmingham’s alternative history of the noughts. The first volume is Without Warning, the second After America, and the third Avenging Angels. This is military science fiction with a high degree of military hardware detail, black ops, and graphic violence. The title of the second volume attracted my attention a couple of years ago, and I read the first two volumes in sequence. The characters were so well drawn, the settings detailed, and the plot involving that I eagerly waited for the third volume.
The plot is this. A force field of unknown origin destroys all of the people in the United States except for a part of Washington and Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii. The population of this new country comprises overseas military, ex-pats, overseas black operations personnel, and the folks in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii who were lucky enough to miss the force field. When it was started, it was probably the only plot device that Birmingham could use to raise the question of American power. So what happens when on one day American power essentially disappears, leaving Europe, Japan, Australia without their dominant ally and the rest of the world without the dominating presence of US power?
There is another scenario for you. Exactly how does the American government get re-established and how does the American President govern? Who becomes the main geopolitical players and how to they get established?
It’s fictional and unconventional. And extreme.
But both Brezinski and Birmingham raise the critical question: What are the consequences that the American people will be dealing with as a result of the squandering of American power and reputation?
How do you think this unraveling of American empire will play out? How do we dismantle the national security state wind down empire without dangerous power vacuums occurring? How do we distinguish between meddling and dealing with a dangerous power vaccum? This exercise is left for the comments.



86 Comments

“What are the consequences that the American people will be dealing with as a result of the squandering of American power and reputation?”
I find ZB’s worrying a bit comical, since it was the US following his national security recipe outlined in his previous book “The Grand Chessboard” that got us into this situation in the first place.
It’s been longer than that. FDR made the original security deals with the Al Saud family.
That be as it may, the consequences of the foreign policy establishment taking his advice here might be equally catastrophic.
It’s time for alternatives to get ahead of the argument that certain things are inevitable.
Brezinski’s proposals and the actions of the Project for National Security Reform look to me to dovetail into more of the same–and if the rabid chauvinists get their hands on power again, another catastrophe.
We have to deal with the fear of what a declining American empire might mean in order to avoid another catastrophe.
How do you say that with a straight face?
Ooo, dangerous power vacuums. With the liberal gravitational field of prosperity politics disappearing, I suppose power will be boiling away.
What happened with the Polish empire, comrade Brezinski? They kind of sublimated, eh?
Ditto, AmericanTerraformer.
We can also thank him (along with Carter and David Rockefeller) for the Trilateral Commission, and all the economic devastation that it has wrought.
Blue
How do you think this unraveling of American empire will play out?
Brezinski et al. will be producing pastries of bullshit.
You really should read the book. You’d get a kick out of it. Especially the section in which he talks about restoring a German-Poland-Russian dialogue as a means of easing Russia into NATO. There is the nosalgia for imperial Poland about it.
As for the cicumpolar North, the alliance that Brezinski envisions includes Canada, the US, European Union countries, Caucasus countries, Ukraine, and Russia. Pretty much the circumpolar North to some depth.
The power vaccuum issue has to do with existing US treaties – Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Israel – that would obligate the US to go to war if one of those were attacked. Brezinski’s approach is to manage relations with other countries to balance power in those regions so as to minimize the risk of the US having to fulfill those obligations.
Yes, the metaphors from “social physics” do reify and obscure the human decision-making involved but they are pretty conventional shorthand in the US for what would take much longer to explain.
I was looking for serious answers, actually.
It’s the end of the American empire as we know it and I feel fine.
Exactly. And I agree with all here who finger Zbig as part of the problem. Looking to him for the solution would just compound our problems.
From people on the intertubes?
My serious answer: “You’ll find out when it happens”.
I know the US considers itself a force of law in the world but the reality just ain’t all that. Brezinsky is concerned about the US being drawn into a significant war but from my perspective, all wars are significant wars. Particularly to the dead. And the US has been waging war for a very, very long time.
I would be more concerned about the effects of dwindling resources. Probably the most effective action the US can take to stave off global conflict is to slow climate change and work to ensure all peoples have the resources they need to survive.
But that won’t fly politically, so conflict over resources is inevitable. It’s only a matter of when.
Honestly, comrade, I pity you the Brezinski wringer you put your mind through. I thought “pastries of bullshit” quite amusing and serious.
Brezinski’s “power vaccuum issue” is a consequence of a larger issue, which the Brezinski career did not find remunerative.
No New Worlds for ZBig.
The asshole is promoted as master of realpolitik — ha ha. How better to mask such bullshit?
ZBig and his asshole acolytes believe in hegemonstry. That’s why ZBig ended up in America: The Best of All Possible Worlds.
Now that prosperity politics is winking out, ZBig is shilling for the winners, pragmatism be damned.
So, do follow ZBig’s (mis)lead and wank on about foreign affairs. Look into ZBig’s lacuna. That’s where the answers are.
“I would be more concerned about the effects of dwindling resources. Probably the most effective action the US can take to stave off global conflict is to slow climate change and work to ensure all peoples have the resources they need to survive.”
yes.
By far the most important crisis on this planet. only the threat of nuclear war is on the same level.
That and Climate Change.
Germany is going solar and they are not anywhere near the equator.
What our current leaders lack in strategic vision they make up for in hubris.
Sadly Brezinski is one of the only students of history and professional US statesmen who is still alive, Jim Baker is dead, and the rest have been purged.
Who else is there Tarheel Dem?
Chuck Hagel?
I get the distinct impression that you did not read the diary carefully.
You are quite opinionated for such a young man who hasn’t even read the book. Brezinski wasn’t near the monster that Kissinger was.
We not only lack students of history. We lack folks who take foreign policy seriously now that Richard Lugar has been defeated. The only adults in the room right now are Biden and Hillary Clinton, and you see where that has put us.
If you are looking for serious answers, then you must consider the unraveling of the Roman Empire (as documented by Gibbon, although a decline of 1100 years is hardy a decline, just a change is status quo), Russian Empires (Both Pre Soviet and the Soviet empire itself), The German Empire (Dissolved after WW I), the French Empire (Fell apart after WW II), and the British Empire (Drained of Money and Virility after the exhausting wars of WW I and WW II, which was Bismark’s strategy).
I’d look to Bismark’s strategy against the British Empire as the process to cause the United State’s Empire to dissolve.
Differences are two for, first the US is the only modern continental empires (unified land mass) and second the last 19th century empire left standing.
The unified land mass will probably result in a bloody dissolution (bloody civil war), especially with the modern weapons deployed (drones), but the split will be along clear geographic and political lines, the Sierra Nevada, Rockies, Appalachians and some division between the old North and the Old South.
In summary, a combination of the Roman decline (violence) and the British decline (Economic Collapse).
I read it, and carefully enough. Would there be any interest in verifying your impression?
Historical analogies are what Brezinski gives as views of policy, but they are unsatisfying arguments. Rome-Byzantium, Confucian China, Ottoman Turkey…..
And Brezinski sees the US empire already in decline as a result of two ground wars in Asia. He is trying to figure out how to avoid a repeat of the European failure to peacefully integrate a united Germany and Italy into the international system, a failure that created two horrible wars, which in turn launched the US on a system of permanent war. He fears the chauvinists in the US who want to take on Iran and North Korea and China…thus the panic about the public becoming too aware of US decline. He has a list of empires, but fails to include the US empire, but he mentions that a Chinese government think tank has a similar list that includes the US decline.
Your last sentence talks of an inevitability immune to politics or policy–with no role for human agency. And I see the “Nine Nations of North America” division of internal conflict in your comment. The devolution of power might indeed be on a bioregional basis–with conflict between rich (sustainable) and poor (unsustainable) bioregions. How does that play out over the global geography? Which nations unify territory and which split into conflicting bioregions? What does that mean for the policies that folks like FDLers should be advocating?r
Poland-Russian dialogue
Have you been paying any attention to the Lech Wallesa b.s. about Obama using a teleprompter, and the Polish behavior towards one of their own black players and towards the Russians?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18409776
Ranking hegemonsters was not the objective, comrade. Identifying them was called for.
I think the USA will always be a powerful country. It’s size, population, resources and lack of dangerous neighbors should guarantee that. What America wont be able to do is to micromanage the world… this will be unbearable for hysterical control freaks and will stand for irreparable decline.
He took the point of view that Germany, which wants extended business ties in Russia, should make security guarantees of non-agression against Poland as a first step to normalizing Polish and Russian trade relations and slowly de-escalating the tension that the US placing of anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Baltic states has created.
Poland is not unique in Europe in being racist or bigoted.
Brezinski makes the argument that American bigotry, construction or a wall on its southern border, and increased deportation could move popular resentment in Mexico to the point that Mexico becomes a dangerous neighbor. And given the shift of Canadian politics to the right, I would not take good relations with Canada for granted.
What has Brezinski panicked is the realization that the US blew its chance at total hegemony and that hegemony as a means of stability (Pax Romana, Pax Americana) will not work with the diversity of economically powerful populous nations that are developing and have expectations of projecting their power. China, Russia, India, Japan, Brazil all have regional ambitions that could evolve into global ambitions. What happens when those ambitions collide? Especially between nuclear armed states.
Canada and Mexico are midgets… taking them seriously as enemies is part of the free floating American paranoia I’ve been writing about. America’s most dangerous enemies are within America, within Americans.
I believe that that was ZB’s point about Mexico. And your judgment of the relative power of the three countries is based on the current situation, which is changing.
That’s very good, comrade. The glaring lacuna here though is the globalization paradise that Brezinski was paid to speculate on. First, it was inevitable that this would be fucked up. Job security for the Brezinski brains. More importantly, ZBig’s containment strategy for the class conflicts he “worries” will bite him in the ass is the threat of war. He fits snugly in the terrorism framework and supports the use of terror to magnify the elite cost of demagoguery. I.e. terror is the means of maintaining elite consensus and suppressing the pain of the mass.
So Canada and Mexico are not just midgets, war is a tool to maintain the elite project.
This “American paranoia” is not “free floating”.
We have been brutal.
I suggest that Putin should turn the tables and support a democracy movement here to electorally defeat the our failed elite intelligentsia, and afterward we should deliver up the war criminals to be tried in the respective countries where they’ve done the most damage.
Did you get the book or the kindle book?
I don’t know why anyone would think that Brzezinski raises “the critical question” about anything or is even honestly interested in “serious answers” to geopolitical problems he himself helped engineer.
