For the family of Richard Phillips, the captain of the Maersk Alabama, his rescue by special forces was the best possible Easter present. For Americans it was an exhilarating display of US power, and for US President Barack Obama it was a gratifying demonstration that he isn’t the wimpish pacifist the Republicans called him.
But to a detached observer, this gung-ho adventure in the Indian Ocean is the rule-proving exception. What we have recently seen far more often is what a New York Times headline on the piracy story said last Thursday: “US power has limit.”
We’re dealing, that’s to say, with one of the most important discoveries of our time: the impotence of great might.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Today there is only one hyperpower. The US is, on the face of it, mightier than any other imperial power in history. And imperial is the word: it’s more than 50 years since Reinhold Niebuhr, the great US moral philosopher, wrote about the new age of US empire, “however frantically we deny it.”
By now it’s scarcely worth denying, frantically or otherwise. One evening last year I was idly channel-hopping through the sports programs and lighted on the midsummer All-Star baseball game. There was a patriotic interlude, when the announcer said their thoughts were with the US servicemen and women “in the 153 countries where they are stationed.” That’s an impressive figure out of 192 member states of the UN.
US military spending is very much greater than the next 10 countries combined. Even now, 20 years after the Soviet Union began to crumble, the US air force and navy hold an immense number of nuclear warheads, weaponized and ready to go — but where? With all that might, the military operations in western Asia have turned out to be far more difficult than Washington originally envisaged. By the autumn it will be eight years since US forces entered Afghanistan and it’s six since the invasion of Iraq.
Although the Afghan campaign was originally more justifiable than Iraq (which isn’t saying much), it now looks less winnable. Even in Iraq, the vaunted success of the “surge” may prove deceptive if it persuades the US that they can win a permanent military victory there.
This is not as new as we might think. Go back to the heyday of the cold war. The US and the Soviet Union each held a nuclear arsenal that could annihilate the other, or for that matter the whole world. They seemed mightier by far than any other military and imperial powers in history, surely capable of defeating any enemy. But what happened? The US was humiliated in Vietnam by one rag-tag peasant army, and the Russians were humiliated in Afghanistan by another. Two ferocious lions might be ready to fight each other to the death, but couldn’t deal with swarms of gnats.
One could go back further than that. In a Dublin television studio three years ago we were discussing the legacy of the 1916 Easter rising, and something I said provoked a politician to shout, “We beat you in the war of independence” — the somewhat grandiloquent name for the troubles of 1919-1921.
Well, yes and no. In 1919 the British army was several million men strong and had just played a leading part in winning the greatest war then known.
The idea that it could have been defeated in conventional military terms by a few hundred gunmen (guerrillas or terrorists, according to taste) is demonstrably absurd. What the British were among the first to learn was the difficulty of subduing an irregular rising that enjoyed active or passive support among the local populace. In those circumstances normal military force could be of very little use, or even counterproductive. How do you use artillery against a handful of men bivouacked in the hills of County Kerry?
Savage force was indeed used at that very time, though not against the Irish Republican Army. Irish nationalists sometimes like to claim that those rebellions were “anti-colonial,” setting a pattern for further liberation movements, which is not so. In any case, what was notable was the lenience rather than the harshness used in Ireland, even by the hated Black and Tans, compared with elsewhere.
At exactly the time of the troubles, the infant Royal Air Force was putting down a rebellion in Iraq by bombing defenseless villages into submission. It was inconceivable that the same would have been done in west Cork. Since then, Western powers have repeatedly bombed Asia and Africa. But today, bombing villages in Afghanistan and Iraq — quite apart from any ethical considerations — has proved to be by no means efficacious.
There are few more startling illustrations of this impotence of might than the pirates, or the country they come from. A hundred years ago, any one of half a dozen imperial powers could have conquered Somalia in a matter of weeks with a couple of gunboats and a few battalions.
Today Somalia has been a collapsed state for nearly 20 years, in lawless confusion that no outside power can or will subdue. It harbors bands of men in light craft armed with rifles who can seize 50,000-tonne tankers flying the flags of Western states. And there is almost nothing anyone can do, despite Sunday’s escapade.
Since 1993 and the bloody “Black Hawk down” fiasco in Mogadishu, the US has steered well clear of Somalia. They could nuke it flat, but that doesn’t quite meet the case. And that episode is instructive. The US was horrified by the loss of 18 of their men, but at least 1,000 Somalis were killed at the same time. Likewise, the US has been perturbed by the loss of more than 4,000 of its forces in Iraq, as it was dismayed by nearly 60,000 US dead in Vietnam. But those compare with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who may have been killed in the past six years, and 2 million Vietnamese dead in that war.
Nothing is more frightening to us than suicide bombing. It is indeed repugnant, but it also proves what the Roman philosopher Seneca said long ago: “The man who is not afraid to die will always be your master.”
That applies, above all, to prosperous, sybaritic, modern Western societies, which no longer have any appetite for sacrifice and suffering. Is it any wonder we are mighty but weak at once?
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS