Question
Is the United States suffering from imperial overstretch?
Answer
Fareed Zakaria has a very interesting analysis of this question in his book, The Post-American World, which I am just finishing. The book was published before the recession and before Obama, but basically the conclusions still hold. The answer, based on that and other books I am currently reading is "yes, there is over-stretch but way less than any major empire of comparable size."
But the "over-stretch" question is distinct from the "will America do well against the rise of the rest" question. I'll respond to the former, not the latter. Over-stretch is basically about biting off more than you can chew when you have an inflated sense of your own power. Dealing gracefully with the peaceful rise of others and your own (relative) decline is a different problem that comes later in time.
Given the severe temptations, there has been surprisingly little over-stretch. The opportunity for over-stretch has only been 2 decades, and the window is now basically shut firmly. During the 2 decades (basically after the fall of the Soviet Union), Bush Sr. was a very cautious President, Clinton was too interested in being liked to stretch, though he had the daring to do so if he wanted, and Obama pretty much came to power on the back of a "pull back on over-stretch" platform. So the brief aberration of G. W's reign aside, there has been no real over-stretch. Fingers crossed.
To some extent, this is an empirical question, and every empire does over-stretch due to fundamental reasons, as it comes off its apogee.
Zakaria's analysis is mostly based on a comparison with the decline of Britain. For example, he correlates the Boer War with the 2nd Gulf War (both were Pyrrhic victories in unilateral wars that were unpopular with allies).
The "overstretch" part is not central to Zakaria's book (it's more about how the "rise of the rest" is making America shrink in proportion), but the thumbnail sketch is accurate.
To us in our own narrow lifetime, America may seem like an extreme hegemon, but you only have to read the imperial histories of Rome, Spain, Britain and the USSR to get a true benchmark for what it means to "over-stretch." By comparison, the US is a little pussycat.
But the "over-stretch" question is distinct from the "will America do well against the rise of the rest" question. I'll respond to the former, not the latter. Over-stretch is basically about biting off more than you can chew when you have an inflated sense of your own power. Dealing gracefully with the peaceful rise of others and your own (relative) decline is a different problem that comes later in time.
Given the severe temptations, there has been surprisingly little over-stretch. The opportunity for over-stretch has only been 2 decades, and the window is now basically shut firmly. During the 2 decades (basically after the fall of the Soviet Union), Bush Sr. was a very cautious President, Clinton was too interested in being liked to stretch, though he had the daring to do so if he wanted, and Obama pretty much came to power on the back of a "pull back on over-stretch" platform. So the brief aberration of G. W's reign aside, there has been no real over-stretch. Fingers crossed.
To some extent, this is an empirical question, and every empire does over-stretch due to fundamental reasons, as it comes off its apogee.
Zakaria's analysis is mostly based on a comparison with the decline of Britain. For example, he correlates the Boer War with the 2nd Gulf War (both were Pyrrhic victories in unilateral wars that were unpopular with allies).
The "overstretch" part is not central to Zakaria's book (it's more about how the "rise of the rest" is making America shrink in proportion), but the thumbnail sketch is accurate.
To us in our own narrow lifetime, America may seem like an extreme hegemon, but you only have to read the imperial histories of Rome, Spain, Britain and the USSR to get a true benchmark for what it means to "over-stretch." By comparison, the US is a little pussycat.