Brzezinski told the world what his agenda was years ago:
“It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America” and “The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
Can’t you see the bogosity in your precis? The first “cause” is just casting blame for the inevitable in his ridiculous fantasy. The second is not cause for panic as it should have been foreseen for quite some time.
Brezinski is an intellectual predator who foists the consequences of his contradictions on the incognoscenti.
I can’t argue with that if Arab Spring continues are friendly Arab Monarchies disappear. Our foreign financial policy I am sure is making us friends in the EU/s if Lefties win EU elections our banks will fail as they disown their debts.
If Right Wing governments win then war will likely break out since Right Wing governments in economic crisis need scapegoats since their is no way they will tax the rich to solve their problems and there is no way they can solve their problems without creating jobs and disowning their debts.
You forgot to clearly label your sardonic proposition, comrade.
New American Century means what a NeoCon return on foreign policy?
I am pro letting Russia into NATO and the EU to help avoid more wars. I am pro letting Turkey into the EU to help stabilize the EU maybe Turkey can help Greece in return for getting into the EU. Turkey wants Cypress a few billion to bailout Greece would be cheaper than a war to take Cypress and would give Turkey’s current government a huge boost in approval ratings.
Greece can sell Cypress or they can have more austerity or they can tax their rich at FDR levels and create jobs.
I am not sure which choice is worse.
Hegemonstry is running out of fuel. Given the bone-headed stupidity it has fostered domestically, that Right Wing government is here.
How so?
Read my diaries today on the Middle East the Arab Monarchies seem to be trying to create jobs and are running away from a Saudi attempt to creat an Arab Monarchy EU.
The Arab Monarchs do not want to be dependent on foreign troops like Bahrain was to stay in power.
Its sad when Kuwait decides to increase public workers salaries 25% and Obama brags about cutting government spending.
We are the country of FDR and we proved Keyne’s economic theories right but today Arab Monarchies seem to worship Keynes more than we do.
I admit I don’t know how much is just talk and how much is action but a 25% raise in public workers salaries is a good start.
Wait Mexico’s government falling and being replaced by either a Lefty revolution unlikely or a Drug Cartel front some say that already has happened is the case.
But Mexico won’t attack America that means American foreign policy guys are thinking of war with Mexico?
I only thought America would attack Mexico to support the current government.
Please explain his thinking please unlike the NeoCons Zbigniew is someone I respect but don’t agree with much.
If he thinks this is a possibility then others in government are thinking the same thing.
I used this institution that is still present in my community called a “public library”.
Force fields come on that can’t happen this is a polite way of saying nuclear accident.
I don’t know what the Greeks think is the worse choice I don’t know what the man on the street is thinking in Greece.
Writers have been using sci fi plots to criticize America safely for years but this seems a criticism of Nuclear power meant to reach right wingers by giving the candy of what happens when America is gone and why America is needed.
The science of an unknown force field destroying America is to hokey for a comic book but I do admire the writers goal of trying to reach Right Wing nuts and slip in an anti nuclear power message under their radar.
Of course, but why might you think “they can tax their rich at FDR levels and create jobs” is comparably bad?
ZB has a long section about Mexico entitled “The End of a Good Neighborhood”. It is predicated on continued US economic and geopolitical decline leading to intensification of the bigotry seen in Arizona. And then a populist movement in Mexico responding in kind. And he even throws in the possibility of that movement seeking restoration to Mexico of Texas and the Southwest as an unlikely but possible outcome.
Of course others in government are thinking the same thing. There is a lot of paranoia on Capitol Hill over Mexico and Mexicans.
Hey wingnuts, if you kill everybody in America then God won’t be happy that we’ve failed in our mission!
Pray the rapture happens first, dear simpletons.
Bingo. The US has too many inbuilt geopolitical and resource advantages to ever not be a significant world economic power. Even massive managerial incompetence is unlikely to overcome those. If the US were run with the efficiency of a truly competent leadership, it would in fact be scary what might result. The natural wealth of the US is such that having large populations that are poor can in fact only be done by deliberate design. It would be easy to eliminate poverty and need within the US if that were the actual priority.
Whatever the US’ problems and downsides, they are small potatoes compared to most of its likely challengers, most of whom are hardly run much more competently.
I think it’s just a deus ex machina move to get the US out of the way for the plot without having all sorts of other geopolitical questions hanging as the series gets going. It’s credible because it’s permissable in science fiction.
There is no actual need for the US to even have more than a minimalist non-interventionist foreign policy in the post Cold War reality. The only resources the US are externally dependent on are oil, which could be supplanted with solar, and a few rare minerals that don’t occur within the US territory.
As for Canada and Mexico being significant military threats, not in any likely near future. Maybe in 100 years, who knows?
True
After I found out about Henry’s more than 30 companies set up so no one knew he was taking 10′s of millions from China and other “enemies” every year, and that the set up was into blind tax tax havens so he paid near zero taxes on all that (Henry hire a really good accountant of from my operation to head the accounting of his operation – she loved the money but was surprised by what she found), I found it even harder to forgive him for the VietNam lies and the deaths that followed. But the right loved Henry – just as they loved Reagan – because our media never exposed either.
The US has nothing to fear but itself and fear for fear’s sake, which has become the great American pass time.
Can you imagine if public libraries didn’t exist today and if someone proposed them? Can you imagine the derision that would be heaped upon the idea? Socialist government book sharing institutions giving people access to intellectual property without charge in direct competition with private booksellers?
Thank you for finally stating the obvious.
Now spin out the consequences if tomorrow the US implemented this change in policy – both international and domestic consequences. Such as (1) there is no longer a tripwire of US troops in South Korea, whose deaths will guarantee US intervention if North Korea attacks, (2) Japan no longer has the guarantee that the US will respond to any threatened nuclear attack of Japan (ironic that, huh), (3) young guys and gals from small towns no longer get tours of Europe or the Far East, really the only international awareness a lot of folks have, (4) there is some portion of 1.5 million people who are now unemployed, a fair number of whom only know how to be shoot weapons and avoid being shot, (5) no one is patrolling the sea lanes, and so on.
These are not excuses to keep a large military but items that have to be dealt with if we are to have a minimalist military.
The next thing is to identify how the force structure of the military needs to be adjusted. Does this mean more reserves, geographically based militias like existed in the early 19th century? How large does the Navy or Air Force really need to be? Marines have been expeditionary forces; do we still need them? What technologies and procurement projects can be abandoned? What new ones, if any, do we need?
How do we get rid of the secrecy of the national security state, still gather intelligence information and have some diplomatic discretion in dealing with other countries?
Bad for the rich who control the media and shape public opinion. Can we expect the Greeks to do what we so far are unable to do for ourselves and throw off their 1% and far Right henchmen?
As a Canadian I feel obligated to correct you. Canadian politics are actually shifting to the left. The New Democratic Party was a distant third coming into the last election and is now the official opposition, with the Liberals now in third place.
The NDP is very much on the left. The Conservatives gained a majority mostly due to Liberal losses to the NDP, who were previously seen as unelectable.
Currently, the NDP is polling pretty much neck and neck with the incumbent Conservative party. Hopefully what this means is that in the next election, the Conservatives will get a minority with NDP as the official opposition.
Then after that, perhaps a minority NDP … but I ain’t holding my breath.
Attacks on poor Mexican immigrants do not and will not bother the ruling elite in Mexico besides a few empty words. Unless the current government is overthrown nothing will happen and even if it does happen the idea of Mexico sending tanks to the border is laughable.
Of course we want the Southwest back but not if its ruled by the current Mexican government none of us would want to work for Mexico’s minimum wage. Its doubtful even a Lefty take over of Mexico could produce wages that match must let beat what we have in America even in a few generations.
I do agree on that they are paranoid and it seems they are grasping at straws for a fight.
Thanks for the correction. It just seems that Conservatives (and conservatives) at the federal and provincial levels are on a destructive course. Glad the voters are noticing and moving to the NDP. There is not a lot of time left at the rate the Conservatives are rolling out their environmental destruction.
You don’t have to use tanks to beat the United States of America anymore. I think that two wars recently have proved that.
Kidding aside, fundamentally you are correct. It would take a huge populist revolution in Mexico to have any pushback on the US at all. In ZB’s worst-case-scenario mind, that is not totally excluded at this point.
Grasping at straws for a fight is what a country does when it runs out of enemies but has a bloated military.
It doesn’t invalidate your original point about Canada not necessarily being a great “ally” in the future though, depending on what you mean by “ally”.
One of the few things I don’t like about the NDP is this chip-on-the-shoulder anti-Americanism thing. To me it’s just B.S. posturing that does nothing good for anyone. So if they come into power and don’t dispense with that crap I can see a lot of unnecessary heartburn coming out of it.
Point by point:
1. NK is hardly a credible military threat to SK. Sure they could do a lot of damage but there’d never be any danger of NK being able to successfully take and hold significant parts of SK for any time. It would in fact initiate the downfall of NK and the reintegration of Korea in SK’s terms. The only scenarios where NK succeeds initiating conflict involve the PRC fully backing NK. Never happen. China’s trade would bee halted and the PRC would collapse.
2. Japan is under threat? Really? NK is helpless to do more than posture and threaten, it cannot actually do anything without ensuring its own destruction.
3. Expand the Peace Corps and educational and vocational exchanges. 1000x better than military service as a cultural cross pollinator.
4. Put those newly unemployed soldiers to work repairing and modernizing the country’s physical infrastructure, pay their way through university, use them to build renewable energy infrastructure so we no longer need a military whose main purpose is to protect energy multinationals making obscene profits on the US’ dependence on imported oil. Give them vocational skills useful outside the militarized law enforcement sector. There is no worse make work scheme than the military, anything is more economically productive.
5. Let Exxon, Wal-Mart and Apple protect the sea lanes. They are the ones profiting from them. Keeping them open on the taxpayers dime is just an unjust subsidization of a private sector that is largely parasitic economically in any case. If state actors are threatening them, use international sanctions. Isolate and punish those states economically.
Agree with your take on things, scared that Zbigniew who I think of as one of the few Right Wingers with a brain has drunk the cool aid.
1. It is hard to predict how the PRC would react. That in itself is their deterrent protection for the NK regime. Conventional wisdom is that they would do what they did in the Korean war. Like you, I think the conventional wisdom is wrong.
2. Absent US power China poses a nuclear threat to Japan should the two come into conflict. Conventional wisdom says that in that case Japan would move to become a nuclear power.
