US Hegemony and Military Primacy

Andres Gannon, UC Berkeley

Section 1 – What is it?

Definition

•Hegemony is a condition of dominance in the international system

•Hegemony is not a strategy, it is a goal or the result of other strategies

Hegemony in international relations

•Goal of the United States and all other powers is hegemony

•Regional hegemons have always existed•Arguable about whether or not there has

ever been a global hegemony

How does America do it?

•Example of US Hegemony

Section 2 – Determinants of Hegemony

Economic Power

•The productive capacity of a state or territory that it rules over

•What can a state make?•How efficiently can it do it?

Financial Power

•Distinct from economic power because it is about how much money a government can raise and how it manages its funds

•US has had strong financial and economic power since 1919 due to victory in both world wars

•The US was able to make a lot of equipment and lend huge amounts of money to our allies

Soft Power

•The cultural appeal of a country•Intangible reputation•How attractive values are to others•Respect for their way of life

Military Power

•The ability to impose your will onto others•It allows us to quickly defeat adversaries

Relationship between determinants

Economic Power

Financial Power

Soft Power

Military Power

Relationship between determinants

•No one factor can maintain hegemony•Soviet Union 1980

Section 3 – US National Security Strategy

U.S. National Security StrategyGrand Strate

gyMilitary StrategyMilitary

Operations

Tactics

Doctrine

Grand Strategy

•Plan to direct all assets at the disposal of our government towards the broadest ends of American interest▫Homeland security▫International peace▫Prevention of global wars▫Democracy▫Economic prosperity▫Human rights

Grand Strateg

yMilitary Strategy

Military Operations

Tactics

Doctrine

Military Strategy

•Military portion of grand strategy•Where are our military assets deployed

Grand Strateg

yMilitary Strategy

Military Operations

Tactics

Doctrine

Operations

•Only relevant in war-time•Describes how we fight a series of battles

(a campaign) to fulfill the plans laid down•Goal of operations is to fulfill strategic

goals and military strategy

Grand Strateg

yMilitary Strategy

Military Operations

Tactics

Doctrine

Tactical

•Methods that units use to achieve specific battle field tasks▫Pinning an enemy by flanking them on both

sides▫Guerilla warfare tactic▫Capturing strategic terrain (hill)

Grand Strateg

yMilitary Strategy

Military Operations

Tactics

Doctrine

Doctrine

•Rules we create to govern the use of force and methods we use to fight▫Counterinsurgency▫Counterterrorism

•The way we implement a doctrine in a specific country is a strategy

Grand Strateg

yMilitary Strategy

Military Operations

Tactics

Doctrine

World War II Example

Grand Strategy – Unconditionally

defeat the Axis of Evil

Military Strategy – In Pacific Ocean, use US power to crush Japan’s main fleet and close in until they were forced

to submit

Military Operations – Assault the islands one by one

Tactical – launching shells from battle ships with a low level trajectory, destroy Japanese guns and

flamethrowers

Doctrine – use firepower to crush Japanese defenses and then use a frontal assault on the beaches (amphibious assault)

Military strategy on the topic

•Most affirmatives occur at the level of military strategy

•How are goals accomplished with the military in general

•Withdrawing all forces from one country changes military strategy

Section 4 –Key Terms, Ideas, and People

Synonyms

•Hegemony•Primacy•Leadership•Global cop•Pax Americana•Unipolarity•Unilateralism•Military dominance•Global superiority

Key Authors•Khalilzad, Stillgood•Robert Kagan•Lieber and Press•Charles Krauthammer•Thayer•Brooks and Wohlforth• Joseph Nye•Colin Gray•Mandelbaum•Max Boot

Key Sources

•Carnegie Endowment•Council on Foreign Relations•Heritage Foundation

Polarity

•Unipolarity – only one great power exists•Bipolarity – two powerful states that

dominate all the others•Multipolarity – many states of equivalent

power

“-lateralism”

•Unilateralism – acting alone without making policies dependent on what allies think

•Multilateralism – acting with others and engaging in cooperation and consultation

•Bilateralism – acting or cooperating with another power, often of equal power

Balancing

•Offshore Balancing – Withdrawing our foreign commitments and maintaining our military and international presence from the mainland

•Counterbalancing – When countries line up against the United States so that their combined power matched or exceeds that of the hegemon

•Softbalancing – diplomatic friction against a hegemon when countries are hesitant to cooperate or support hegemonic military action

Section 5 – Sustainability

Key Factors

•Economics▫Forward deployment, army, navy, tech, free

riders•Counter-balancing

▫Adversaries who don’t like taking orders•Decadence

▫Spirit of sacrifice causes power▫22,000 Central Pacific v 4,000 Iraq▫100,000 British

Key Factors

•Overstretch▫Forces get spread thin

•Relative Decline▫Rise of other challengers causes

multipolarity▫Relative power

•History▫Rome, Sparta, Athens, Persia, Greece,

Aztecs, Mayans, Chinese, Mongols, Spanish…US?

The Case for Sustainability•American exceptionalism

▫Democratic▫Western hemisphere▫No counterbalancing▫No direct colonization▫Geography

•Relative dominance▫Spend more on defense than next 10-25

countries▫Economy is third globally▫Fight 3 wars at a time

The Case for Sustainability

•Absence of peer competitors▫China can’t win wars▫Russia is poor and can’t win wars either▫Europe is internally divided and lazy

•Better than alternatives▫China is hated▫Russia is crazy

Why Sustainability Matters

•If decline can be avoided (if hegemony is sustainable) then it is easier to win that it is desirable

•If decline is inevitable, strategies to maintain it may be bad and we should shift now to ensure a stable and peaceful transition

Section 5 – Desirability

Great Power Wars

•Smaller powers have an incentive to cooperate with a greater power because the US can punish them military

•Multipolar systems are problematic because the margins of power between actors is low

•Europe 1914

Rise of Hostile Competitors

•Strong US can deter others from even trying to upset the international system

Regional Wars

•US can intervene in wars between weaker states▫Bosnia, 1994▫Kosovo, 1998▫Gulf War, 1991▫North Korea, TBA▫India-Pakistan, TBA▫China-Taiwan, TBA▫Israel-Iran, TBA

Cooperation

•Bandwagoning – when smaller states follow the lead of a hegemon and support them rather than counterbalancing

•Encourages cooperation on economic, environmental, and health issues

Transition Wars

•Regardless of whether hegemony is good or bad, decline should be avoided because the transition to a new system will be violent

•Rising powers would lash out to undermine US standing

•US would lash out to prevent a rising power from overwhelming us

Power Vacuum

•No one else can fill in causing global fragmentation (Dark Ages)

•Partial fill in causes spheres of influence▫China dominates East Asia▫Russia reabsorbs former Soviet states

Section 6 – Undesirability

Multipolarity Solves

•More stable, aggressive posture encourages hostility when power erodes

•Spheres of influence good

Terrorism

•Causes resentment in the Middle East▫Occupation▫Hostility

Proliferation

•Causes asymetrical strategies to compete with us since they can’t compete conventionally

•Nuclear weapons pack a hard punch

Counter-balancing

•Others band together against the US which can escalate regional wars and disputes▫Russia-China

Intervention

•Hegemony makes us more likely to intervene in conflicts where we don’t belong▫Vietnam▫Iraq

Section 7 - Conclusion

Key Arguments

•Sustainability•Resentment inevitable•Reintervention•Transition•Fill in•Balancing