The grand strategy: the New American Global Empire

Citation

Blackman, C. (2004), "The grand strategy: the New American Global Empire", Foresight, Vol. 6 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/fs.2004.27306aaa.001

The grand strategy: the New American Global Empire

It is often the case that futures research, well meaning, useful and perceptive though it might be, has little or no influence on policy decisions. When it comes to the “real world”, politicians usually pay lip service to the long term in favour of more expedient, short-term actions. The failure of the USA to implement the Kyoto agreement to limit greenhouse gases is an example.

But this is not always so. US foreign and defence policy under the Bush administration has been fundamentally shaped by futures thinking.The Project for the New American Century (see www.newamericancentury.org), an “educational organization” established in 1997 “whose goal is to promote American global leadership”, articulated a vision of the world built around American dominance. Its statement of principles, signed by some of the most prominent American neo-conservatives (including Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz), asks:

• •

  Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

A year before 9/11, The Project issued a report on Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, which Jaques Richardson reviews in his essay, “Modern warfare: no foresight without foreboding” in this issue of foresight. The report’s aim, in US election year, was to make a strong case for increasing military spending following its decline after the end of the Cold War. But underlying this argument was an explicit objective of securing global American supremacy. For instance, the report states that:

• •

  At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.

Many of the protagonists behind The Project found themselves in positions of power after the election of George W. Bush and, following 9/11, their thinking shaped The National Security Strategy of the United States (see www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf). This strategy spelt out the principle of the right to “pre-emptive action” that led inexorably to the war against Iraq and can be read as describing a scenario for the future – the creation of a New American Global Empire.

The development of this scenario and its implications are explored by Jim Dator in a paper in this issue, an edited version of a presentation to the Mortgage Bankers Association of Hawaii. Dator puts it succinctly:

• •

  … the New American Global Empire presents the US and the world with an entirely new and largely unanticipated future. On the one hand the Neocons wish to project complete and unilateral military control of the world according to certain narrowly defined American interest, and yet at the same time cut taxes, raise public debt, and thus pare down all governments – federal, state, and local – to, well, to absolutely nothing …

Now, in another US election year, the case for war on Iraq is looking weaker than ever. Weapons of mass destruction have not been found, the head of the Iraq Survey group has resigned, and both American and British governments have announced enquiries into “intelligence failures”. If the Hutton Inquiry (see www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk) is any guide, these enquiries are unlikely to find against the Bush or Blair administrations but the American and British public may well come to their own conclusions on the legitimacy of the war.

The presidential election ought to be a referendum on this vision of a New American Global Empire, and many would hope that the American people would reject it. But it won’t be, of course. Because “it’s the economy, stupid!” – and, come November, this may be the best hope of thwarting “the grand strategy”.

Colin Blackman