3. These often become cover for intelligence agents. There has been a shift in the past decade as more countries have developed their own capabilities and more countries resent the “missionary mindset” that comes with some of these folks.
4. That’s been done before and it worked; it’s called the post-World War II GI Bill.
5. For the first part, that means that Xe Services and CACI get navies. For the second, that requires that the entire international community act with one voice in enforcing sanctions. Meanwhile both India and China are developing their blue-water (deep sea) navies. Russia is expanding its Arctic fleet.
I agree that there are solutions to most of the issues but folks who advocate the downsizing of the US military are not facing up to the issues and addressing them to allay public fears. And most folks want to gear up for the worst-case scenario – just in case.
What we who want to see a more minimalist military need to do is get ahead of the arguments by brainstorming out those worst-case scenarios ourselves and building the mitigating actions into our proposals for action.
Only if the kool-aid is “worst-case scenario”. He hasn’t become Jan Brewer–far from it. And his emphasis is on the US walking back its anti-immigrant feelings and actions (he was an immigrant and understands the issue). He is scared on this about what the loonies to his right might do and how a decade or so down the road of this thinking a relatively (to the US) stronger Mexico might respond.
Tarheeldem, I appreciate the fact that you have obviously given more than passing thought to the issues. Given the adage that the devil is in the details, it behooves us to start thinking about all those pesky little things.
One thing I have wondered about for a while. With our defense budget at, say $750 billion, I wonder who would suddenly decide to attack us if we only spent $740 billion? Or who would be emboldened if we had one less air wing? Who would decide an invasion is thinkable if we had 2500 tanks instead of 3000?
Given two oceans to protect us, it seems to me that our actual self-defense needs might be only a few wings of air and a couple of carrier groups.
1. The PRC was not integrated into the global economy during the Korean War and had Russia as a semi-plausible ally. The current day PRC as dependent as it is on export does not have the same strategic or tactical options. Isolating itself to protect a belligerent NK and in turn destroying its own economic engine is not a viable option.
2. No nuclear state realistically can threaten another nuclear state or one under the umbrella of one and leverage that threat in any useful way. China is no nuclear threat to Japan given that a first strike on Japan would at best result in the PRC being economically isolated and the government as a result almost inevitably collapsing under the strain. China’s dependence on global trade coupled with the inherent instability of its autocratic government is a far better tool of constraint and deterrence than military force.
3. A US that has adopted a non-interventionist and non-imperialist foreign policy and become less dependent on imported energy resources has little practical use for meddling in other states’ internal politics and thus little practical use for an intelligence apparatus. I cannot even see any scenario where the present day US’ interests (as opposed to multinational corporate interests) would be significantly harmed by the CIA completely ceasing to exist. Like the bloated American military, the CIA and intelligence services are today largely a Cold War relic with little remaining purpose. Let China or other states pursue imperialist/neo-colonial projects, they inevitably backfire after a brief bubble of resource extraction and exploitation.
4. Yep. Built the American post war economic miracle and a robust middle class.
5. How do Chinese and Indian or Russian deep water navies (probably still individually far smaller than even a hugely downsized American fleet) substantively threaten American interests if we take the necessary steps to curb our dependence on imported energy? Yes they can leverage the threat of closing sea lanes to some degree as an ad hoc tool of diplomatic pressure but at what potential economic costs given a globalized economy? Our nuclear force limits the potential strategic upsides as well. Any state is necessarily very limited in the military pressure it can apply to a nuclear armed potential foe. I don’t like nukes but they can still provide a useful deterrent against rash military adventurism.
There are no actual credible military threats to the contiguous US mainland. None. We could probably get by fine with a strong Coast Guard and Border Patrol. Army? Navy? Marines? Air Force? As huge permanent standing forces? Pork. pure and simple.
I’m Mexican and unless the Left overthrows the current government and ices the drug cartels that won’t happen. Given American interest in the keeping the current corrupt government and their need for drugs as an enemy I expect America to respond if the current government is ever threatened by the Left.
But yes a stronger Mexico would be a problem for a weaker America that I can agree on.
I don’t thing Zbigniew is a racist being scared of the loonie Right is a legit concern but I fear they will use his book to advance their own arguments.
Never mind how unlikely the worse case scenario is.
If ZB and his think tank buddies had carefully thought through the consequences of NAFTA, he wouldn’t have to worry about “bigotry in Arizona.”
Everything think tank white paper I’ve read on NAFTA acknowledges that the intent of this legislation was to serve as a “safety valve,” to quell potential chaos, social unrest or uprisings, due to the extreme inequality in Mexico (referring to the 1990′s). So, instead of the US backing the ouster of the oligarchy that rules Mexico, and the implementation of progressive reform of the social safety net there, US and Mexican elites signed NAFTA, agreed to look the other way, allowing between 13 and 23 million (mostly uneducated and poor) Mexican nationals to flood into this country.
(I spent my sophomore year of college at La Universidad de las Americas in Puebla, Mexico, and lived a year in Mexico City–please do not call me a bigot).
Let me be clear, I do not fault the displaced Mexican workers for coming north, in order to find work and feed their families. But it is a reflection of abject US and Mexican policy failure that NAFTA was passed.
Note the following Yahoo News headline, from the 2010 US Census Bureau:
Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income
By HOPE YEN | AP – Thu, Dec 15, 2011
How is it that statesmen and scholars, such as the much vaunted ZB, did not realize that in a country like the US, with an ever-shrinking middle class, an ever-growing under class, and in which less than 1/3 third of its citizens have even an undergraduate degree, that there would be “major tensions” between the US under class and the millions of Mexican nationals, when there was a downturn, much less a recession (and almost depression) in the US.
I suspect that what ZB thinks is bigotry, is actually misplaced economic hostility, which rightfully should be directed at him and his ilk.
Blue
1. I agree. I merely was stating the conventional wisdom, and there are a lot of folks who can’t think beyond the Korean War.
2. The key word there is “realistically”, which assumes that heads of state always act realistically. World War I was the result of a failure of the realism that might have had the powers de-escalate the situation. Again, nations plan for worst-case scenarios (to their economic limits).
3. The United States has never been without an intelligence apparatus. In France it’s name was Benjamin Franklin. And it proved useful in understanding the coming French Revolution and in avoiding diplomatic missteps during that revolution. But he was the ambassador and had a very small staff. We do not need 16 visible (and who knows how many invisible) intelligence and covert operations agencies that employ enough people that 4 million people have secret clearances. I argued in my diaries in the runup to the NATO Summit that the entire national security structure put into place in the Truman administration is in need of a drastic rethinking and downsizing–DOD, intelligence community, foreign aid, state secrets privilege…
5. The problem isn’t the present of other navies. With proper international coordination and cooperation, the presence of the Chinese, Indian, Russian, and other navies could be a help in ensuring trade on the seas, not a hindrance. So we need to keep nuclear weapons — just in case? That leads to nuclear proliferation as power devolves to more equally powerful actors. They are a deterrent as long as they are credible; they are credible only if the other country believes that you will actually use them under certain circumstances. That’s the paradox of nuclear weapons.
@68 you say that we might get by with a strong Coast Guard and Border Patrol. By that, I guess you mean as standing forces. Historically there was a skeleton command structure at the federal level an enough troops to deal with internal conflicts and there were extensive militia structures organized down to rural and urban neighborhoods, depending on the state. The current military age population (20-35) is around 50 million. What portion of that population should be trained an organized into militias?
The US has a 4000-mile border between the lower 48 and Canada and a 1500-mile border between Alaska and Canada. The US has a 1933-mile border with Mexico. By contrast, Mexico has a 250-mile border with Belize and a 540-mile border with Guatemala. How large a border patrol is needed, and what contingencies is it protecting the US from?
The US has a 2000-mile Atlantic coastline, a 1600-mile Gulf coastline, a 2100-mile Pacific coastline on the lower 48, a 5500-mile Pacific coastline in Alaska, and a 1000-mile Arctic coastline. The Coast Guard currently has roughly 100,000 personnel, of which 41,000 are on active duty. There are 244 cutters, 850 boats, and 240 aircraft in operation as a shallow water coast guard. It is hard to say how much of the blue-water Navy would be required to supplement the Coast Guard because the Navy is so forward deployed. The submarine fleet carries a portion of the US nuclear deterrent; if you keep nuclear weapons or want undersea coastal defense, there might be a portion of the submarine fleet that might be necessary to keep.
BTW, Hawaii and Alaska are not part of the “contiguous US mainland.” Nonetheless, I think those folks might like to be protected too.
Interesting analysis. But that doesn’t undo what has been done. I’m not sure how much ZB had to do with it.
“The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on a North American common market.”
TD, you’re right, didn’t mean to imply that that was ZB’s policy area. When I hear him interviewed, he never takes responsibility for the chaos that his policy pronouncements have created. The same applies to the authors of NAFTA. That’s what I object to.
But, hey, you might be interested in listening to an interview he had with Diane Rehm.
If you Google: Zbigniew Brzezinski: “Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power,” the transcript of the interview comes up. You can also still listen to the podcast. It aired on January 26, 2012.
Although I don’t agree with ZB’s neoliberal policies, your diary is excellent, and I appreciate the considerable effort you put into it.
Recommended. And good luck with Occupy.
Blue
Those are good questions all. A border patrol with a border the length of the US’ is obviously mostly show biz. There is no practical way to seal a border of that length. You can catch the unlucky and the incompetent but that’s about it, but being seen to try is politically necessary.
As for nukes, I’m conflicted. I hate the idea of them but can’t help but wondering what conflicts they might’ve deterred. I wouldn’t rule out the US more or less unilaterally disarming itself of them and making other countries joining in disarming a prerequisite for trade relations with that group. You might want to keep a small number still as a worst case scenario deterrent as long as they’re out there in the wild.
As far as defense numbers and forces, I frankly have no idea- it all depends what realistic contingencies you believe exist to face. There is however little risk of a massed conventional military attack on the US mainland so I’d pretty much rule those out in advance. Who could militarily threaten AK and HI in any realistic scenario? I don’t think civil unrest scenarios or likely terrorist attacks are the province of the military in any case, those are essentially criminal matters and should be treated as such.
I’m pretty sure most threat scenarios with any real likelihood could be faced with a standing military at a small fraction of our current one and plans in place to ramp up the numbers in the unlikely occurrence of some real threat scenario showing up on the horizon. As I said, nobody is going to go at the US proper with a conventional military attack, it’s stupid to spend trillions guarding against that or to not spend the money in more productive ways like massive solar development that will do far more to make the country secure than trying pretend you can keep the Straits of Hormuz open against a country like Iran determined to close it using carrier groups or fight terrorism through the application of military force.
I’d like to see someone list some realistic actual military threats the US faces in the foreseeable future that can’t be handled diplomatically, don’t involve confusing criminal threats for military ones or the military acting as private security for tax dodging stateless multinational corporations on the American taxpayers’ dime.
I would too.
I also would like a conversation about what exactly is the US national interest for the next three decades.
“…a conversation about what exactly is the US national interest for the next three decades…”
Humility.
Repentance.
Acceptance.
Friendship.
Peace.
Social and economic justice for all.
Honoring the earth, leading global climate change protocols to prevent further rise in ocean levels.
Restoring food sovereignty.
Honoring American’s labor and redistributing wealth.
juliania and wendydavis:
What marvelous ways to think outside the box.
The problem is that for some kinds of persuasion, one has to think within the box and draw within the lines just to be taken seriously. Especially when those who want to persuade otherwise are peddling fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
That means that those interests have to get reframed so as to provoke dialog from those who cannot think outside the box — to address the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that another world is possible. That sort of reframing is why Occupy encampments held teach-ins with folks who understood the banking mess, for example.
I have a challenge of how to do that sort of reframing because what you have said makes sense. I just need to figure out how to bridge that with foreign-policy-speak. Unless you want to take the radical step of saying that a bippy is a global passport and that borders don’t exist.
And there is an “I know it when I see it” arrogance about the phrase “national interests” that sorta glides over the details and before you know it getting oil for your military vehicles is your national interest because you have to protect those areas from which the oil from your military vehicles comes. Or opening up foreign markets is your national interest so that the trans-national corporations that are headquartered in your country can make profits that the shelter in another country so they don’t have to pay your taxes. So I don’t buy the “I know it when I see it” references to national interest.
Wendy and juliana, thank you for expanding the scope of the discourse in directions it needs to go.
Much of what ails us as a nation are attributable to common character flaws such as hubris, arrogance, aggression and avarice. Your priorities take those on directly.
Mahalo, Tarheel, for the excellent book review…!
Let’s not overlook ZBig’s few ‘stirred up Moslems’…
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen…
I really wasn’t interested in all the times that ZB has messed up. What intrigued me about the book was that one of the most insider foreign policy analysts was gaming the decline of American power and putting a spotlight on the domestic and economic idiocy at the root of it.
I frankly think that, while it would be good not to be in major conflict with Russia, ZB’s idea that a Greater West will bring global stability is utter bullshit. While he is not paranoid about China like some analysts, he has trouble seeing a way to downsize militaries. And that is a domestic civil liberties issue for everyone on the planet.
I understand that juliania and I were essentially speaking a different language, THD, in offering those interests since they are never part of the mix when defense is the subject.
But partially because of the background reading on the Summit, it caused me once again to see that at the core of the unwillingness to actually find solutions to the many dire tipping points we’re facing globally is greed, profit and lust for power. Added to that, what I see at play in the Western world, is a strange bubble of reflexive control and paranoia that guides foreign policy that is so essentially comprehensive that a figure like Dennis Kucinich calling for a Cabinet level Peace Department is deemed wingnut, and I guess that’s what you might wish to avoid in constructing a framework for a new vision for defense.
But, it was Christine LaGarde and Zbig who tried to alert the MOTUs that wealth disparity and associated conditions were getting so out of control that massive uprisings and revolutions would follow, as they have historically. Of course, LaGarde seems to have forgotten her warning lately, lol.
Well, ya know what? I just deleted all the stuff I was writng about the reasons it would be in our national interest to consider the importance of all four of those items (taking out the reference to Americans) globally, as creating a more stable world, decreasing ourselves as targets due to our foreign misadventures, power/resource grabs, unholy alliances with ‘our’ dictators, all of that. But it’s just stupid thinking in a way. The Oligarchs don’t WANT peace, prosperity for all, safe food sources, biodiversity, clean water…justice for all, so only to the degree that one could make a short-term case for any of those items could you likely sell them to folks like the ones who do make our ‘defense’ and FP decisions and guiding visions. How would you sell the panoply of neo-cons on the notion that dealing NOW with climate change IS a national security interest around the globe? To grasp how destabilizing mass diasporas from flooding sea level areas would be, stressing every sector imaginable… Or the reasons we need to reverse multinational control of food via transgenics and patenting with their insane inherent dangers?
Christ, I’m sorry. I just keep pinging on the visions the Indigenous Summit at Cochabamba proclaimed in 2010 and will bring en masse to Rio; I’m fucking leaking tears at how massive a reset in awareness it would take to ever convince the 135 heads of state to undertake any cooperative healthy global processes that would limit the profits of the tens of thousands of multinational profiteers who will also be there, which ballasts your final paragraph, only writ large for nations and especially borderless, non-sovereign transnationals.
