Death of a superpower

Announcing the impending visit to New Delhi of the American Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, the Pentagon stressed that 'the US-India relationship is a priority for the United States government', one of the 'defining partnerships of the 21st century'.

During the visit, Panetta may sign deals to supply his host with modern ultra-light howitzers and helicopter gunships. This would underline the increasing significance of the linkage with India, which is of considerable importance in the light of the USA's diminishing dominance as the world's 'sole superpower'.

The American decline became apparent as early as November 2004, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit held in Santiago de Chile - at which President George W Bush of the USA looked isolated, while Chinese President Hu Jintao was the centre of attention. In a monograph published in 2005 by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, national security specialist Dr R. Evan Ellis, had this to say:

“While the US delegation came to APEC talking about terrorism, deficits, and the North Korean nuclear program, the Chinese highlighted their potential as a new source of foreign investment and an enormous market for the types of commodities that Latin America has to sell.”

APEC summit

He noted the increased Chinese military and diplomatic presence in the region. Of course, the Americans are extremely sensitive about the Caribbean and Central and South America, which the White House has traditionally considered its own 'back yard' since the formulation of the 'Monroe Doctrine' in 1823, disliking 'outsiders' gaining influence there. However, notwithstanding America's raw spot, the apprehensions of its analysts regarding the geopolitical significance of the APEC summit were not without foundation. America is increasingly seen as 'a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine'.

The Pew Research Centre's Global Attitudes Project, conducted in early 2011, found that in 15 of 22 countries, 'the balance of opinion is that China either will replace or already has replaced the United States as the world's leading superpower'. The uni-polar world which existed after the collapse of the Soviet Union has steadily given way to one in which the USA is displaced as a superpower, not by one single nation, but by the agglomeration known as BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

US treasury

The point at which this process began might be '9/11' - the attack on the New York World Trade Centre. The sense of security from foreign attack which the US had experienced since 1812 (with the nerve-jarring exception of the 1916 incursion by Pancho Villa's peasant 'Division of the North') was broken. However, more important for the decline in US power was the subsequent decision by the Bush regime to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. These adventures were expected to be short and the dividends were expected to flow back to America almost immediately, but instead became debilitating sores draining the USA of military and financial resources.

The Bush regime estimated the cost of the Iraq War at $ 50-60 billion. However, by August 2006, Linda Bilmes of the New York Times was reporting that but that the wars were about to cost the US treasury a trillion dollars. The Financial Times reported that the wars were being 'funded by debt on a national credit card that is being financed by China'.

Matt Kelley reported in USA Today in November 2006 that about 40 percent of US ground combat equipment was being used in Iraq and Afghanistan and the wars were wearing down military gear at about $2 billion cost per month. Units completing their tours of Iraq left much of their equipment behind, delaying maintenance and affecting training for future missions.

Other sources noted that equipment was being used at 6-10 times the peacetime rates, resulting in high breakdown rates. Replacement equipment was drawn from non-deployed units and pre-positioned stocks, limiting the ability of units to respond to contingencies outside Iraq and Afghanistan.

Manpower was also affected. Low 'killed in action figures' masked the large number of casualties - 7.5 times as many soldiers were being wounded as were killed. To cope with shortages, extended tours of duty were imposed on the National Guard and Reserves. This caused severe damage to military morale, affecting enlistment; consequently, recruitment standards were diluted.

Foreign policy

The USA had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan on the basis of a strategy unveiled in 2001, known as 'win-hold-win': to fight and win in one region while holding in another, then going in to finish the second region. This strategy became unsustainable, as most resources were bogged down in the two countries.

The result has been that the USA, which is responsible for half the military spending on the planet, is unable to intervene militarily with decisive effect anywhere. It depends heavily on its allies to maintain its untenable situation in Afghanistan despite having drawn out most of the forces it committed to Iraq.

Many of President Barack Obama's foreign policy errors resulted from the continued self-perception of the USA as a superpower 'global policeman' no longer tallying with the reality of a much-depleted potency. However, the Obama administration has recently come to terms with this diminution in status. This is revealed by its retreat from a warlike posture vis-a-vis Iran and by its overtures to India.

Not so the neo-conservatives who have driven much of US foreign policy since the Reaganite takeover of the 1980s. Many of the personnel, such as Robert Kagan, Eric Edelman, Elliot Cohen, Robert Joseph and Daniel Senor, who have now coalesced around the figure of the Republican Party contender for the presidency, Mitt Romney, were behind the disastrous post-2001 Bush policies. Their continued adhesion to their former, disastrously expansionist views - based on their illusory perception of America as the 'sole superpower' - makes bleak the prospects for a Republican-ruled America in the multi-polar world which is the current global reality.