Information Related to "What Lies Ahead for U.S. Leadership?"
| Audio/Video |
What Lies ahead for
U.S. Leadership?
The next four years could bring thorny problems
for America's leadership role in the world. The next president will face the consequences
of missed opportunities in the 1990's.
by Darris Mc Neely
Every
farmer understands the importance of seed corn. It is the best of the seed, cultivated
to provide future crops. The quality of seed corn determines the quality-or lack
thereof-of future harvests. Without good seed, prepared in advance, succeeding harvests
will yield diminished crops.
This agricultural concept can help us understand where America stands in international
relations. As Americans move into a new century and the reins of power transfer from
one political party to the other, this is an apt time to assess the previous decade
and consider the events of the next few years. What happened in recent years
to America's seed corn, so to speak?
A decade squandered?
Ten years ago the United States led a coalition of military forces from many nations
in an air and land attack to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's Iraqi forces.
Although they were successful in this goal, the allied forces stopped short of ousting
the Iraqi leader from his position. Saddam Hussein still sits in power in Baghdad,
with a firm grip that still threatens the stability of the region.
 The United States faces other potential problems such as a serious economic downturn and the threat of deadly terroist attacks in the next few years. |
Ten years ago the Berlin Wall had recently crumbled, and the
Soviet Union was in its last months. The Cold War ended with the United States the
victor and brought the opportunity to shape a new order in the world. Yet peace still
has not come to the Middle East, and Russia's experiment with economic reform and
democratic
government still leaves much to be desired.
During the '90s America rode the wave of its biggest economic expansion. With domestic
prosperity, the country had time to focus on foreign-policy issues that cried out
for wise leadership. The country had plenty of time,
it seemed, to at least lay the groundwork for renewed progress.
One of the strengths of the American presidency is its inherent power to shape and
conduct foreign policy. Each administration understands this duty and uses it, at
least ostensibly, to benefit American interests and world stability.
A president may lack skill in domestic policy. Such a weakness can often be
covered by Congress. But the world looks to the leader of the country as the embodiment
of American policy and values. Therefore it is critical that an administration pursue
coherent goals in its relations with the other
major powers.
The past eight years of American foreign policy appeared unfocused and uncertain.
In hot spots around the globe U.S. military forces were committed to peacekeeping
efforts that focused on no obvious goals or any graceful exit strategies.
Only in recent months did America focus on a concerted effort to achieve a peace
settlement between Israel and Palestine. Even then it was carried out in the shadow
of, in the words of the outgoing president, "leaving a legacy." In July
Camp David talks between Israeli leader Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat
broke down, leading to months of violence and growing bitterness on both sides.
Growing threat from China?
China poses a major problem for American interests. Its desire to "reunite"
with (read absorb) Taiwan is a relentless threat to peace in the region. China is
determined to play a more influential role in Asia, which may again bring it into
conflict with its historic rival, Russia.
China's strategic objectives will play a role in the balance of power. Add to this
China's possession of ballistic missiles-capable of striking the U.S. mainland-and
its proclivity to export nuclear-missile technology to poor but aggressive nations,
and you have a volatile mix.
Instead of achieving positions of strength in relation to China during the past eight
years, the outgoing administration is left with two clouded legacies. One is China's
effort to influence the 1996 presidential campaign by making cash contributions to
the Democratic Party. The second is the disappearance of sensitive nuclear secrets
from the Los Alamos nuclear-weapons labs that may have wound up in Chinese hands.
Satisfactory answers to questions about these issues have yet to be given.
China is not the only nation able to launch a nuclear attack on the United States.
Russia and other nations of the former Soviet Union retain that ability, and hostile
nations such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq are developing ballistic technology.
Meanwhile America's options regarding how or even whether to develop a system
to defend itself against nuclear attack arestill debated. Some advocate a space-based,
"star wars" type of system, while others prefer a ship-based approach that
would allow more mobility in deployment.
Russia, however, continues to oppose American efforts to upgrade its missile-defense
system. Again, years of opportunity have been wasted in this area.
Shrinking military defense
Although the United States still fields the world's most powerful military force,
the past 10 years have seen a marked decline in its resources and abilities. Given
its state
of preparedness, some question whether America could mount another Desert Storm-type
operation such as the one that drove Iraq from Kuwait.
Between 1990 and 2000 the number of U.S. Army divisions was reduced from 18
to nine. The Navy shrank from 600 ships to 300. Air Force wings declined from 36
to 18. America's defensive forces have effectively been cut in half even while deployments
have expanded all over the globe.
When a nation relies on its armed forces for defense, the military must be kept in
peak condition and at sufficient numbers to deter aggressors. Without that ability,
and the threat it carries, the world would be a much different place. Historically,
America's military role has meant more to the stability of the world than any other
nation's in recent history.
What lies ahead?
What other challenges could President George W. Bush face? Economists believe the
United States, 18 years into the biggest period of economic stability the modern
world has seen, is overdue for an economic "correction." Recent months
brought steep stock-market plunges and strong hints of a coming recession. The current
budget surplus overshadows the overspending of the past eight years, but flawed management
would become obvious during an economic downturn.
The next president could see the first nuclear war since 1945. Analysts suspect
the most likely spot for such a confrontation would be the India-Pakistan border.
The region continues as a hot spot of military activity, and both India and Pakistan
have demonstrated to the world their nuclear abilities.
In October terrorist suicide bombers attacked the U.S.S. Cole while it docked
in Oman. Two years ago terrorists bombed American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,
killing hundreds. Many experts think it is only a matter of time before America will
suffer a major attack within its borders larger and more deadly than any previous
effort.
What sort of dangers might that include?
Former Clinton national-security adviser Anthony Lake recently authored 6 Nightmares:
Real Threats in a Dangerous World and How America Can Meet Them. In one of the
book's scenarios, terrorists release anthrax bacteria into a stadium full of sports
fans. Days later, after suffering fever, chest pain and vomiting, 17,000 spectators
die. With anthrax, no smell, taste or sight warns its victims of an attack. The first
signs show
up days later, when it is too late.
Are such dangers too far-fetched to happen? Emergency-preparedness authorities have
already run a drill of such a scenario
in preparation for a possible real-life attack. Between 1993 and 1995 several people
were arrested trying to sell or buy or cross international borders with deadly biological
or chemical weapons.
Mr. Lake believes the United States has lived prosperously with the mistaken impression
that the Cold War is over and that it faces no serious threats. "We're not using
these good times to prepare for the threats that are very clearly coming or are already
upon us in this new century," he said. "I wrote the book as a warning that
I hope could in some small way stimulate action in our society and our government"
(Book magazine, November-December 2000).
Unseen factors
Sadly, the results of the recent presidential election show a divided electorate
and a potentially crippled executive branch at a time when the United States needs
unambiguous and decisive leadership in foreign policy. America needs an able team
of leaders who can formulate a credible foreign policy and inspire the confidence
of other nations.
Leaders can plan, but unforeseen events can cause chain reactions that change the
course of history. Witness the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria by
an unknown Serbian anarchist in July 1914. Within weeks events spun out of the control
of leaders and diplomats and plunged the world into war.
Someone once asked a British prime minister, Harold McMillan, what factors most shaped
his administration. "Events, my dear boy, events," was his reply.
What could occur that would set in motion a string of events that would radically
change the world balance of power? No one can know for sure, but the Bible advises
us that the best-laid plans of human leaders don't always work out.
|
Recommended Reading Where does the United States of America
appear in Bible prophecy? |
(Contents Page)
© 2001
United Church of God, an International Association
Related Information:
Table of Contents that includes "What Lies Ahead for U.S. Leadership?"
Other Articles by Darris McNeely
Origin of article "What Lies Ahead for U.S. Leadership?"
Keywords: American leadership U.S. leadership China terrorism terrorism, threat of America, threats to
Terrorism vs U.S.: