Ritankar Mallick
University of Calcutta
In the words of J. Mearsheimer, in 2016 he wrote, “for the first time in the recent history” “American distaste” has been visible. Regions that faced ambitious countries or those rulers who seemed to be potentially hegemonic were pressed and kept under control by taking the shape of a greater hegemon by Washington.
Though Washington doesn’t bear the complete responsibility, for quite a few heavy ones it can be blamed. Whatever misfortune the US has gathered along its way to treat and teach others by forgoing itself is due to their misguided strategy.
In modern times a great advantage that Washington has lived through is it’s not so hostile neighborhood, which has not been always the case for other big powers with adversaries and belligerency surrounding them. Some may have unknowingly grown it in their backyards, and some may have used someone else’s growth for filling their pockets without estimating how big a threat the vassal, donor, or financial partner might turn out to be. If taken to English history or European history, the simple arm of the Atlantic which separates southern England from Northern France, also known as the English Channel, itself has turned out to be the theater for receiving invasions or aggressions coming towards the Britons.
The little powerhouses which began to emerge in Northern Asia, Persian Gulf regions, and Europe were policed by the United States. The incumbency has been through several changes, from Democrats to Republicans and vice versa. But the United States capitalized on its mentality of supporting and nurturing some countries so that those nations could be handed over the baton and the US could enjoy being the superpower.
Though there were many negative outcomes of this grand strategy as termed by the political scientist John Mearsheimer, there were few positive outcomes as well. In this article, we will be discussing the virtues it displayed and how they shaped the Weltpolitik. When the cold war was not new anymore, and the western European nations were slowly liberating themselves from the clutches of then Moscow. It was very clear for Washington that the power and popularity of the leftist parties in the political sphere of the just-gained independent democracies will try hard to convince the masses. Thus, keeping a check or containing Soviet hegemony was not possible for independent Europe back then.
The United States was not being affected directly, therefore concerning the intensity of their national interests, America was quite behind compared to the European nations. The European allies tried their best to prevent the growth of the Soviet Union, as the United States acted as the last resort and came in only if required.
• This allowed the European nations to grow without any insecurity.
• It also helped the US to be aware of certain overseas assets, and intelligence-gathering functionaries could slowly habituate and read the balances and influence.
• The presence of small military contingents, and other strategic personnel capitalizing on the growth and residential advantages of them in Europe also helps the USA in maintaining its dominance of NATO within bodies like NATO.
• Another essence that was quite an impressive development was the presence of American troops in Europe. As it began to shape its permanence during the Cold War in the European defense framework. By logic, the American troops were supplementary to the national forces of the respective governments of the respective territories. So the investment one has to make to defend itself single-handedly wasn’t being required letting America inject lesser amounts in defense.
• Due to the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO and specifically clause 5 of it), the USA’s allies enjoy protection free of cost.
• The grand strategy reduced terrorism and the risk of belligerent moves.
• The pro-democratic hegemonic attitude of the US also invited trouble several times. In some land where the prevailing government has not been democratic, the US went ahead to spread its light as the torchbearer and then itself turned into the hegemon for a certain point of time. This kind of exercise of offshore balancing led to the growth of immense nationalism, which further led to ultra-national mindsets shaping up into insurgents or terrorists. This turned out to be the highly expected side effect in most of the cases where American interventionist or neo-colonial ideals tried to teach and protect democracy in a land where the notions of liberal democracy never reached their ideation.
Though it sounds ideologically incorrect but was a realist in nature because quite a few times the “offshore” mentality of the Congress had to be temporarily modified as the American troops had to visit and carry out onshore operations. Since the end of the Second World War, the US itself did not make any move in the oil-rich Gulf and watched her ally the United Kingdom dominate and maintain the occidental supremacy. But as the Britishers experienced setbacks left the Middle East vacant of any big power. The US went in to fight the regional power-hungry parties and establish a pre-emptive defense against other big powers (the Soviet Union).
The American dilemma also worked thoroughly making the Senators and the congressmen tired of debating each other. What was the dilemma about?
• containment of communism.
• establishment of dominance in the Gulf region that can be sustained.
• finding suitable partners or allies to delegate the powers or hand over the baton and withdrawing troops.
• The longer the stay will be the higher will be the expenses.
Also, stationing and positioning of the troops were one of the low-intensity problems that America faced, and strategic alliances were needed to be forged at the earliest.
The US realized that local powers had to be utilized to sustain dominance and thus, turned to the Shah of Iran and King Faisal’s kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Similarly in Northeast Asia, the US drew South Korea closer and took part in the Korean War to prevent the growth of Soviet influence. The main objective of the grand strategy has been to be offshore and carry out no boots-on-the-ground warfare. But, to achieve this notion several times it had to temporarily visit, deploy and make it suitable for withdrawing. As the American withdrawal from Afghanistan is set to take place in 2021, we might agree that the “suitable for withdrawal” notion hasn’t been a very successful part of the US grand strategy.
