Beyond Taming American Power
The situation in Iraq is going from bad to worse, and the mainstream opinion now seems to be that this preventive (at best) war was a horrible idea. Into this milieu steps Stephen Walt’s new book, “Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy.” He effectively outlines exactly how far ahead of other countries the US is, in terms of economic and (especially) military power. His list of tactics that countries use to partner with the U.S. is masterful, bravely including discussion off the power of lobbying groups like AIPAC. His discussion of the ways countries try to oppose the U.S. is remarkably thorough, from balancing to balking to binding. Finally, he outlines his own political position, and advocates a return to American’s traditional pattern of “offshore balancing.” All in all, a though provoking read on American military power from a mainstream liberal perspective.
It’s a perspective I wholeheartedly agree with, and one that on a pragmatic level I would advocate for. Still, what’s most interesting to what is not said. The strongest word Dr. Walt can bring himself to use to describe the U.S.’s power is “primacy,” and he even rejects “hegemony” as too strong a word. Dear God, if having a military budget seven times larger than any other country isn’t enough to make us a hegemon, what is? More importantly, I’m frankly disappointed in how the book stays stubbornly in a realist perspective, where sovereign states are doomed to struggle from power. International treaties are from this perspective just a convenient excuse to bind U.S. power, not an expression of the will of the international community. The best the world can hope for, according to Dr. Walt, is this or that country being hegemon. This is the best the brightest minds of the Kennedy School of Government can come up with? Why not talk openly, as President Kennedy did, about our desire for something other than a “Pax Americana,” our hope that something other than military power will control the fate of humanity.
It’s a perspective I wholeheartedly agree with, and one that on a pragmatic level I would advocate for. Still, what’s most interesting to what is not said. The strongest word Dr. Walt can bring himself to use to describe the U.S.’s power is “primacy,” and he even rejects “hegemony” as too strong a word. Dear God, if having a military budget seven times larger than any other country isn’t enough to make us a hegemon, what is? More importantly, I’m frankly disappointed in how the book stays stubbornly in a realist perspective, where sovereign states are doomed to struggle from power. International treaties are from this perspective just a convenient excuse to bind U.S. power, not an expression of the will of the international community. The best the world can hope for, according to Dr. Walt, is this or that country being hegemon. This is the best the brightest minds of the Kennedy School of Government can come up with? Why not talk openly, as President Kennedy did, about our desire for something other than a “Pax Americana,” our hope that something other than military power will control the fate of humanity.
