It’s always somewhat embarrassing to agree with Thomas Friedman. So when he switches from trumpeting the US as the new hyperpower to the end of hyperpower argument I was making all along,, it struck me that it might be time to reconsider whether I need to change my own views. But, that would be excessively contrarian.
As an aside, looking back at Friedman’s 2004 piece, the Gulliver trope is lifted straight from Josef Joffe who I linked in my earlier post. But then Joffe lifted it himself, apparently from this piece by Daniel Bourmaud in 1998.
A central lesson of this experience (of course, not one that Friedman or Joffe is ever likely to learn) is that the whole idea of a military hyperpower is a nonsense. The idea that military force can be used for any positive purpose (that is, other than as a defensive response to the use of military force by others) persists despite a lack of any significant supporting evidence. The US crusade in Iraq has cost, or will cost $3 trillion (not to mention the lives of thousands of American, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis). That’s more than the US would spend on official development assistance for the whole world in 100 years at current rates (and the lion’s share of ODA goes to supporting military/geopolitical goals – the poorest countries get less than $10 billion a year between them). Things have gone pretty badly in Iraq, but even supposing that the ultimate outcome had been a stable and prosperous democracy, it’s clear that the benefit-cost ratio would be very low. You get a similar answer if you look at the whole period since Macarthur pushed on to the Yalu river back in 1950. And by comparison with other countries that have tried to use military power to pursue foreign policy goals, the US has done much better (or rather, much less badly) than anyone else .
{ 36 comments }
Frank 09.07.10 at 5:04 am
I think you are mistaken about where this is coming from. This is just the usual villager effort to cut a Democratic president off at the knees. Friedman wouldn’t be making a case for thrift if a Republican were president. Thrift is being argued for now simply to reduce Obama’s scope for action.
Matthew 09.07.10 at 5:33 am
The US can’t afford to invade Grenada? I don’t believe that.
Ombrageux 09.07.10 at 5:59 am
Friedman is so friggin’ *inane*. He doesn’t have thoughts so much as analogies and metaphors made really really dumb children.
As to the Gulliver trope, is a 500+ page book by Stanley Hoffmann published way back in 1968. (“Gulliver’s Troubles”) So I don’t blame people for stealing it, it’s quite normal. I believe in the Hindu religion the god of thieves and the god of writers is one and the same.
Actually, this David Brooks article is kind of funny: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Henri Vieuxtemps 09.07.10 at 6:11 am
This is just the usual villager effort to cut a Democratic president off at the knees.
No, this sounds like his contribution to the effort (Democratic president’s effort, in fact) to cut social security.
Frank 09.07.10 at 6:55 am
I must have missed where Friedman talks about cutting social security.
Henri Vieuxtemps 09.07.10 at 7:23 am
Read again. Seems pretty clear: if social security is not cut, terrorists win.
Zamfir 09.07.10 at 7:28 am
@Frank: the entire article is about “frugality” andhow the US can’t afford to be a hyperpower anymore. It’s clearly something he feels is a bad thing. From there to “we need to cut domestic spending so we don’t lose our powers” is not a ridiculous step.
I prefer to be more straight in my principles than JQ above. Friedman says the US cannot afford to be a hyperpower, so clearly the US can afford to be a hyperpower.
All the US has to do is stop caring about “invading” and “bringing democracy”, and simply go back to bombing and supporting friendly dictators. They clearly can still afford to do that to most places on earth.
Earnest O'Nest 09.07.10 at 7:34 am
I hope no libertarians are listening to Zamfir because it is indeed so much more efficient to go & support some dictators than to send in actual troops. In other words: Bush was a moron (* 2).
Henri Vieuxtemps 09.07.10 at 8:32 am
Well, if you just support dictators, they get uppity. And if you then bomb them, sometimes they get stubborn. As Tom says, “sometimes it takes a 2-by-4 across the side of the head to get that message.”
Frank 09.07.10 at 9:46 am
Thats not why they want to fight the wars. Defence contractors make more money in full scale war.
