The United States appears to have reached an inflection point in its relationship with the rest of the world. On the one hand, a new administration is eager to reengage with both allies and competitors, reasserting the role of global leader that the United States has claimed since World War II. On the other hand, something has changed. Former partners, made wary by indications of US withdrawal from the global stage, no longer look to the United States for leadership. Current adversaries, emboldened by apparent US apathy toward their breaching of international norms, are no longer cowed into restraint.
Our two guests—one a renowned academic, author, and strategic consultant, and the other a retired senior officer with almost four decades of practical experience working with partner nations—describe this change from the point of view of the United States as representing a drastic loss of global influence. Together they discuss how it came about, why it matters, and what can be done to reverse this perception of decline.
Michael K. Nagata retired from the US Army in 2019 as a lieutenant general after thirty-eight years of active duty, with thirty-four years in US special operations. During his career he led multiple joint special operations task forces across more than a dozen countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, and commanded Special Operations Command–Central—the headquarters responsible for all US special operations across the Middle East. His final position was director of strategy for the National Counterterrorism Center from 2016 to 2019.
Dr. Anthony Cordesman is the Arleigh A. Burke chair in strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He is the author of a wide range of studies on US security policy, energy policy, and Middle East policy and has served as a consultant to the Departments of State and Defense during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He served as part of General Stanley McChrystal’s civilian advisory group during the formation of a new strategy in Afghanistan and has since acted as a consultant to various elements of the US military and NATO.
The two discuss how controlling the information environment has supplanted armed conflict as the means by which nations and other actors achieve their objectives. They explain why the ability to project influence is an all-important component of strategic power and how the United States has fallen far behind its adversaries in this competition.
The causes of this decline, they claim, have more to do with bureaucratic self-interest, service parochialism, and a culture of risk aversion than with any lack of capability. Successive US administrations, blinkered by the post-9/11 fight against terrorism, have focused on acquiring the wrong capabilities and platforms, preparing for the cauldron of high-end conflict while potential antagonists steal the march, using other means to achieve their objectives.
Our guests do much more than offer their opinions. Every point they make is backed by facts and examples—painting a picture of a changing global landscape that is inimical to US national interests and values. But, they argue, all is not lost. If the United States is prepared to make some fundamental changes in organization and outlook, the nation can again reassert its claim to be a force for good on the global stage.
The Irregular Warfare Podcast is a collaboration between the Modern War Institute and Princeton University’s Empirical Studies of Conflict Project. You can listen to the full episode below, and you can find it and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, TuneIn, or your favorite podcast app. And be sure to follow the podcast on Twitter!
Image credit: kremlin.ru
The answer is as simple as it is obvious: we have allied ourselves with and ourselves committed great evil in the world – specifically in the Mideast – which has repelled the rest of the world which now would (however secretly/discreetly) like to see us taken down like arrogant and cruel Athens was in the ancient world.
We supplied al Nusrah/Qaeda and ISIS terrorists with Libyan etc. weapons – that ISIS pickup truck purchased in Texas? – and we again hesitate to criticize Israel for again provoking the Palestinians and then again murderously bombing them in their Gaza Ghetto.
And our 2014 Kiev coup has the world on the brink of another world war – this time a planetary nuclear holocaust – as we saw this very year when the Russians massed their forces on Ukraine's border determined to prevent it from joining our "interventionist"/aggressor, anti-Russia NATO (axis).
Note the 2011-2012 Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal in Malaysia resulting in the conviction if not punishment (for our "WMDs"-fraudulent Iraq war of aggression) of President GW Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair and others … followed by the questionably coincidental crashes of 2 Malaysian airliners.
And equally important, RAND warned Congress a couple years ago that China is a (nuclear) superpower equal to us. (Maybe we could destroy them 10 times over and they us only 1-2 times, but 1 is enough, so ….)
So we have "confrontationally" pitted ourselves into 1:2 nuclear superpower odds which are suicidal if they are resolved … and the rest of the world can see this.
And China now has the largest navy in the world, whether or not it has in fact become the most powerful in the world (but there is its ally Russia's navy too), which is very visible to the rest of the world.
And there is China's visibly worldwide merchant fleet.
Over 20 years ago, there were a few of us warning about China's intentions – I remember a MIPB magazine issue devoted to Asia and it contained an article on China.
One of the problems is that there have been many politicians enamored with the country, others have made considerable profits, and others who think they understand the communist government. Meanwhile, China has smiled and continued its own way towards dominance of its neighbors and its ventures on the world stage. Any interference and the litany of "interfering in its internal matters" or pointing out the offender's faults (real or not) becomes their last comment on the subject.
After so many years of making excuses for their actions or ignoring them, it's no wonder they think we are weak and/or our only interest is money.
Since the 1980s, the "model" that the U.S./the West has presented to the world, this is a model which says that everything — to include governments and governance, and indeed traditional jobs, values, beliefs and institutions — these must be sacrificed and/or be adapted — this, to better provide for the needs of the market (this approach having certain adverse consequences, as noted immediately below):
“All in all, the 1980s and 1990s were a Hayekian moment, when his once untimely liberalism came to be seen as timely. The intensification of market competition, internally and within each nation, created a more innovative and dynamic brand of capitalism. That in turn gave rise to a new chorus of laments that, as we have seen, have recurred since the eighteenth century: Community was breaking down; traditional ways of life were being destroyed; identities were thrown into question; solidarity was being undermined; egoism unleashed; wealth made conspicuous amid new inequality; philistinism was triumphant.”
(From the book “The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought,” in this case, from the section therein on Friedrich Hayek)
Nations such as Russia — seeing an opening and an opportunity here — have stepped in to offer the world a much-less harsh "model" — one which seems to appeal even to significant populations in the U.S./the West:
“In his annual appeal to the Federal Assembly in December 2013, Putin formulated this ‘independent path’ ideology by contrasting Russia’s ‘traditional values’ with the liberal values of the West. He said: ‘We know that there are more and more people in the world who support our position on defending traditional values that have made up the spiritual and moral foundation of civilization in every nation for thousands of years: the values of traditional families, real human life, including religious life, not just material existence but also spirituality, the values of humanism and global diversity.’ He proclaimed that Russia would defend and advance these traditional values in order to ‘prevent movement backward and downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state.’
(See the Wilson Center publication “Kennan Cable No. 53” and, therein, the article “Russia’s Traditional Values and Domestic Violence,” by Olimpiada Usanova, dated 1 June 2020.)
“Compounding it all, Russia’s dictator has achieved all of this while creating sympathy in elements of the Right that mirrors the sympathy the Soviet Union achieved in elements of the Left. In other words, Putin is expanding Russian power and influence while mounting a cultural critique that resonates with some American audiences, casting himself as a defender of Christian civilization against Islam and the godless, decadent West.”
(See the “National Review” item entitled: “How Russia Wins” by David French.)
“Russian efforts to weaken the West through a relentless campaign of information warfare may be starting to pay off, cracking a key bastion of the U.S. line of defense: the military. While most Americans still see Moscow as a key U.S. adversary, new polling suggests that view is changing, most notably among the households of military members.”
(See the “Voice of America” item entitled: “Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among U.S. Troops” by Jeff Seldin.)