That Sucking Noise You Hear Is The Sound Of U.S. Withdrawal

Nations, like Nature, abhor a vacuum. They must be filled. How they are filled, by whom and with what are the questions. Unlike Nature, which seeks to fill a vacuum with whatever is handy and can be stuffed or sucked into the space available, nations rely on power, relationships and institutions to fill vacuums that arise in the international system. Political vacuums can readily be filled by raw power and the domination of the strong over the weak. Or they can be filled by the rule of law and a community of nations.

Twice in the last 60-plus years the United States chose to fill the vacuum caused by the collapse of old institutions, relationships and power centers. After World War Two, along with key allies, this country created an entirely new international order with a set of democratic institutions and international agreements that have endured to this day. America, again in concert with many allies, also built a security apparatus and military machine of global reach and power, one unlike any seen in peacetime. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States did not simply declare victory and go home. Rather, even while reducing the size of its military, America chose to remain in the world, forward deployed, and committed to long-established alliances and security relationships. As a result, the world was able to weather difficult and dangerous transitions and create or maintain a viable international system. In both cases, nations, including America’s former adversaries, had the opportunity to become part of that system and to flourish.

Now again, the prospect of a new vacuum in the international order is emerging. Unlike the previous two, this one is not the result of an implosion caused by the collapse of erstwhile major powers. Rather, it is the consequence of a gradual diminution of the power and will of those that created the current international system to sustain it. Repeated economic crises, chronic slow growth at home and the growing burden of social welfare programs have brought most Western countries to the point of military near-irrelevance. The last time U.S. allies “walked away” from the challenge of filling the global space, the United States took up the burden. Now, facing some of the same challenges at home as its allies and, simply put, being somewhat tired of carrying the burden, this country too is considering a less central role in world affairs.

The trouble is that the United States cannot withdraw without sucking the air out of the system. U.S. power and presence have been the central, structure features that hold the present international order together. It flavors the very air that fills the sphere that is the international system. Whether it is the size of the U.S. economy, its capacity for innovation, the role of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency or the contribution of U.S. military power to the stability and peace of the global commons, the present world order has “made in the USA” written all over it.

Ironically, the role of the United States in maintaining the existing order increased with the end of the Cold War. From 1945 to the collapse of the Soviet Union there were between 40 and 50 significant instances of the use of U.S. armed forces abroad. From 1990 to the present, that number nearly tripled to between 100 and 135. These do not include humanitarian operations, support for civil authorities after natural disasters or the myriad of routine deployments for training purposes or to build partnership capacity. At the same time we reduced the size of the Armed Forces by half. The result has been to wear down and wear out the primary means of ensuring global peace and stability.

So as the United States reduces the size of its military and its overseas engagements what do we think will happen? If, as a result of sequestration, the administration announces it is leaving a region of the world – Europe, the Middle East or East Asia – what happens there? Will China rush in to fill the newly created space? Or Iran? Or maybe Russia again? What about the global commons, beyond their local reach? None of these countries really can, nor would their neighbors welcome such efforts. Their efforts may actually create greater instability.

Pundits and analysts who speak of new institutions, treaties and relationships to take the place of American power should acknowledge that even if such an approach could be made to work, there just isn’t enough time. That noise you hear is the air coming out of the international system as the United States begins to come home.