It’s likely that I should have simply offered my shorter opinion that: unless and until the West rejects neoliberal capitalism, it will simply be easier to execute what passes for foreign policy at the end of a gun and a drone. That every resource is now being commodified, financialized, human labor is utterly discounted as valuable or worthy, leaves no room for making a case for the needs juliania and I have spoken about. And that’s why for so many who have suffered from all this for hundreds of years are beginning to know that global revolution is the only way to reset what needs to be…reset.
But thank God you are thinking ahead to new metrics for a sane national defense; hopefully there will soon come a time when people are ready to sign on to a new vision, and in fact new visions of policy and institutions that honor the planet and all humanity.
Thanks, TarheelDem, for expanding and letting us in. I was reflecting back to an aspect of my euphoria (not to be sustained) when Obama was elected, that the ‘lead by example’ for which I yearned that this country would reset (remember that reset button?) would make Americans once more a part of the international community. It is community, not empire, that I think will be the source of our national prominence and security in the years to come.
When the cold war ended, it ought really to have ended, and instead we flailed about looking for new enemies and found them on the economic front, where it is quite reasonable to say that they were all the time, but now that front is front and center.
As communities the world’s nations are now too close for comfort – we can’t think of them as ‘over there’ if we ever could. They are now in our livingrooms, and we chat with them daily as a matter of course, just as I do with my sister in New Zealand. This is a tremendous change, and not to be dismissed (as the guest on last night’s Bill Moyers interview was doing) as simply entertainment writ large. This is communication (even if we argue a lot) with like beings, and we really shouldn’t view them as objects of our ulterior notions of statescraft and one upmanship. We are all in it together, and the planet is telling us the same thing.
I can see that Mr. Brezhinski wants to right the ship, but he like Bill Moyers is using very old models these days that are as complex as the complexities of the failing economic system. Knut just pointed out on the Diner from his observations in Sicily how simple and economical communities functioning as communities can be.
There is something, forgive me, extremely artificial from the world statesman view that both Brezhinski and Kissinger expound upon – even though they do draw different conclusions from their positions. The sad thing is that the policies which stem from their outlooks do affect daily living as they trickle down. And the little people of whom most of the world consists increasingly feel they are being ignored.
You’re of course exactly correct, Kurt. So the greater questions become: are we on the brink of a massive shift in consciousness that will cause enough people to reset our priorities, both individually, then following that, our nation, our planet’s nations? How do we even then cause to come into being a paradigm wherein what’s Right becomes a stronger force than what’s Mighty? The implications of what’s caused us to allow the strong-armed profiteers to rule us for so long, and we were collectively so obedient to their programs; where the seeds of violence in us, and our language, reflexively violent reactions…all that will be written about from here on out, I think.
Again, I’ve been reading too much Alice Miller via Arthur Silber to feel optimistic about the changes we need to bring about a reset, except for the faith I have most days (lol!) that we really are on the verge of a shift globally. And I am biased enough to believe that it’s been third-world women who are at the heart of it (‘heart’ in both senses of the word).
I’ve been digging into the whole fucked up theme of ‘green economics’ and ‘green sustainablity’, and can see how easily people can be led down another disastrous path of neoliberal commodification of what were once desirable themes/goals of ‘sustainability’ in agriculture, energy policy, reversing planetary desertification (caused largely by colonization by transnationals, spiked with drought, imo), etc.
Our task is simple, isn’t it? Discredit the whole shebang, show the degree to which the Emperors have no clothes…and resist, reset, and make our better intentions rule the ether (again in both senses of the term, lol) so that others might awaken and find our/their true potential for power.
Shorter:
“Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number ~
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you ~
Ye are many ~ they are few.”
~ Percy Bysshe Shelley
Simple, eh wot? ;o)
Just to expand on your response a little bit, TarheelDem, (I keep returning to it because it is so elegant) I was struck by its resemblance to Obama’s speech at the Nobel Prize assembly, where he gave his explanation about why he and Martin Luther King had different priorities, his ‘just war’ speech. As you phrase it, thinking inside the box is the priority of statescraft (my general term for what uberpoliticians do.) There are ‘necessities’ within this model, like using drones or imposing austerity. All for the sake of national security of course.
The thing of it is that unless you impose the conditions which wendy and I are describing, such inside the box policies are not going to work for anyone, because most people, even the 1%, live their individual lives outside the box. We increasingly find that inside the box policies are very shortsighted because people will react, and the ignored ones outside the box will react strongly, so you might be thinking drones will solve the immediate problems of economy and efficiency but the damage to security the drones themselves inflict is exponential, and it hasn’t been figured in. That’s what so depresses Wendy, that there is a one-way membrane from inside the box outward and nothing flowing in.
Think of it as a tent; we need to turn the tent inside out, or rather, outside IN.
To me, the forebearance of the world community at large is amazing and encouraging. They are waiting, hoping, for us to get this right. Look at Knut, travelling around Sicily in safety. People are, for the most part, very loving in nature. We need to build on that.
Perfect metaphor, dear juliania: The burgeoning Awakening will increase cell membrane permeability and elasticity, allowing nutrients in, wastes…out.
Your comment about the world community’s forebearance panged my heart; it’s too bad that for now they wait in vain for our leaders (especially in the US) to lead them into safety and well-being. And I hope their courage and dedication, like the kids in Montreal and the folks decolonizing the reservations can bring us the courage and dignity to feel what power we have to truly reinvent the world.
love to you,
wd