Is America the Indispensable Nation?

[BurtWorm]

Interesting question posted by Ilan Goldenberg at Democracy Arsenal:

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/06/is_america_the_.html

Madeleine Albright gets a lot of flack for her description of the “indispensable nation.” But according to her statements today, that just means that most of the hard international problems can’t be solved without American engagement. That doesn’t seem so controversial. Albright also pointed out that this has started to change. On Darfur – we are stuck in the muck without China. On global warming we can’t do it without China and India. In the Middle East we are so radioactive that when we do get involved fewer things happen. So are we the indispensable nation? I’m inclined to say yes, but it doesn't mean we can achieve our objectives alone. I’d like to hear what our readers have to say on this question.

[annabanana]

1. If it means that we have a unique ability, due to our size and

our wealth to really screw things up, then I would say "Yes".

[Dhalgren]

2. Lately it seems that we are quite dispensable,

and disposable, too - because no one wants us recycled...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. the underlyin reason is far worse.

the policies taken by Bush 1 did not help. Some of what Bill did hurt us, too. (NAFTA in particular) but all of that pales in comparison to George the Tooth.
If we have lost our standing in the world, it was because of him.

[TahitiNut]

4. When we're not part of the 'solution' it's often because ...

... we're part of the 'problem' - as a result of acting according to some narrow special interest. In such instances, 'dispensing' with US involvement can be, in itself, part of the solution.

[madrchsod]

5. yes we are...

and if we can get rid of just half our military expenditures we would be a leader again...at the moment we are no longer listened to on the world stage

[Eugene]

6. The U.S. still is a world leader, but it needs to act responsibly.

In the two examples cited, the U.S. cannot act alone, but
those problems won't get fixed without the U.S. at the
table playing a constructive role.

With Darfur, The U.S. and U.K. are taking the initiative
to stop the violence, not China.

As for climate change, the U.S. leads the anti-Kyoto bloc
that includes India, China, and Australia. The U.S ducks
responsibility by pointing at China and India while
they point back at the U.S. The U.S. has the capital
and the technology to lead the way out of this circle
by doing its share. It also has the financial clout to
encourage sustainable development if it adopts such a
policy.

The U.S. still has a leadership role to play in the world,
but it needs a leader more responsible than George Bush.
We are going to have a huge mess to clean up in 2009.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

7. A leader? I'm sorry but,...where are we "leading", presently.

We are acting more akin to a world dictator than a world leader.

I'm sure there are many MANY who view ours as something other than an indispensable nation. MANY.

[BurtWorm]

12. The US is acting as though it doesn't need the rest of the world.

It will do what it wants, whether the world wants it to or not. This would be a fine strategy if it could be sustained indefintely, but, of course, it can't be. At some point the US is going to have to face the consequences for treating the rest of the world this way.

[Javaman]

8. all empires fall. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. We are becoming not only dispensable but irrelevent.

We have assumed the role of crumbling empire. We are now in the stage of trying to protect our "vital national interests" by brute force in the face of an emerging new world.

Like Rome, we are overextended and have become dependent on our restive client states to support a non-sustainable way of life. Being the "World's Only Superpower" is an expensive proposition that we can no longer afford. The corporations that now control our government and economy can only survive by turning elsewhere for cheap materials and labor.

We are no longer seen as a model for government and economic well-being, but as scavengers and plunderers of the world.

The times they are a'changin'.

[GeorgeGist]

10. Arrogant ...

self-deception.
:freak:
:nuke:

[Jacobin]

11. No more than the earth is indispensable to the universe

I think statements like 'indispensable' are hogwash, petty, silly, and show that the person who makes the statement has an unusually high opinion of their place in the universe which is dangerous.