In many parts of the world, the United States is the only country that has the potential to play that role. It is still the only country that has global reach—politically, economically, and militarily.

The US is the only country with the logistical means to project any kind of power in South Korea, Iraq and Somalia at the same time. But that doesn't mean it is the only country that can guarantee peace in any particular region. Regional powers can play that role much better. Where the US acts without the cooperation of the regional powers, it has been unable to impose peace.

The US may not like some regional powers, such as China and Turkey, but it will simply have to learn to deal with them as equals, or even defer to them. Its confrontational stance with Iran has proven to the world that while the US is a player in all regions, in each region it is now a minor player, unable to project enough power to make up for its lack of knowledge and understanding of local cultures.

lol... you really believe the crap you write? The US is the lone super power in the world today whether you like it or not. We can strike anyone anywhere anytime. We have more power than any country in the history of the world and you expect us to defer to other countries.

I need some of the stuff you are smoking because it must be out there!

Ah, but how many can we handle? All of them? America vs. the rest of the world? We're not strong enough. In case you hadn't noticed, we're straining our military occupying two underdeveloped nations which are both decades behind us technologically. And still you think that force is our best option in every scenario? We'll need a military and an economy many times larger than the ones we have if we're going to try ruling through force alone. And even that really won't be enough, given the multipolarity of the world today. Herding cats would be child's play be comparison. Whether you like it or not, we cannot maintain our present foreign policy. It is simply unsustainable. We can keep driving it until the wheels fall off or we can ease up on the gas pedal and maybe take this car in for some maintenance. She needs it badly.

And in the end, what do we even gain trying to control the world through force of arms alone? It hasn’t been going very well for us so far, in case you’ve been asleep for the last several years. Expanding (or, more precisely, rebuilding) our ability to influence through soft power will be imperative in the years ahead. The military is just one tool of statesmanship, and not even close to the most effective one. We’ll relearn this lesson the easy way or the hard way. I like the easy way. Less pain, less death, better for the economy and more effective in the long run. If that fails and the matter is really that important, then you send in the military. Your grasp of these matters seems very one-dimensional. I hope for your sake that you strive to deepen your understanding. You might start by reading Clausewitz or Liddell Hart.

Power projection is my job. I have the utmost respect for the capabilities of our weapons and I consider it a privilege to be entrusted with some of them. But equally as important is a respect for their limitations. You need to know both to be effective; I wonder if you really understand either.

The US armed forces are a generation ahead of even their closest rivals in the rest of the world.

However, being a generation ahead in military technology is not what it used to be.

Once, British redcoats with single-shot muskets could take over half a planet, fighting people armed with spears, bows and arrows.

But these days their spears, bows and arrows have been upgraded to AK-47s and rocket-launchers. Old weaponry, but still pretty useful, even against a US military that costs trillions. And, barring a new generation of US super-weapons, this gap will keep getting smaller, even as the spending gap between the US and the rest of the world gets wider.

Concurrence. What is the interest of the US in projecting its power all over the world mediating disputes and intervening in conflicts. It lets everybody else take a free ride and avoid their responsibilities to maintain order and stability in the international realm (read" China and Europe). We would be a lot better of if we adopted a lower profile now before we absolutely have too. China needs a chance to figure out what it means to act responsible and to find out the consequences for not doing so. Europe needs to stop dithering and start creating a force that can effectively deal with crises in that region. This will not happen if they now that the American cavalry is always waiting over the next hill.

Left-Handed Writer, Prime Meridien, and Questioner: All good points.

Freak:

"The man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail."

~Benjamin Franklin

That's a warning of the dangers of closed-mindedness, not a license for carpentry.

Inquisitor makes an important point: the illusion of a single world power makes it easy for other powers to evade responsibility.

One of THE dumbest things that I ever saw happen in international politics was the US telling "Old Europe" that it would attack Iraq no matter what they did or said. It made the decision for "Old Europe" trivial: why join in when the bad guy will go down anyway, and you can keep your powder dry (plus score points for resisting the war). "Old Europe" couldn't lose. It was so stunningly stupid.

GreenwichJ, good point. The issue for the US is only partially that the cold war is over, it is also that the rest of the world has grown dramatically richer, smarter and more productive, and the gap between them and the US simply isn't that big anymore.

Call it the democratization of firepower.

You also see this in the rise of international crime - it has become very difficult for a national army to outgun a well-run crime syndicate. Don't believe it? Look at Mexico's problems trying to regain control over its territory.

"Call it the democratization of firepower."

Good phrase. :-)