Frank 09.07.10 at 10:13 am
To clarify Saddam wasn’t “uppity” by any reasonable standard. He was all but slavishly obedient. Remember he got permission to invade Kuwait.
Uncle Kvetch 09.07.10 at 10:45 am
At present rates, and with the baby boomers soon starting to draw on Social Security and Medicare, by 2050 “they will account for a full 18 percent of everything the United States produces.â€
I’m with Henri Vieuxtemps on this. This is a call for cutting entitlements, pure and simple. In order for the rest of the world to continue to Suck On This, those spoiled baby boomers are going to need to suck it up.
Steve LaBonne 09.07.10 at 12:16 pm
The neocons have been making noises like this for quite a few years now- as usual (and as per the original post), Airmiles is nothing if not unoriginal.
Zamfir 09.07.10 at 12:29 pm
Is a post on Friedman “engaging with the Left”? Some part of me thinks that might actually be the case, and cries.
Uncle Kvetch 09.07.10 at 1:31 pm
The neocons have been making noises like this for quite a few years now- as usual (and as per the original post), Airmiles is nothing if not unoriginal.
Yes, and it’s interesting that John Q read this the way he did. Friedman lays out two choices: we tighten our belts in order to continue living out our destiny as The Indispensable Nation, or we resign ourselves to being, in his words, “rich but wimpy” like the Europeans. (It truly is all about vicarious butchness with this clown, isn’t it?)
And what we American readers know instinctively, whether we like it or not, is that the second option is not an option. Our Overton window simply does not encompass a European-style, post-imperial future for this country. It is unthinkable.
Friedman doesn’t state this explicitly because he doesn’t have to — it’s too banal even for him.
Bloix 09.07.10 at 2:44 pm
Dean Baker reads the Friedman column as an ignorant and disingenuous call to cut Social Security:
“That mamouth waterfall of ignorance, Thomas Friedman, is at it again…
Friedman tells readers that the United States will be in bad financial shape because of all the money needed to bail ourselves out of the recession and also due to the growth in cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security… [Friedman] repeats what his “tutor and friend Michael Mandelbaum” told him:
“‘In 2008’, Mandelbaum notes ‘all forms of government-supplied pensions and health care (including Medicaid) constituted about 4 percent of total American output.’ At present rates, and with the baby boomers soon starting to draw on Social Security and Medicare, by 2050 ‘they will account for a full 18 percent of everything the United States produces.'”
… [I]n the real world, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid accounted for 9.4 percent of GDP in 2008. The projections show that the vast majority of the projected increase in costs in these programs is due to health care costs. However, people who want to cut Social Security lump the program in with the health care programs to advance their agenda.
The post health care reform projections actually show a much slower rate of growth for Medicare and Medicaid. Apparently, Mr. Friedman was not aware of the reform. If the U.S. paid per person health care costs that were comparable to those in any other wealthy country, then the country would be looking at huge long-term budget surpluses.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/
JM 09.07.10 at 2:50 pm
Thomas’ cab driver sure does talk a lot.
LFC 09.07.10 at 7:23 pm
JQ’s post ignores or glosses over one of Friedman’s main arguments in this column: namely, that US military power has underwritten certain “global public goods” — an open trading system, open shipping lanes, etc. Therefore when the ‘hyperpower’ ceases to be one, the result will be an increase in global disorder. I am not sympathetic to this argument, which is a fairly standard one in certain ‘liberal’ circles, but it’s worth acknowledging that this argument rests less on the presumed direct utility of military power in achieving foreign policy goals than on its (claimed) indirect effects.
chris 09.07.10 at 9:12 pm
US military power has underwritten certain “global public goodsâ€â€”an open trading system, open shipping lanes, etc. Therefore when the ‘hyperpower’ ceases to be one, the result will be an increase in global disorder.
