The US still the indispensable power

[barney]

From The Age in Melbourne

Despite Obama and Trump, America just proved it’s still the ‘indispensable power’
Peter Hartcher
Peter Hartcher
Political and international editor
April 23, 2024 — 5.00am
Save


America’s credibility never has recovered from Barack Obama’s “red-line” ultimatum to Syria’s dictator. When Bashar al-Assad proceeded to ignore the then US president and used chemical weapons against his own people, Obama did nothing. That threshold moment, Obama’s unenforced “red line” of 2013, was seen as a green light to authoritarians worldwide.

A month later, China began building artificial islands on the contested reefs of the Spratly Islands. When Obama later demanded that China stop using “sharp elbows” to annex maritime territories also claimed by its neighbours, Xi Jinping promised publicly during a White House visit that he would not militarise the islands.

He went on to do exactly that, on territories also claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. He judged that Obama would do nothing to stop him. He was right.

Seven months after Obama’s Syria “red line” failed to materialise, Russia first attacked Ukraine by annexing Crimea and then the Donbas. Obama’s so-called “strategic patience” towards North Korea was, in fact, a cover for strategic negligence. Kim Jong-un only grew more belligerent. To be fair to Obama, however, he did successfully strike a deal with Iran to halt its nuclear program.

But Obama was not uniquely or solely responsible for emboldening authoritarian expansionism with his vacillation; Donald Trump was even more understanding of autocrats and their ambitions. Putin expanded his occupation of eastern Ukraine to a full-scale invasion of the entire country in 2022; the war is still raging today.

Xi expanded his successful “grey zone” operation to seize maritime territories from his neighbours and today forcibly confronts the Philippines over control of Second Thomas Shoal in the Spratlys. Trump’s declaration of “love” for Kim Jong-un ultimately excited him so that, by the time Joe Biden took office, Kim was sporting a massive, nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile in his ever-growing arsenal. And Trump pulled the US out of the nuclear deal with Iran, claiming it to have failed, but, in reality, freeing it to resume work on an Iranian nuke.

The American commentator Robert Kagan’s 2018 book was titled The Jungle Grows Back – meaning that the savage beasts of the international forest were advancing. The law of the jungle was returning. Which may be true, but where are the gamekeepers and gardeners of the international order to keep them in check?

And yet. Look around the world today. Despite a decade of decay in American strategic resolve, despite a decade of advances by dictators against the rules-based order, we see that the US remains as the then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright described it in 1996 – “the indispensable power”.

Three aspects of today’s international order, last week and this, illuminate America’s uniquely powerful place in the world.

First was the US’s ability to manage a major crisis in the Middle East. One of its achievements was to conjure an international coalition for the air defence of Israel, unheralded and, even now, largely unremarked. We know that the US was indispensable in helping Israel fend off an intense barrage from Iran just over a week ago, together with two other long-standing friends of Israel – Britain and France.

But we now also know that the US last month secretly convened a meeting of the military leaders of Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to pitch a proposal to create a coordinated air defence network against Iran.

Some of these countries – Jordan and Saudi Arabia – then actively joined in the defence of Israel against the 350 or so Iranian missiles and armed drones that swarmed Israel’s skies in the hope of overwhelming its air defence systems.

Strikingly, one of the countries – Saudi Arabia – doesn’t even recognise Israel diplomatically, yet took part in protecting it militarily. Jordan opened its airspace to the US and its allies, the Saudis assisted with radar tracking and both contributed intelligence to the joint effort.

This represents a potential nascent regional air defence network, joined by mutual hostility to Iran but convened by America. And could only have been convened by America.


The US then successfully negotiated with Israel to curtail Jerusalem’s military hit-back against Iran, helping avert a state-on-state war in the Middle East. Again, no other country could have prevailed effectively on Israel in this way.

Second was the sheer power on display in Washington, culminating in the US House vote on the weekend, and to be confirmed by the Senate shortly.

In a single package of assistance, the House of Representatives approved $US60.8 billion for Ukraine in its war with Russia, $US26.4 billion to support Israel in its fights against Hamas and Iran, and $8.1 billion to counter China in the Indo-Pacific, much of it earmarked for Taiwan.

The funding for Ukraine, in particular, is decisive. Without it, Kyiv’s ability to withstand Moscow would be tested severely and it might have been forced prematurely to the negotiating table. With it, Ukraine is able confidently to continue the fight.

But it’s also true that no other nation would give Israel such a decisive edge over its rivals, and no other would give Taiwan the kit and confidence to sustain its de facto independence against a looming Beijing.

This one package shores up US friends and allies with priceless support amid existential struggles across three continents.

Third is the assertion of power that the US is about to lead in the South China Sea this week. The US is joining its treaty ally the Philippines in the annual Exercise Balikatan manoeuvres, as it has every year for nearly four decades. This year the US and the Philippines will be joined by Japan, Australia and France. And, this year, they will exercise in maritime territories claimed by Beijing, a claim that violates international law. This is a powerful deterrent effort in support of a vulnerable ally at a time of acute danger.

The jungle may be encroaching, but these exercises of US power will show that America can, and sometimes will, defend borders, nations and freedoms against predators. Invincible, no, but indispensable, certainly.

Peter Hartcher is international editor.

