![]() As David Kilcullen wrote in his book, ‘The Dragons and the Snakes: How the Rest Learnt to Fight the West’, a combination of adaptable, nimble and collaborative snakes and dragons (referring to non-state and state actors) used unrestricted tools to contest American superiority. A slew of nations such as Iran and North Korea kept the US on tenterhooks even as non-state actors, often with state support, complicated matters. Later in 2014, it invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea, besides occupying the Donbas region. Meanwhile, sensing opportunity, Russia in a revival of its pan-Slavic imperial history invaded Georgia in 2008 reducing it to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This was a direct challenge to American power and a way of communicating the terminal decline of the USA and the inevitable rise of China. A mix of economic inducement, economic & military coercion, technological advancement through theft of intellectual property, and influence operations enabled the Chinese to market an alternate narrative to the American one. Even as growing Chinese belligerence was evident in its ‘Wolf Warrior’ diplomacy and territorial ‘salami slicing’, it went on an economic charm offensive by launching the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). American preoccupation elsewhere was (mis)used by China to illegally occupy and then militarize islands and features in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, competitors such as China and Russia were not idle. Strengthening strategic partnerships: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s landmark visit to the United States The worst economic disaster in American history after the Great Depression (1929-1939), resulted in unemployment rising to 10 percent in October 2009 and Americans losing $9.8 trillion in wealth. Thus, the first decade and half of this century saw the only super-power confronting myriad challenges in a spectrum and cultural milieu they could not adapt to quite well. The global financial crisis of 2008 couldn’t have come at a worse time. The fragmented politics of West Asia gave rise to greater instability and mounting challenges to American power by terrorist organizations such as Daesh, Hezbollah and the many off-shoots of Al Qaeda. Intense public pressure domestically and frantic pleas for help internationally led to a policy paradox. Adding to USA’s problems were the uprisings of 2010-11 against authoritarian regimes in West Asia and North Africa, commonly known as Arab Spring. Wars of intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq went on for long without the desired strategic outcomes. Support and cooperation of the global community wavered after the initial wave of sympathy. The “Either you are with us or against us”, stance made the then US President appear brave domestically but reeked of a ‘my way or the highway’ attitude. While the US justifiably launched its global war on terror, the means adopted neither favoured a quick end to the scourge of terrorism nor a lasting one. The 9/11 terrorist attacks shook not just Americans but also the global community. Writing in the Los Angeles Times in October 2020, Lt Gen H R McMaster (retd), former US NSA remarked that US foreign policy took a narcissistic turn after the Cold War. He defined strategic narcissism as, “the tendency to define problems as we would like them to be rather than as they actually are.” No wonder then, a series of mis-steps, miscalculations and blunders followed. The rising influence of neocons within American polity was an important factor in its foreign policy framework. Perhaps this is what happened to the USA in the aftermath of the Cold War and the First Persian Gulf War. Victory or lack of competition sometimes leads to overconfidence and arrogance. Modi’s US trip to unveil groundbreaking defence and security announcements
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |