The Irony of American Leadership

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there has been no question that the United States of America is the world's one and only superpower. Though other nations challenge the USA in specific theaters of the world, like Russia in Europe, China in Asia, or Iran in the Middle East, none has a global presence quite like America does.

The U.S. has naval ships in every ocean. It has allies on every continent. It spends the most money on its military than any nation, and its more than the next ten countries combined. No country has had such a dominant global presence since the British Empire, and the United States is perhaps even stronger.

None of this means America is invincible. Wars in the Middle East have shown that even with the backing of strong allies, nation-building is hard. Rivals continue to chip away at American authority whenever they can (even if the attempts are shortsighted). And even the US's allies are unwilling to march lockstep with American goals.

Nonetheless, the current age is probably the most peaceful the world has ever seen. Unlike in the past, wars between nations are rare and far between. This is likely because the world is now filled with democracies, and voters are usually against wars (or tire of it soon). Even when terrorism is on the rise, there is no Cold War between two nuclear armed powers hanging over us. There are no fascists or communists calling for World War or genocide. And imperialism has largely broken down, with even people in Africa having greater access to food, water, and upward mobility.

Part of these positive outcomes result from the US' goals being somewhat benign. If you look at American foreign policy, especially in war, it often boils down to the US fighting for the side of "democracy." Unlike the British Empire or the USSR, which had started wars to increase influence for the sake of it, the US needed legitimate reasons to commit to conflict. It is after all a republic, and if a war was fought the people needed to think the war was right.

For instance, in both World Wars there was great hesitation to commit. In World War I especially, Americans found little difference between the imperialistic British, French, German and Russian nations that fought in the trenches. All had immigrants in America, and none had moral superiority. It was only after several German transgressions, like appealing to Mexico and sinking American ships, did the US join the Allies.

In World War II, the US was still reluctant, even when Hitler's Germany was considered a repressive regime. The U.S. saw Hitler as a threat only to Europe, not to them. Only after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in retaliation for embargoes were the Americans thrown again into war.

Later wars like Korea and Vietnam were fought against the rising tide of repressive, communist movements that sought to control every detail of people's lives. Even if the United States supported repressive governments itself, these dictators lacked the total control of communism. The US viewed communism as an infectious ideology that limits freedom and hope. If you consider that the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, and led to democratic reforms globally, the results were undeniably good.

Even the modern wars have little to do with power more than ideology. Although some skeptics claim that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria are so that the US can dominate the oil supply, there is little evidence for this. Although energy crisis would occasionally emerge, the US has not dominated oil supply in the Middle East because of its wars. In fact, the US has become nearly completely energy-independent with natural gas industry in its own borders.

The irony of American leadership is that when a nation's foreign policy is based on ideals rather than pursuit of power, the USA is actually more unconventional and unpredictable than its rivals. For instance, Obama declared the use of conventional weapons in Syria a "red line." He did this not because he wanted greater influence in Syria, or to topple a rival, or to create a new front against Russia. He did so because he (as most of Western civilization does) that the use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity, and there must be a response.

Although Obama did not invade Syria as he may have suggested, he asked Congress to vote on intervention (they voted no, knowing war would be unpopular). He then negotiated with Russia to have those chemical weapons removed from the country. None of these actions increased American power in any way, but did end the risk of chemical warfare reemerging in the modern world.

Though this foreign policy, based on American ideals is not uniform (the US still considers Saudi Arabia a major ally despite its repressive policies, and has toppled many dictators it deemed threats), it is still effective. It has allowed the US to have a role in every continent, allies globally, and often legitimate concerns. It has stumbled one more than one occasion, but the blame is usually attributed to incompetence or stupidity rather than corrupt greed.

And unlike other nations, the United States appears quite happy with the current world order. While China and Russia constantly push against international law and borders, the U.S. strives to preserve them. There is no doubt that the U.S. benefits off them, but it also lacks total control of its allies. The U.K's decision in Brexit is a good example, when Obama suggested it was a pretty bad idea.

The U.S.A. is the global superpower. This can make people uncomfortable, but here are some soothing facts. There are fewer deaths in war than at any time in history, largely because of the norms between nations that the U.S. tries to preserve. Even with global terrorism on the rise, it is far likelier that you will be in a car accident or be diagnosed with cancer than a bomb going off. And the police are not brutal shock troops of a dictatorial regime, but normal people trying to keep their communities safer.