[Belle]

A pretty thorough appraisal of the situation from Hartcher. However, I'm deeply ambivalent about all this 'America as policeman' stuff, mostly on behalf of the beleaguered American taxpayer who must by now be good and tired of funding overseas wars. There has to be a better way, instead of the burden placed on one nation - especially one in such horrendous debt.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump retreats from the world stage, should he be elected. Whilst I don't believe he WILL be elected (and now RFK is in the mix, threatening both major candidates), I simply throw that in as one more paradigm in this complex equation; one which seems to reflect the views of many in the GOP.

Perhaps a much fairer way would be what Trump suggested; that everybody pays their own way. That might mean contributing to the cost of war or reimbursing the American people for their outlays.

[maestrob]

Excellent analysis, Barney. Thanks for posting.

Joe Biden has made an enormous contribution to maintaining the world order, in spite of opposition from Republicans here. The facts speak for themselves.

As for paying for it all, well, $100 billion compared to an economy of $26 trillion is surely a small price to pay to hold back those who would wreak havoc.

[jserraglio]

Ditto! And the U.S. just did this.

U.S. Secretly Shipped New Long-Range Missiles to Ukraine

Ukrainian forces for the first time used a longer-range version of weapons known as ATACMS, striking an airfield in Crimea and Russian troops in southeastern Ukraine.

NYT

By Eric Schmitt
Reporting from Washington

April 24, 2024
Updated 1:20 p.m. ET

The United States last week secretly shipped a new long-range missile system to Ukraine, and Ukrainian forces immediately used the weapons to attack a Russian military airfield in Crimea last Wednesday and Russian troops in the country’s southeast overnight on Tuesday, according to a senior U.S. official.

The United States previously supplied Ukraine with a version of the Army Tactical Missile Systems — known as ATACMS — armed with wide-spreading cluster munitions that can travel 100 miles.

But Ukraine has long coveted the system’s longer-range version, with a range of about 190 miles. That can reach deeper into occupied Ukraine, including Crimea, a hub of Russian air and ground forces, and supply nodes for Moscow’s forces in the country’s southeast.

Overnight Tuesday, Ukraine used the longer-range missiles to strike Russian troops in the port city of Berdiansk on the Sea of Azov, the senior U.S. official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.

Last Wednesday, social media accounts in Ukraine reported large fires and explosions at a military airfield in Dzhankoi, Crimea, which the senior administration official said was also a long-range ATACMS target. In an address that evening, President Volodymyr Zelensky thanked Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky, the top Ukrainian commander, but did not elaborate on the attack.

In a major policy shift, President Biden secretly approved the decision to send more than 100 of the longer-range missiles in mid-February, the senior U.S. official said, as well as more of the cluster munition variant. They were part of a $300 million shipment of weapons to Ukraine in March, the first new aid package for the country since funding ran out in late December.

Administration officials kept the shipment secret to avoid tipping off the Russians.

[barney]

I was extremely worried by Republican intransigence over Ukraine aid. This is good to know, thans Joe. Proxy wars are ugly things, but it seem to me Russia must be stopped at the first hurdle.

[Belle]

As for paying for it all, well, $100 billion compared to an economy of $26 trillion is surely a small price to pay to hold back those who would wreak havoc.

It is PRINTED money, Maestrob. And some time, in the not too distant future, you'll wonder why the government cannot afford to build hospitals, schools, roads.....oh wait!!

You are so far in debt now that it is academic talking about the value of your economy - and you are bequeathing that debt to the next generations and this obviously isn't a concern.

Advanced economies' dealing with 'debt shocks' and vulnerabilities is the key to survival. But if you're a taxpayer willing to subsidize other countries your are merely offloading that fiscal responsibility to ensuing generations. What's wrong with particular nations stumping up their share for their defense protection? How do I know that because it was Trump's idea that it's completely untenable from anybody in the Left? The road to nowhere.

Of course, you could get massive inflation and that will take care of the debt - and you too.
You see, printing money is itself hugely inflationary.

I quote Dr. Niall Ferguson: in the following he writes about federal government debt and, of course, there is also state government debt which I haven't even quoted.

"Critics of western democracy are right to discern that something is amiss with our political institutions. The most obvious symptoms of the malaise are huge debts we have managed to accumulate in recent decades, which (unlike in the past) cannot largely be blamed on wars.......

Often these debts are discussed as if they themselves are the problem and the result is a rather sterile argument between proponents of 'austerity' and 'stimulus'. I want to suggest that they are a consequence of a more profound institutional malfunction.

The heart of the matter is the way public debt allows the current generation of voters to live at the expense of those as yet too young to vote or as yet unborn. In this regard, the statistics commonly cited as government debt are themselves deeply misleading, for they encompass only the sums owned by governments in the form of bonds.....But the official debts in the form of bonds do not include the often far larger unfunded liabilities of welfare schemes like - to give the biggest American programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.....

To illustrate the magnitude of the American problem, the economist Laurence Kotlikoff calculates that to eliminate the federal government's fiscal gap would require an immediate 64% increase in all federal taxes or an immediate 40% cut in ALL federal expenditures."(pp41-42) 'The Great Degeneration:; How Institutions Decay and Economies Die', Penguin, 2012.

Notice that Dr. Ferguson's book was written 12 years ago and that American debt has increased exponentially since then. UNFUNDED liabilities = DEBT.

And now the cry, "Tax the Rich", in three, two, one.....