Opinion Leaders` Digest 03-17(No.236)
Date : May 28, 2003
Author : Choon-Kun Lee (Ph.D. Political Science, Vice President, Center for Free Enterprise, lck@cfe.org)

Reality of United States National Power

War as the Ultimate Test Ground of National Power

On 20 March of this year, the United States began its war with Iraq. An ostentatious display of surprising national power was made in achieving its war objective in only three weeks. Although the Iraqi military had already been relatively weakened, Iraq was the eleventh ranking strongest military country in the world with a standing army of 389,000 active troops. Iraq's troop strength, including its reserve forces amounted to the world's sixth ranking country with more than 1million troops. Iraq had six division of its National Republican Guard, who were the elite soldiers. After the lessons of the Gulf War of 1990, Iraq made special efforts to build a strong air defense network. As the result, it was able to equip itself with 3,000 anti aircraft artillery pieces and 850 surface to air missiles (SAM) located at four regional anti- aircraft bases. It also had tanks, possessed 2,600 vehicles and 316 jet fighter aircraft as well.

From a military strategic point of view, the defense is more advantageous than the offense. Especially in the case of Iraq War, the United States was in the situation where it fought the war from a far away distance having its missiles land thousands of kilometers away from their launch points. Some military critics and much of Korea's press said that the war would go on at length some days after it started, and predictions and expectations were that the war would be long and United States would be in for hard fighting, but the war actually ended in three weeks.

The ultimate means of comparing national strength is war. It can be said that the United States formally received recognition of its position as a supreme power for the first time through the Iraq War. Until just before the war commenced, it is not known whether or not France, Germany, Russia, China, etc. and of course, Iraq's Hussein misunderstood the reality of the national power of the United States. They all did not anticipate the United States harvesting of such a swift victory.

In all war, the cause variables are included in preparing the wrong judgment of the conditions. Generally, there is the tendency for countries facing war to over estimate their strength and under estimate the strength of their opponent. In evaluating who is stronger between the United States and Iraq in the case of the Iraq War, there is no reason there should be a problem. However, to an extent Iraq dragged out the time so that the United States would not able to have a quick victory and when casualties of the United States exceeded a certain level, Iraq expected to reap the ultimate victory itself. That was Hussein's miscalculation. France, Germany, Russia, China and others too can be said to have failed in accurately recognizing the reality of the national strength of the United States during the course of the war. Those countries exhibited the appearance of quickly reversing their former positions from the viewpoint that during the course of the war changing decisively their position to the United States.

The Essence of United States National Strength

That being the case, then what is the scale and essence of United States' national strength? This writer thinks that there must be concrete research carried out on the national strength of the United States in order to understand the principles in operation in 21st century international politics. National strength in reality originally is an important target of research in international political science. If it were possible to accurately measure the national strength of each country, it would be easier to understand the foreign diplomatic policy and strategy of each of the countries throughout the world. That is because countries make their diplomatic policies and strategies decisions through mutual interactions of national strength with other countries international political situations. We can expect to be able to accurately assess the shape of the approaching international system if we can understand the national strength and strategy of the United States because the United States, now at the opening of the 21st century, is recognized both by itself and by others as being the strongest nation in the world.

This writer believes that ordinary citizens and of course many specialists perhaps are underestimating rather than realistically seeing the power of the United States. The fact is that over the passed ten years (1990 - September 11, 2001), the so-called Post-Cold War period, the United States exhibited no particular political policy objectives, as if it was a nation wandering around. Immediately after the Cold War, the universal opinion was that the United States did not have the capability to lead the world with its own power alone. Many of those people thought a pluralistic system would emerge, not a unipolar or hegemonic system under the United States in the world to come. It was envisioned that plurality of powerful nations, such as the United States, Europe, Japan and China would establish mutual checks and balances and lead world politics. However, if we look closely at increase in the national power of the United States and the increase in national power of other nations over the passed ten years, we discover the fact that there has been shocking change in the international power structure over that period of time.

Historical experience in international politics shows that in the case of the power of any one powerful nation rapidly increasing in an unbalanced way in international politics, the international system falls into an unstable situation. Athens was unable to prevent the rapid increase in Sparta's national power and that resulted in the Peloponnesian War. The rapid rise in France's power plunged all of Europe into the abyss of war from 1792 to 1815. After the mid 1800s, the rapid rise of Prussia as a power provoked the German Unification War, and the rapid increase in power of Germany in the first half of the 20th century ultimately became the source of two rounds of world wars.

Economic Strength of the United States

Professor G. John Ikenberry's understanding is that rapid expansion of power is equivalent to a situation where as stability of historical international politics passed away due to the increased in national power of the United States over the passed ten year period. He points to some interesting facts. While the economic power of the United States increased 27% during the period of 1990 to 1998, there was 15% growth in the European Union and only a 9% growth rate in the case of Japan. In his book, America Unrivaled, Cornell University Press, 2002, Professor Ikenberry assesses that despite America's power, unlike other countries, increased in an unbalanced way; it is a strange fact that we do not see other powerful countries combining their strengths to oppose the United States. He also predicts that in the future too, powerful countries will not combine their strengths and behave traditionally to oppose the United States.

This writer was able to find source data that differed a bit from Professor Ikenberry's on the Internet. The following data shows the economic growth over the ten year period from 1992 to 2001 of the powerful countries and shows no particular difference with Professor Ikenberry's evaluation.

Economic Growth of Major Power Countries over the Passed Ten Years (1992 - 2001)

United States Military Power

Military power is one area in which the United States is superior compared to other powerful countries. It is not an overstatement to say that the military power of the United States until a few years ago went from being the second most powerful country to seventh (in the case of 1997) in defense expenditure. (Bruce Berkowitz, The New Face of War, New York, Free Press, 2003) To help in understanding the new warfare of today, there are five figures that can be helpful. First, three numbers are related to the enormous military power of the United States. They are the numbers $750 million, $380 million, and the figure 3.2%.

