President Biden has used the phrase to justify US involvement in the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, but it’s just code for “primacy.”
In his recent speech about the wars in Gaza and Ukraine and the United States’ involvement in both, President Biden famously quoted former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that the United States is the “necessary country. ” This is, in fact, the belief by which the American foreign and security establishment lives and works.
As shown in Biden’s speech, this is a way for the establishment to justify to American citizens the sacrifices they are called to make for American supremacy. This is also how members of the Blob excuse themselves for participating in America’s crimes and wrongdoings. No matter how terrible their activities and mistakes, they can be forgiven if they are done as part of America’s “essential” mission to lead the world toward “freedom” and “democracy.”
Then one must ask: Need for what? Empty claims about “consecutive rules” cannot answer this question. In the Greater Middle East, the answer should be obvious. I believe that a different hegemony could cause a greater catastrophe in the region at a greater cost to itself than the administration of the US in the last 30 years, but it is necessary to make a serious task effort. Nor is it clear that the loss of a hegemonic superpower would make matters worse.
At this time, no American effort to achieve peace in the region was successful; few even seriously tried. Furthermore, the United States does not even fulfill the central positive role of any hegemonic power: providing stability.
Instead, it has always acted as a force of disorder: invading Iraq and thus allowing an explosion of Sunni Islamist extremism that came to play a terrible role in Syria as well; by pursuing a megalomaniacal externally driven state-building strategy in Afghanistan for 20 years, defying all the lessons of Afghanistan’s history; destroying the Libyan state and thereby plunging the country into an endless civil war, which devastated much of North Africa and allowed a flood of immigrants to Europe; repeatedly destroying or abandoning opportunities for a reasonable agreement with Iran; and most seriously of all, by refusing to take even a remotely fair approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and by failing for most of the past thirty years to make any serious effort to advance a solution.
Over the past generation, successive US administrations have turned a blind eye, not least while Likud governments have slowly undermined the “two-state solution” and fueled Palestinian and Arab anger through their policy of settlement, but because Prime Minister Netanyahu is deliberately helping. to strengthen Hamas as a force against the Palestine Liberation Organization, so that there is no need to seriously negotiate with the latter.
This strategy has now proven disastrous for Israel itself. It is also done without regard to the interests of the United States or its European allies in the face of Islamic terrorism.
And what did the Americans themselves get out of it? Never, was the answer; while the losses can be calculated precisely: more than 15 thousand soldiers and contractors have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq; more than 50 thousand were injured and permanently disabled for life; more than 30 thousand veterans committed suicide; 2,996 civilians died on September 11, an attack claimed by Al Qaeda in retaliation for US policy in the Middle East; About $8 trillion was next spent on the “Global War on Terrorism.”
Elsewhere in the world, the United States’ record isn’t as bad, but it also doesn’t justify far-fetched claims about the need for the American mainstream. The only place where this is generally true is in Europe. In World War II and the Cold War, the United States liberated Western Europe and defended democracy there; while in other parts of the world, it usually places itself in the area of ​​European colonialism.
After the Cold War, the populations of Eastern Europe welcomed American protection, although Biden’s claim that if he is not stopped in Ukraine, Putin will invade Poland is baseless. Russia has neither the will nor the ability to do this; and in any case, if NATO membership is not deterrent enough, what is the point of offering NATO membership to Ukraine?
Outside of Europe, the only region where the United States can be said to have played a large positive role so far is East Asia (obviously outside of the Vietnam War), and for the same reason: Japan and South Korea South abi – said an alliance with the United States. State. And while other states, like the Philippines, want to strike a balance between the United States and China, they don’t want the United States to leave. However, this role requires the presence of the United States, not its main one. Since China cannot invade Japan and South Korea (especially Australia), the United States can completely remain on the defensive behind existing alliance systems while sharing influence elsewhere with Beijing.
As for Africa, the countries there do not have conflicts with each other that the United States should control or mediate. Africa’s problems are internal and the United States has done little to help since 9/11 and the Global War on Terrorism. The recent surge in American interest in Africa is primarily a reaction to Russia’s and China’s growing commercial interests there.
The most surprising and surprising of all is the role of the United States in its backyard, in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, whose problems affect the population of the United States. As in Africa, the United States does not need to suppress local conflicts between states, because they have long ceased. Again, the threats are internal, but they are also largely driven by the demand for illegal drugs in the United States. One result of the internal decline of these countries is the large flow of immigrants to the United States, which causes bad reactions and political conflict in the country itself.
Faced with this threat, and concerned about the interests of American citizens, it can be assumed that the regional hegemonic power will prioritize this region and dedicate significant resources to its development. It is also consistent with the “foreign policy for the middle class” that Biden promised in his election campaign.
The comparative figures for American aid are stunning. The total development assistance from the United States to Mexico and throughout Central America since 2001 amounted to 12.21 billion dollars. This compares to $64.8 billion for “Israel” and $32.8 billion for Egypt. Even Georgia receives almost twice as much aid as Mexico (between $3.9 and $2.1 billion), and Georgia is 6,000 miles from the coast of the United States and has a population less than one-thirtieth that of Mexico.
With the problems in Mexico spreading to the United States, some prominent Republican politicians are now calling not for more aid, but for the US military to be deployed in Mexico to fight drug traffickers. , a crazy idea that reveals the moral and practical bankruptcy of American primacy. .on their continent.
The neglect of America’s southern neighbors reveals another thing about America’s primacy: that whatever the problems of a region, the United States is only involved when it sees a real or perceived danger that the rival power has an interest. This can be called the dog-to-manger approach elevated to a basic strategic principle. This is well summed up in an article by Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution on the previous Biden administration’s – and disastrous – attempt to partially withdraw from the Middle East without solving the fundamental problems there:
“The White House is developing a creative exit strategy, trying to negotiate a new balance of power in the Middle East that will allow Washington to reduce its presence and attention while ensuring that Beijing does not fill the vacuum. – the.”
If the United States wants to withdraw from the Middle East, it should welcome other states that are trying to play a positive role, as China has done in promoting detente between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The pursuit of global primacy is also intellectually and morally corrupt for the American people themselves. Justifying its costs and sacrifices to ordinary Americans requires, on the one hand, greatly exaggerated claims about the promotion of democracy and, on the other, a great exaggeration of the threat and evil of other states. The result is a public discourse that often resembles cyanide-enriched baby food: mush is the language of America’s freedom, and the poison is mistrust of other countries and their people.
Even if successful – if not “essential” – US global prominence is possible, it cannot be based on a rotten foundation.
