Well, and so, what does it mean? It means that, unless we re-establish fairly quickly our economic strength, at some point trillion-dollar-plus deficits and a country in a deep recession will collide with global foreign policy ambitions, a huge defense budget and the desire to send around the world a powerful symbol of U.S. might. Unless President Barack Obama is successful in leading America in an effort that will fix this mess, sooner rather than later we shall get to the point at which the superpower status and international role played by the United States will be undercut by lack of money.

Ordinarily (that is, excluding for a moment all the extraordinary federal spending just launched and its impact on federal finances and on the national debt) the Pentagon is used to taking a huge chunk of all discretionary federal spending -- that is, all the spending that is not committed to transfer payments such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. But, given this deep crisis of uncertain duration, how long can this last? The answer is not so simple. Allocations for national security are a combination of available cash and the setting of policy priorities. If a country has money, it can decide to have or not have significant military spending. But if a country has fewer and fewer resources, then the policy choices become more limited. As the French say, "C'est l'argent qui fait la guerre" ("It is money that makes war"). And this is not to recommend war. It is simply to recognize that without money to fund a modern military that is supposed to be large enough to constitute a credible deterrent and to be effective as a policy tool when it is so decided, the United States cannot continue to be a superpower.

Military spending, however misdirected and often misused, is a large component of U.S. credibility as a world leader. Without military power or with very diminished power, who will listen to America? Well, the proponents of "soft power" would argue that there are other, indeed better, ways to influence international affairs through trade, dialogue and diplomacy. I am not so sure. The governments of the countries that send a few hundred troops or less to Afghanistan do not seriously expect to influence policy. The European Union has no military power to speak of, and thus nobody pays any real attention to its proclamations.

continuing report
Part Four: America's Inability To Continue Current Military Commitments
Military spending, however misdirected and often misused, is a large component of U.S. credibility as a world leader. Without military power or with very diminished power, who would listen to America? Well, the proponents of "soft power" would argue that there are other, indeed better, ways to influence international affairs through trade, dialogue and diplomacy. I am not so sure. The governments of the countries that send a few hundred troops or fewer to Afghanistan do not seriously expect to influence policy. The European Union has no military power to speak of, and therefore nobody pays any real attention to its proclamations.

One school of thought about the roots of decline of global hyperpowers focuses on "imperial overstretch." This view was developed by Professor Paul Kennedy of Yale University in Connecticut in his much-discussed book, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers."

Kennedy made the argument that a great power, keen on preserving its strategic global interests, starts spending too much on national defense at the expense of other productive investments. In the end, because of this underinvestment, its basic economic strength is sapped and -- paradoxically -- there is less capital to be allocated to defense spending. Hence the need to retreat and the loss of global status.

It could be argued that a few years of expensive wars have absorbed much of the United States' national wealth. This is true. But, while the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is significant, it is clear that the current serious recession in the United States is not due primarily to the cost of military adventure, however expensive. It is due to national profligacy and plain old living beyond one's means.

The newly installed Obama administration in Washington wants to accomplish many things, all of them strategically important: stop the bleeding, kick-start the economy through emergency packages, create a plan that will re-establish fiscal discipline and balance in the long term -- through a radical reform of entitlement programs -- and maintain the United States' role of global leadership.

This is an immense challenge. It would be great for the United States to accomplish all this. But it would be even better for the world if the United States could pull this off. Those who rejoice looking at the United States in big trouble should ponder what viable alternatives to U.S. leadership of the global community there may be. Unless people seriously believe that the 27-nation European Union's much heralded "soft power," with the attendant unwillingness and inability to support a military effort in Afghanistan with more than token troops, will provide a stronger and more effective leadership model.

(Paolo Liebl von Schirach is the editor of SchirachReport.com, a regular contributor to Swiss Radio and an international economic development consultant.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Related Links
The Military Industrial Complex at SpaceWar.com
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News