American Military Hegemony

[Orange 'n Black]

I found this on Reddit this evening and found it cogent and interesting. I pretty much agree with all that is said. Thoughts?

[quote]

Well, by keeping SK secure we are also keeping ourselves secure.
As yep45 pointed out, if American military hegemony would diminish, you would see the rise of regional actors. These regional actors usually don't see eye-to-eye with us. Take Asia for example, if America left, China would likely become the dominating regional power. Forget the hate we get from there now, the hate that would be leveled at China would make Psy's anti-American comments seem quaint. Not only would many countries in Asia suddenly find themselves feeling less secure, but China would have enough power to rival America.
There are different school of thought on the topic, but in simple terms you have two camps. One camp says that international stability necessitates a uni-polar global state (not as in one world government, but as in one state that has global hegemony), while the other camp says that a multi-polar global state ensures regional stability, which they see as the foundation for global stability. Put another way, one camp says we need a giant to protect the village, and the others says if all the villagers have equal(ish) power, then we don't need that giant. Both camps make valid points, and both camps can point to various times in history where their philosophy makes perfect sense.
But consider WW1 and WW2. Both of these wars occurred during multi-polar global states and were pretty much terrible for everyone involved, however, in times of unipolarity, there are less casualties of war (there is debate about this, but the debate is about who is considered a causality of war). People, and states, will always seek power, and in times where the power is multipolar you will get arms races, this is especially true in bi-polar situations (US/USSR Cold War for example). Whenever your neighbor gets powerful, you will try to match it, which continues the cycle. Have you ever played Risk? You know how sometimes there will be border wars...there will be an unspoken truce where two players won't attack each other, but will still build up armies on their border [i]just in case[/i]. Eventually, those armies will fight, and the very act of them being there causes as much instability as it does stability. But, if there is one single hegemonic power whose capabilities are so far in excess of anyone else, then catching up to that hegemon is impractical, and any attempt at doing so could be seen as aggressive.
Its tough to say if the world would benefit from a multi-polar power structure as opposed to the unipolar structure we have now. Although frankly, I believe that if American hegemony were to diminish it could be bad not just for America, but the whole world. Love it or hate it, the American military is performing a global service (the degree to which this is warranted is debatable), and that global service keeps America safe.
Now, is it America's duty to do so? That is debatable. Certainly keeping countries like China and Iran pushed into a corner is infinitely better for America than letting those countries get control of a region, especially if that region contains American allies. But maybe it would also bring about some positive change. If Iran controlled the ME, then maybe that would spur America, and the rest of the world, to get off oil faster. If China controlled Asia, there might be a move to stop giving them all our business and actually rein in our debt owed to them.
In most cases, having American hegemony is a win-win for client nations, while its a win-win-win for America. Take Europe for example. The American military presence means that Europeans can underfund their military since America is essentially picking up the slack. Europe stays safe, and doesn't pay much for that luxury. America meanwhile also benefits, although in a less concrete way than our European citizenry counterparts. America pays a tremendous amount of money, but in exchange they get political leverage, strategic location, and a guarantee of safety for doing business in this region. If we pull out of Europe, and lets say Russia steps in to fill the void (somebody would fill the void), now we lose leverage in Europe, business becomes more troublesome, and we would have to rely on the Russians for a guarantee of safety.
American hegemony benefits almost everyone because American hegemony means the Chinese don't have to worry about keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, the US navy does that, it means Taiwan doesn't have to worry about a Chinese invasion, it means other countries need not invest in regional stability (at the cost of not being able to expand regionally) because America is already doing that. If American military hegemony dropped off, you would see a meteoric rise in military expenditures from regional powerhouses like China, Russia, Brazil, and South Africa. Similarly, if merely the confidence in American hegemony diminished, you would see regional actors testing our response and strengths. Would that be good for America? No. And with all the hate we have generated over generations we would also be less safe. Although it is a bit of a vicious cycle in that we generate hate by keeping ourselves safe.
Again, you could make the debate that a multi-polar state would be safer for everyone because everyone has some semblance of power, but I disagree, I believe the more people you have in a room, the more likely there will be a fist fight, especially when no two people in that room share a common culture. Do I think America should be the hegemon? No. America clearly pays an extreme cost ([i]EDIT[/i]: smeaglelovesmaster correctly pointed out that this includes hidden costs like under investment in American healthcare and infrastructre) and reaps only tangential rewards. But the United Nations is too ineffective and prone to doing stupid stuff (although the same could easily be said about America). Ultimately though, I believe that the task of maintaining international stability should be an international effort, but as long as nations have standing armies, that will never happen.
As it is right now, it is in American interests to remain the hegemon because it allows American policy to be executed at a grander scale...of course this is precisely the reason why other nations will blast American hegemony. America's hegemonic powers have made the world a more peaceful place...there hasn't been a third world war after all. As a matter of fact, I would wager that WW3 would kick off precisely as American military hegemony begins to wane. There is a lot of pent-up regional aggression that is just waiting to come out, but as long as America can interrupt any would-be invasions, they'll never be attempted.
So in all, its my opinion that American military hegemony is a necessary evil. It is what allows American interests to be carried out abroad, and it gives great confidence to private businesses if they know the American military is keeping the region safe. After all, say what you will about the atrocities committed by the American military, they have made the world much safer than it was 100 years ago. Would the world have been safe if both America and Russia had been equals through today? I don't know, but I would be willing to say no. What if every continent had a hegemonic power? Again I don't know, but I do believe things would have been less peaceful and less beneficial to America.
It is a tough question, but I do believe that the world is a safer place with only one hegemon rather than a few hegemons (like it was before American hegemony). But is it America's place to be that hegemon? That is debatable. I don't trust that the job America's military does could be performed as effectively by an international coalition, but I also don't like that we as Americans have such a massive military expenditure. So what to do? I don't know. America shouldn't be the only player in international stability (although, from a policy perspective I understand why we would want to be), but I am distrustful of how stable things would remain if we ceded power to countries like China and Russia, or even France and Israel for that matter. I don't trust other militaries to do a good job compared to America mostly because the American military has decades of experience, has infrastructure in place, and is highly advanced. We paid all this money to have the best military on Earth, and we use that military to keep others out of power (and us in power), which in turn creates international stability strong enough for there to be a McDonalds almost everywhere. Is it good? Is it right? That depends on who you ask, but I for one would much rather see American hegemony that at least advocates for democracy and human rights (hypocritically in some cases), than say global hegemony by the Chinese or Russians who laugh at ideas like democracy and human rights. Is it worth the price? I don't know, but I do believe we would see more global conflicts without the giant guarding the village.
[/quote]

[sois]

thats not from reddit, or there would be a tl;dr version

[Orange 'n Black]

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1356400544' post='1198857']
thats not from reddit, or there would be a tl;dr version
[/quote]

Haha it was a bestof post, so it was a comment to some other thread... but if there was a tl;dr it would be "Just read, too complicated for tl;dr"

[|Bunghole|]

I'd like to revisit this topic sometime soon. It's Christmas and there's an AR-15 under the tree.

I keed, I keed!

[|Numbers|]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1356444284' post='1198935']
I'd like to revisit this topic sometime soon. It's Christmas and there's an AR-15 under the tree.

I keed, I keed!
[/quote]

[img]http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/SantaGuns_620x350.jpg[/img]

[BengalBacker]

To sum up what I took from it, should we be the world police? I think we have to whether we want to or not.