We’re leading, and winning, from behind
What is happening, in other words, is that global “policing” duties (and their associated costs) typically assumed by the U.S. are being picked up by allies. Yes, they are being picked up grudgingly — with self-serving complaints about abandoned U.S. leadership whispered to journalists as if to goad a prideful Washington back into action. Yes, chronically underfunded allied militaries may stumble out of the gate. But the fact remains that when and if the U.S. steps back from some of its policing role — when it “leads from behind” — other powers will step into the breach.
None of this should come as a surprise; it’s how incentives work. When the U.S. “leads from front” (i.e. does the fighting, dying and paying for regional security operations) other states will naturally seek a subordinate role. The only way to incentivize states to do more for their own defense is not to lecture or beg, but to make it clear that they are on their own.
This is, of course, the very outcome that America has for decades labored to avoid. The idea of strong, regional powers acting independently from Washington’s directive was threatening during the Cold War, since “independence” could tilt a state toward the Soviet bloc. In the post Cold War world, Washington clung to the strategy under the theory that the more states were dependent on the U.S. government (and taxpayer) for their protection, the safer the world would be. In reality, it enabled prosperous allies like Japan and Europe to fund domestic programs while the U.S. picked up the defense tab.
Today, the Obama administration is reversing course, but only tentatively.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
If you are going to “lead US from behind”… the least you could do is get the rest of us dinner first.
BigGator5 on February 3, 2013 at 9:26 AM
Got to pay for those Obamaphones and food stamps somehow.
OldEnglish on February 3, 2013 at 9:29 AM
The obama regime reducing our military has less to do with creating a trimmer and better force and more that they hate evrything this country stands for. I started my Naval career during the Carter years and well remember military families on food stamps, poor morale and reduced response capabilities. That’s going to return.
Having said this, the USA shouldered the world’s military load and responsibility which enabled other nations to use their budget to create socialist utopias, sit on the sidelines for the most part and critizize us.
There has to be a middle ground where we can remain strong and ready but NOT act as the policeman of the world.
sanjuro on February 3, 2013 at 9:58 AM
Yeah, that power vacuum in Lybia was picked up nicely by those other countries.
ButterflyDragon on February 3, 2013 at 10:02 AM
Reality: America has no interest in these pissant quarrels. Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, their leaders pose no threat to us. Moreover, have no money to pursue them even if we wanted to. However, the media won’t shut up about them, and The World (i.e. the sexy parts of Europe) would like The World (i.e. America) to do something about them. Obama, emulating the countries he most admires, tells the bellicose nations hey, we support you, we’re just not going to actually do anything.
Proposition: Working backwards from this, craft a rationale that makes this seem like some kind of deliberate strategy.
Outcome: This article.
HitNRun on February 3, 2013 at 10:09 AM
More and more, Ø is being compared to Nixon. The media better rush to resurrect the good image of Nixon, pre-Watergate, so that their figurehead will no be seen as The Democrat Nixon, will not be compared to Nixon as a political failure, and, most of all, concerns about the legality of the president’s actions and Nixon’s reply to interviewer David Frost “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
ExpressoBold on February 3, 2013 at 10:12 AM
Really, just how stupid does “leading from behind” sound? Anyone want to be accused of doing that in their business, life, anything? Pathetic
ncsully on February 3, 2013 at 11:19 AM