50
US Hegemony and Military Primacy Andres Gannon, UC Berkeley
US Hegemony and Military Primacy
Andres Gannon, UC Berkeley
Section 1 – What is it?
Definition•Hegemony is a condition of dominance in
the international system•Hegemony is not a strategy, it is a goal or
the result of other strategies
Hegemony in international relations•Goal of the United States and all other
powers is hegemony•Regional hegemons have always existed•Arguable about whether or not there has
ever been a global hegemony
Section 2 – Determinants of Hegemony
Economic Power•The productive capacity of a state or
territory that it rules over•What can a state make?•How efficiently can it do it?
Financial Power•Distinct from economic power because it
is about how much money a government can raise and how it manages its funds
•US has had strong financial and economic power since 1919 due to victory in both world wars
•The US was able to make a lot of equipment and lend huge amounts of money to our allies
Soft Power•The cultural appeal of a country•Intangible reputation•How attractive values are to others•Respect for their way of life
Military Power•The ability to impose your will onto others•It allows us to quickly defeat adversaries
Relationship between determinantsEconomic
Power
Financial Power
Soft Power
Military Power
Relationship between determinants•No one factor can maintain hegemony•Soviet Union 1980
Section 3 – US National Security Strategy
U.S. National Security StrategyGrand Strategy
Military StrategyMilitary
Operations
Tactics
Doctrine
Grand Strategy•Plan to direct all assets at the disposal of
our government towards the broadest ends of American interest▫Homeland security▫International peace▫Prevention of global wars▫Democracy▫Economic prosperity▫Human rights
Grand Strategy
Military Strategy
Military Operations
Tactics
Doctrine
Military Strategy•Military portion of grand strategy•Where are our military assets deployed
Grand Strategy
Military Strategy
Military Operations
Tactics
Doctrine
Operations•Only relevant in war-time•Describes how we fight a series of battles
(a campaign) to fulfill the plans laid down•Goal of operations is to fulfill strategic
goals and military strategy
Grand Strategy
Military Strategy
Military Operations
Tactics
Doctrine
Tactical•Methods that units use to achieve specific
battle field tasks▫Pinning an enemy by flanking them on both
sides▫Guerilla warfare tactic▫Capturing strategic terrain (hill)
Grand Strategy
Military Strategy
Military Operations
Tactics
Doctrine
Doctrine•Rules we create to govern the use of force
and methods we use to fight▫Counterinsurgency▫Counterterrorism
•The way we implement a doctrine in a specific country is a strategy
Grand Strategy
Military Strategy
Military Operations
Tactics
Doctrine
World War II ExampleGran
d Strategy – Unconditionally defeat the Axis of
Evil
Military Strategy – In Pacific Ocean, use US power to crush Japan’s main fleet and close in
until they were forced to submit
Military Operations – Assault the islands one by one
Tactical – launching shells from battle ships with a low level trajectory, destroy Japanese guns and flamethrowers
Doctrine – use firepower to crush Japanese defenses and then use a frontal assault on the beaches (amphibious assault)
Military strategy on the topic•Most affirmatives occur at the level of
military strategy•How are goals accomplished with the
military in general•Withdrawing all forces from one country
changes military strategy
Section 4 –Key Terms, Ideas, and People
Synonyms•Hegemony•Primacy•Leadership•Global cop•Pax Americana•Unipolarity•Unilateralism•Military dominance•Global superiority
Key Authors•Khalilzad, Stillgood•Robert Kagan•Lieber and Press•Charles Krauthammer•Thayer•Brooks and Wohlforth•Joseph Nye•Colin Gray•Mandelbaum•Max Boot
Key Sources•Carnegie Endowment•Council on Foreign Relations•Heritage Foundation
Polarity•Unipolarity – only one great power exists•Bipolarity – two powerful states that
dominate all the others•Multipolarity – many states of equivalent
power
“-lateralism”•Unilateralism – acting alone without
making policies dependent on what allies think
•Multilateralism – acting with others and engaging in cooperation and consultation
•Bilateralism – acting or cooperating with another power, often of equal power
Balancing•Offshore Balancing – Withdrawing our
foreign commitments and maintaining our military and international presence from the mainland
•Counterbalancing – When countries line up against the United States so that their combined power matched or exceeds that of the hegemon
•Softbalancing – diplomatic friction against a hegemon when countries are hesitant to cooperate or support hegemonic military action
Section 5 – Sustainability
Key Factors•Economics
▫Forward deployment, army, navy, tech, free riders
•Counter-balancing▫Adversaries who don’t like taking orders
•Decadence▫Spirit of sacrifice causes power▫22,000 Central Pacific v 4,000 Iraq▫100,000 British
Key Factors•Overstretch
▫Forces get spread thin•Relative Decline
▫Rise of other challengers causes multipolarity
▫Relative power•History
▫Rome, Sparta, Athens, Persia, Greece, Aztecs, Mayans, Chinese, Mongols, Spanish…US?
The Case for Sustainability•American exceptionalism
▫Democratic▫Western hemisphere▫No counterbalancing▫No direct colonization▫Geography
•Relative dominance▫Spend more on defense than next 10-25 countries▫Economy is third globally▫Fight 3 wars at a time
The Case for Sustainability•Absence of peer competitors
▫China can’t win wars▫Russia is poor and can’t win wars either▫Europe is internally divided and lazy
•Better than alternatives▫China is hated▫Russia is crazy
Why Sustainability Matters•If decline can be avoided (if hegemony is
sustainable) then it is easier to win that it is desirable
•If decline is inevitable, strategies to maintain it may be bad and we should shift now to ensure a stable and peaceful transition
Section 5 – Desirability
Great Power Wars•Smaller powers have an incentive to
cooperate with a greater power because the US can punish them military
•Multipolar systems are problematic because the margins of power between actors is low
•Europe 1914
Rise of Hostile Competitors•Strong US can deter others from even
trying to upset the international system
Regional Wars•US can intervene in wars between weaker
states▫Bosnia, 1994▫Kosovo, 1998▫Gulf War, 1991▫North Korea, TBA▫India-Pakistan, TBA▫China-Taiwan, TBA▫Israel-Iran, TBA
Cooperation•Bandwagoning – when smaller states
follow the lead of a hegemon and support them rather than counterbalancing
•Encourages cooperation on economic, environmental, and health issues
Transition Wars•Regardless of whether hegemony is good
or bad, decline should be avoided because the transition to a new system will be violent
•Rising powers would lash out to undermine US standing
•US would lash out to prevent a rising power from overwhelming us
Power Vacuum•No one else can fill in causing global
fragmentation (Dark Ages)•Partial fill in causes spheres of influence
▫China dominates East Asia▫Russia reabsorbs former Soviet states
Section 6 – Undesirability
Multipolarity Solves•More stable, aggressive posture
encourages hostility when power erodes•Spheres of influence good
Terrorism•Causes resentment in the Middle East
▫Occupation▫Hostility
Proliferation•Causes asymetrical strategies to compete
with us since they can’t compete conventionally
•Nuclear weapons pack a hard punch
Counter-balancing•Others band together against the US
which can escalate regional wars and disputes▫Russia-China
Intervention•Hegemony makes us more likely to
intervene in conflicts where we don’t belong▫Vietnam▫Iraq
Section 7 - Conclusion
Key Arguments•Sustainability•Resentment inevitable•Reintervention•Transition•Fill in•Balancing
