After the end of World War II, there arose tension between Western bloc powers and the powers in the Eastern Bloc. Those in the western bloc included the United States and the NATO allies while in the east included the Soviet Union and satellite states that had supported it in the war. This tension started in 1947 and continued for more than 30 years until 1991. This was when the Soviet Union collapsed (Haass, 2013). The tension is what is commonly known as the Cold War. Notably, during this period, there was a global power struggle between these two blocs. The United States and the Soviet Union constantly sort the control of the world (Hall, Massey & Rustin, 2013). Therefore, it is right to say that in this period of the Cold War, the world had two competing superpowers.
However, this power struggle came to an abrupt end in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The collapse happened in an anticipated way, and it got the United States by surprise. Notably, for many years before this collapse, it had looked like the United States was the one that would lose its control to the Soviet Union. Therefore, the United States had to come to terms with the fact that it was the only remaining world superpower (Van Apeldoorn & De Graaff, 2014). As a result, there were some adjustments that it needed to have so that it can effectively play this role. Unfortunately, since it was not well prepared for this new role, these adjustments were not done efficiently. Among them was to employ a new strategy on how it would operate as the only world superpower (Belmonte, 2013). This would give it the influence that it required to have so that it can play its role effectively. This paper will explore the strategy that the United States should have implemented after the cold war and give reasons for this suggestion.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
During the Cold War, the United States employed the strategy where it would get alliances with its allies both in the areas of economic partnership and military. Through this strategy, it would create a stronger military force. This force would not only be able to withstand many attempted attack by the other bloc but also sustain it all through the period. On the economic partnership, it would develop trading structures. The structures would entice other countries from the Soviet Union, and they would join the United States (Hall, Massey & Rustin, 2013). This means that all through Cold War, it was prepared to do a tradeoff between the trade and economic advantage. The main goal was so that it can have a more enhanced alliance. Moreover, it would provide resources for military alliances.
It is notable to state that in this era and considering the circumstances that it was in where there was a competitor; this strategy was the best to employ. That is the reason why it made sense and led to the United States emerging as the only world Super Power. However, it continued with the same strategy even after the Cold War. This is where it made a mistake (Hallams, & Schreer, 2012). For example, in the 9/11 bombing, it tried to employ this very strategy, but it did not work. The reason being times had changed, and the circumstances were not the same (Haass, 2013). The lessons of World War II and those of Cold War could not be simply transferred to Islamic radicalization. The lesson here is what should have been done after the Cold War. The United States should have noted that despite the fact that it was very powerful, it was also not omnipotent. Thus, it was not everywhere. The alliances that it built in the Cold War would not be used post the period (Van Apeldoorn & De Graaff, 2014).
The strategy that it should have employed is that of home country empowerment. For example, in Iraq and Libya, the United States made the mistake of thinking that after it sent its military and restored peace, it would be able to continue doing this for the long term. This was simply not sustainable. What it needed to do was to develop the home country military. Then, empower them to a level where they would be able to fight their own battles and protect their citizens (Van Apeldoorn & De Graaff, 2014). In a specific case of Libya, after Obama was able to remove Gadhafi from power, one mistake he made was the failure to develop a home military and a well-structured governing system. As mentioned above, the United States would not stay in Libya forever (Hallams, & Schreer, 2012). That means that by the time the United States’ military was leaving the country, there still was no stable government or a well-organised military that would take over. Therefore, no matter how much the United States would have wanted to help, it would not manage since physically it was not available. This is the strategy that the United States failed to develop.
When one analyzes most of the countries where the United States has intervened to restore peace, the outcome has not been very positive. Even if it usually succeeds in bringing down the regime in such a country, it fails in that it leaves the country without a well-structured system where peace and progress can be realized. The reason is the stagey it employs. It does not take time to restructure the home country Therefore it does not develop its systems and structures to a level where such a country can be able to survive on its own (Haass, 2013). Doing this has always been the reason for the failure.
Therefore, in solving this problem, the United States needs to ask itself one question; how can it be able to manage its influence as a world superpower sufficiently? The answer to this question lies in understanding that as a country, it cannot be able to pacify all these countries that it seeks to help through its military force (Hallams, & Schreer, 2012). It needs to find a way where it will be able to understand that the only strategy that can work is through coming up with a procedure of developing the military force of these countries. They can accomplish this by facilitating it to a level where they just need resource assistance and training for them to be able to take care of peace in their countries (Belmonte, 2013). When it does this, it will have succeeded in bringing long-lasting peace not only to these countries but the world as well. And eventually, it will have been able to play its role as a world superpower effectively.
References
Hall, S., Massey, D., & Rustin, M. (2013). After neoliberalism: analysing the present. Soundings , 53 (53), 8-22.
Haass, R. N. (2013). The irony of American strategy: putting the Middle East in proper perspective. Foreign Affairs , 92 (3), 57-67.
Belmonte, L. A. (2013). Selling the American Way: US Propaganda and the Cold War . University of Pennsylvania Press.
Van Apeldoorn, B., & De Graaff, N. (2014). Corporate elite networks and US post-Cold War grand strategy from Clinton to Obama. European Journal of International Relations , 20 (1), 29-55.
Hallams, E., & Schreer, B. (2012). Towards a ‘post-American’alliance? NATO burden-sharing after Libya. International affairs , 88 (2), 313-327.