Doesn’t this presuppose the hypothesis that these institutions can’t be maintained by a group of nations that interact with each other as peers? Does that hypothesis really hold up to examination of historical periods without a hegemon (even leaving aside the possibility that things like lightspeed communications could lead nations today to coordinate *better* than in the past)?
John Quiggin 09.07.10 at 9:36 pm
As regards open shipping lanes, the US, with eleven carrier battle groups at its disposal, appears no better able than anyone else to deal with Somali pirates. The key problem (amazingly, given that this is the US we are talking about) appears to be a lack of good lawyers.
Tom T. 09.07.10 at 9:56 pm
The US can’t afford to invade Grenada? I don’t believe that.
We are bit by bit going to war in Yemen now, after all.
LFC 09.07.10 at 10:27 pm
chris @19: Does that hypothesis really hold up to examination of historical periods without a hegemon …?
I’m not up on the lit. on ‘hegemonic stability theory’ (HST). However if you take, say, the 20 yr. period 1965-1985 (Cold War; no hegemon), I doubt that trade etc. ran much less smoothly than in the 20 yrs from 1990 to 2010. Which would support your point. Kindleberger in The World in Depression based his HST-style argument on the ’30s, but that was an exceptional (exceptionally bad) period.
JQ @20: point taken (well, the first sentence; perhaps you could elaborate on the ref. to lawyers).
John Quiggin 09.08.10 at 1:32 am
As regards lawyers, the key problems are:
(1) No legal way of catching pirates except in the act
(2) Nothing much to do with them when caught except confiscate their boats and weapons and dump them ashore – they can’t be tried in Somalia and taking them to the captors jurisdiction risks having them apply for asylum when their jail time is done/
Bloix 09.08.10 at 1:39 am
Piracy has to be supported from the land. When pirates have safe havens, it doesn’t matter how many battle groups you have. The problem is that Somalia is a failed state.
roac 09.08.10 at 3:07 am
Current efforts to control the Somali pirates are highly international in nature. The operation can be followed, at least to some extent, here. The most recent report from the Arabian Sea:
“A combination of naval forces involving NATO, the EU and Japanese military cooperated on Aug 29 to save two merchant ships from pirates. First the pirates launched an attack on the 51,964-gt Hoegh Oslo (IMO 9382396) coming from Jeddah, but aborted their attempt after the arrival of a military aircraft. Later they closed in on the 16,382-gt Panama-flagged Caribbean Carrier 1 until the arrival of a Japanese patrol aircraft from the Japanese Maritime Self Defence unit based at Djibouti, which noted details of the skiff with seven suspected pirates on board. The Japanese alerted a Danish warship under NATO command, the Esbern Snare, which launched its helicopter to intercept the skiff. On sighting the helicopter the suspected pirates threw their weapons overboard and made signs of surrender. The Danish helicopter was joined by another chopper from an Italian ship also under NATO command. Subsequently a US warship, USS Kauffman which is also operating under NATO command sent personnel to board the skiff where they found a ladder similar to those used by pirates to board ships as well as other materials including spent and unspent ammunition. The pirates were disarmed and later released.”
The Kauffman would be a destroyer. Nothing any bigger would be of any use, and most especially not an aircraft carrier group.
John Quiggin 09.08.10 at 8:21 am
@roac Yes, all of that is pretty much my point. As far as ensuring open shipping lanes is concerned, the US is on a par with Denmark (and neither can do much more than disarm and release the pirates).
ajay 09.08.10 at 9:04 am
. Nothing any bigger would be of any use, and most especially not an aircraft carrier group.
A carrier would be useful, as would an LHD or similar, because you can fly helicopters off it. A destroyer can only carry one or two. A carrier could take fifty or more.
roac 09.08.10 at 1:19 pm
JQ — yes, I was conscious of making your point. Although if it were not for modern notions about due process and the like, a more lasting sanction would be an option, namely walking the plank. Not that I am for that, though you don’t have to dig very deep into the internet to find people who are.
ajay — yes, I can see if you took all the jets off a carrier and replaced them with helicopters, you could chase all the pirate skiffs out of a substantial area of sea for a good length of time. But the people in charge of the jets would be very unhappy, and I bet they have more than enough influence to keep it from happening.
