Though it is of course tricky to predict the future, this has not stopped various scholars and experts from making guesses and qualified predictions. Looking at the more dire predictions first, there are several arguments that speak in favour of a more or less inevitable collapse of the American empire in its current form. Chalmers Johnson describes four ‘sorrows’ that are likely to impact the United States if the current policies and political course are maintained: perpetual war will make the United States less safe, democracy will erode, militarist sentiment will increase and military overspending will cause national bankruptcy. These are all interesting, but the most tangible are perhaps those concerns regarding the dangers of perpetual war as well as the risks of bankruptcy.
Both Johnson and Noam Chomsky are concerned that seeking continued hegemony might actually be counterproductive in terms of security for the United States. In particular, the two are worried over the implications that the planned Ballistic Missile Defence will have. While the name implies a defensive system, neither are fooled by what they perceive to be a potential offensive weapon; one that in theory ensures the invulnerability of the United States, but might have adverse effects both before and after it is built. Chomsky sees this missile shield, in conjunction with increased weaponization of space, as a potential trigger for a new arms race, which would put not only America at risk, but also the whole world. So as to leave little doubt about how serious he is, Chomsky sees the situation as nothing less than the choice between continued hegemony, or the survival of the human race. Perhaps slightly less dramatic, Johnson sees continued American dominance as a catalyst for smaller countries, seeking to protect themselves from American power, to acquire increasingly dangerous weapons. This would also trigger a new global arms race, with perhaps equally concerning results.
With regards to the economic factors, there are several more conflicting predictions. As mentioned, Johnson sees bankruptcy as a real possible consequence of extravagant and ever-increasing military spending. Even a proponent of the American empire, Max Boot, recognizes that in spite of the vast wealth of the United States, even it has its limits with regards to military capability. Even with the very low percentage of GDP allocated to defence spending, he sees perpetual war as an unsustainable endeavour. For this reason, he believes that the military way is not the only way. However, Ferguson sees things rather differently; it is not military spending that is causing financial problems for the United States, he argues, but rather domestic factors, such as unbalanced national finances and increasing debt. Though it is easy to make connections between the cost of the war in Iraq and the current economic crisis in the United States, defence spending remains negligible, and is therefore not to blame, he claims. If the United States manages to get its domestic finances in order, there should therefore be nothing to stand in the way of maintaining a strong military.
Despite some fairly gloomy predictions, there does seem to be potential for continued American world hegemony, and for the continued existence of the American empire. If some of the concerns from above are heeded, it is not impossible to imagine a combination of initiatives that would at least postpone the fall of the empire. Andrew Bacevich believes that such a re-evaluation of the empire, involving a clarification of objectives and a balancing of means and ends, is necessary to ensure that the American empire does not collapse. This prompts us to look back at last week, and the idea of the ‘N+1-rule’. It is perhaps possible to imagine an American military force that does not pursue this ideal (im)balance of power. Even without being able to take on the rest of the world at once, the American empire is not likely to be challenged anytime soon. Scaling down military spending would not only reduce the risk of counterproductive reactions, as with the Ballistic Missile Defence, it would also provide economic benefits, even if military spending is as negligible as Ferguson and Boot claim. It might also bring on the general re-evaluation that Bacevich wants, and make America realize that ensuring global peace and prosperity might not necessarily involve missile defences or hundreds of overseas bases.
Sources referred to here:
Andrew Bacevich: American Empire
Max Boot: The Savage Wars of Peace
Noam Chomsky: Hegemony or Survival
Niall Ferguson: Colossus
Chalmers Johnson: The Sorrows of Empire
