Not a Bang but a Whimper

Is it over or is it just transforming?

The recent failures of America's ability to project force have cast a long shadow over the once unassailable concept of Pax Americana. As a somber observer, it is disheartening to witness the unraveling of a superpower's dominance, marked by setbacks in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Syria. The latest example and perhaps most damning is the inability to properly address the Houthi threat in the Red Sea. This is not a sovereign nation, but a well supplied small force. The stumbles of recent years make one wonder if the Pax Americana is over.

The war in Afghanistan, America's longest-running conflict, stands as a stark testament to the limits of military intervention. Despite nearly two decades of engagement, trillions of dollars spent, and countless lives lost, the United States found itself withdrawing from the war-torn nation in 2021, leaving behind a power vacuum and an uncertain future. The inability to establish lasting stability raises questions about the efficacy of American force projection and the sustainability of nation-building endeavors. America made the initial decision to nation build rather than destroy and leave with the threat of further bombardment if trouble brewed. America chose to stay engaged after destroying Al Qaeda and the symbolic end with the OBL raid. America then disregarded the potential Erik Prince plan to actually develop natural resources in Afghanistan with private security. No one knew why we were there, but the stated reasons were revealed as ephemeral by the rapid collapse of Kabul.

In Ukraine, what more needs to be said? Despite imposing sanctions and providing military aid to Ukrainian forces, the inability to prevent such a, paraphrasing the US State Department, “blatant violation of territorial integrity” diminished the aura of American power. Russia is isolated, the war marketers shouted, but this was contradicted by the reality of sanction evasion. It was not Russia that failed in weapon deliveries. The arsenal of democracy is no more. Now everyone is looking for an honorable exit. The conflict underscored the growing challenges to American influence, revealing the limitations of military might in the face of geopolitical realities.

The Syrian civil war presented another arena where America's inability to shape outcomes became glaringly apparent. This might have been the tell that the hyperpower era was over. As the conflict unfolded, the United States grappled with shifting alliances, regional complexities, and the emergence of extremist groups. The red lines were crossed, but no further involvement came. Proxies fought proxies. Attempts to intervene through support for rebel forces were marred by the complexities of the Syrian landscape as well as the coalition of sponsors cobbled together, highlighting the challenges of projecting force effectively in a multi-faceted and unpredictable conflict.

These failures in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Syria collectively paint a picture of a superpower struggling to navigate a changing global landscape. The fact that it is a month into the Houthi adventure, which is a proxy issue where an Iranian proxy can mess with Israel, no one knows what America has done, old allies are abandoning the project and even the media questions the logic of any such destruction of a militia that does not care. We need to recognize this Houthi force has fought off and on for decades and just survived a starvation campaign by the Saudis (with full American support). How will you stop that without a full-on invasion? The notion of Pax Americana, characterized by the unchallenged dominance of the United States, appears increasingly untenable in the face of these setbacks. The world is witnessing the erosion of American prestige and the end of an era marked by hyperpower status.

The consequences of these failures extend beyond military engagements; they reverberate in the realm of diplomacy, alliances, and global leadership. The erosion of America's ability to project force diminishes its role as a stabilizing force, creating vacuums that rival powers may seek to fill. Regional flare-ups will continue as scores are settled. The absence of a clear and assertive American presence allows for the rise of alternative power centers, contributing to a more multipolar world order.

As a objective observer, it is essential to recognize that the end of Pax Americana does not necessarily mean the end of American influence altogether. The “Turbo America” concept is not entirely false. When America wants to try, it can, but it does require ideological changes. Marc Andreessen’s call to build is a noble call to changing priorities, but all readers know that this requires tossing woke ideology into the garbage can. The United States remains a formidable economic and technological force, and its soft power – the ability to shape global perceptions through culture, ideas, and values – remains a potent if decaying tool. The EU followed America’s lead with Ukraine to the point of economic suicide. There may be a way that Pax Americana ends but creates a retrenched and hardened American control of a smaller slice of the globe. However, the recent failures in projecting military force underscore the need for a recalibration of American foreign policy and a reevaluation of the limits of hard power.

In this evolving landscape, the United States must recognize that power projection is not solely a military endeavor and not everyone is going to be onboard with the ideological requirements. Effective leadership in the 21st century requires adept diplomacy, economic strength, and a commitment to addressing global challenges collaboratively. It’s not 1955 and not even 1995. The failures in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Syria should serve as catalysts for a comprehensive reassessment of American strategy, moving beyond the narrow confines of military dominance.

The recent failures of America's ability to project force are poignant markers of the end of Pax Americana. To manage the decline, one cannot help but acknowledge the shifting dynamics of global power and the need for discarding slavish devotion to the insane ideology that has a stranglehold on America institutions. The United States must confront these realities with humility and adaptability, recognizing that true leadership in the 21st century extends beyond military might to encompass a holistic approach to global affairs.