(Can anyone tell me, BTW, what it was about no. 25 that sent it to moderation?)
ajay 09.08.10 at 1:45 pm
28: well, an LHD or LPD would be what you want, really, with a well deck full of RHIBs and LCACs and a deck covered in Seahawks. Carriers don’t have well decks.
The Royal Navy stripped the air group off (I think) Ark Royal for the invasion of Iraq, so it could be used to carry all the helicopters for 3 Cdo Bde. But given that you only get to command a USN carrier if you’re a fast-jet monkey, I agree it’s unlikely that the USN would do the same..
chris 09.08.10 at 6:21 pm
(2) Nothing much to do with them when caught except confiscate their boats and weapons and dump them ashore – they can’t be tried in Somalia and taking them to the captors jurisdiction risks having them apply for asylum when their jail time is done
I don’t see what’s so terrible about the prospect that they *might* apply for asylum after a prison term. Even assuming that Somalia remained a failed state when their term was up, is that grounds for asylum? (And if so, why aren’t they sailing their boats to other nearby countries that are functional, and applying already, instead of running all the risks of piracy?) They certainly couldn’t justify an asylum request with the fact that they’d face the repercussions of their own criminal acts.
If worse comes to worst and the arresting nation finds itself with no option but to grant the asylum claim down the line, at least the pirates have been taken off the seas for the term of their sentence — indeed, permanently, if they resettle in the arresting nation and find jobs there. (Presuming they would be taught a relevant language and perhaps some job skills during their incarceration.) And the asylum grant can be made susceptible to revocation in the event of sufficiently serious crime, if it isn’t already.
The pirates of Somalia are pirates primarily out of desperation; change their circumstances and you will change their behavior.
roac 09.08.10 at 7:01 pm
ajay, I am sorry if I have unwittingly misrepresented myself as someone who knows what an LCAC is. My naval knowledge ends in 1945 — ask me the difference between a DD and a DE and I can tell you.
Just to show, I see that the USS Kauffman, which I referred to as destroyer, is actually a frigate, and I don’t even know what that means. Though for purposes of this thread “same difference” is surely a valid answer.
zamfir 09.08.10 at 7:06 pm
A CPG with TKAs and some RAGs would work too, especially if you added some STRs and HFHKs. You could replace the RAGs with a mix of JT.Js and FDDSes, and use HUVs for SAL
Norwegian Guy 09.08.10 at 9:00 pm
Thomas Friedman says that the US can’t afford both guns and butter. Therefore he wants to Americans to get less butter (social security, etc.), so that they can wage more wars. But I somehow think that he has no intention of getting less butter for himself…
John Quiggin 09.09.10 at 10:51 am
As quite a few commenters have observed, even with close reading of the American press, my Australian background lets me down. In Oz, an explicit argument that “more guns=less butter”, would (in the absence of a plausible threat of actual invasion), instantly imply “less guns”. The only generally acceptable argument for “more guns” is “we have to keep the Yanks onside, so they’ll rescue us if someone wants to invade”
As more culturally attuned readers have noted,things are very different in the US. The assumption seems to be that, provided America can impose its will anywhere in the world, the fact that its own citizens may be ragged and starving is a secondary problem.
chris 09.09.10 at 1:45 pm
The assumption seems to be that, provided America can impose its will anywhere in the world, the fact that its own citizens may be ragged and starving is a secondary problem.
This isn’t quite bleak enough. For a substantial number of Americans, the fact that certain *other* Americans are ragged and starving is a Good Thing. Because, after all, what else but the fear of that outcome could motivate the lazy [insert insult here]s to actually do any work?
roac 09.09.10 at 3:43 pm
ajay @29 said: an LHD or LPD would be what you want
Well, now we know what an LPD is. Is ajay in line to be CNO?
Comments on this entry are closed.