The defense expenditure of all countries of the world in 2003 is $750 billion, the defense expenditure of the United States for 2003 is $380 billion, and the defense expenditure of the United States is said to be 3.2% of its GDP. Having to say that "the defense expenditure of the United States is more than all of the expenditures of all the other countries in the world combined" is mind boggling. The United States' defense expenditure during the Cold War was 5-6% of the U.S. GDP so there is nearly no burden at all on the U.S. economy.

This says that the remaining two kinds are the human casualty denunciation by the recent increase in the annual average defense expenditure rate of China and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack of 17% and 3,025 people, respectfully. Many people thinking this way in the United States say this loss never before occurred in one day.

There is no nation that matches the military power of the United States. The military strength of the United States relies upon the leading edge of science and technology, and because the United States uses 80% of the world's defense research and development expenditures, the United States anticipates that the military power disparity with other countries will gradually further widen.

Although it is said that China's military strength is mighty, Japanese critic Hidakayohiki (ìíÍÔëùâ§) says that the United States is able to change the flight direction of China's intercontinental missiles headed for the United States through IT technology. The degree to which the United States harvested rapid victory in Iraq was ultimately possible because of the superiority of United States' military power. Hidakayohiki predicted in his book that was published last year on 30 November, that war between the United States and Iraq would be over within three weeks, and many specialists did the same. The United States now has the precision and enormous military strength to selectively pick off the political power of an enemy nation.

Population of the United States

Among the elements of national power, population has been traditionally an important one. A basic condition of a powerful country is that it must have a rich pool of high quality labor having a good education. However, powerful countries in general recently have fallen into having the burdens of an aging population and a population that is not expanding. Nevertheless, the United States is an exception to this sort of cerebral stuff. For the ten years from 1992 to 2001, the population of the United States increased from 255,030,000 to 283,970,000. That is an increase of no less than 28,940,000 and an increase rate of 11.4%. During the same time period, France's population increased from 57,370,000 to 58,890,000, an increase of 1,520,000 (by 2.6%) people. England's increased from 58,010,000 to 59,500,000, and increase of 1,520,000 (2.57%) people, Germany from 80,570,000 to 82,180,000, an increase of 1,610,000 (2.0%) people, Russia's decreased from only 148,310,000 to 145,490,000, an decrease of 2,820,000, and Japan's population increased from 124,420,000 to 126,870,000, an increase of 2,450,000 (1.97%) people.

The average age of Americans now is 35.5 years and the average age of Europeans is 37.5 years. When focusing on the fact that after humans are educated and become adults the time they are actively able to work is about thirty years, the fact is that the average age of Americans is two years younger than Europeans is not ultimately a trifle disparity. Calculation based on the current trends show that the average age of Americans is expected to be 36.2 in 2050 and the average age of Europeans is expected to be 52.7. (Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America versus Europe in the New World Order, New York: Knopf, 2003)

There will be no objection to concluding that the United States, endlessly enticing excellent human resources from everywhere throughout the world as a nearly completely developed society with its massive territory and unlimited resources, will maintain its ranking into the future for more than scores of years as being the strongest.

Enormous power like this changes the behavior and strategy of a nation. Professor Kagan cited above, explains international behavior using a simile that in the case of a person carrying a gun meeting a bear and a person carrying a sword meeting a bear each person's behavior can only be different as in the difference between the United States and Europe. Of course, England and France and other countries of Europe were countries on the side of carrying the gun in international politics one hundred years ago, and the United States was on the side of carrying the sword. The person carrying the gun will shoot it when meeting the bear. The person carrying the sword is more likely on the side of running.

Change in United States Strategy

There are many people that say the United States is an arrogant country. However, the arrogance of the United States only reflects the reality of its national power. The strategy and attitude of any country is the result of its national strength and the mutual interaction of the international environment in which it finds itself. In the 19th century, English people said: "If the English people come into contact with inferior races, it will dominate those people no matter what the reason where ever they are. In their arrogance, the English people even went as far as to say, "We are able to control the French people even more than the French can control themselves." (Pak Chi Huang, Twisted Modernity, 2003)

The United States has never possessed the enormous national strength that it now has since its founding as a nation. The United States has had difficulties in its foreign policy principles for over 200 years since its founding and until recently, a few years ago. That principle is that "All of Asia would not be under the domination of any one country" and "Europe would not be under the domination of any one country." In the event that China or Japan takes hold of supremacy over all of Asia it means the advent of a power that surely would expand beyond the Pacific and threaten the United States. England, France, or Germany becoming dominant in Europe likewise would mean it was the advent of power that would expand beyond the Atlantic and threaten the United States. The United States would support China when Japan's power grew strong and when China became strong it would support Japan. When Germany was strong, it supported England and France and when England was strong, its diplomatic principle supported France.

The results of an assessment made by a famous Korean international economist shows that the economic strength of the United States is about as much as 40% of the entire world's economy. In military strength, the United States clearly has more than 50% of that of the entire world's. There is no possibility for other countries of the world to unite to war with the United States, but it would not be an exaggeration to say that the military strength of the United States is over 60-70% of that of the world's. The composite national strength of the United States is more than 50% of that of the world's. The United States has an enormous national strategy and will of its citizens that has never before been seen from a perspective of national strength after the September 11 attack.

The conceptual definition of a super power is "national strength of more than 50% of the world." The super power in theory does not project a power balance policy. Furthermore, in theory, doing everything is possible. This is exactly what the United States is at this time. Currently, the United States press and its politicians are mentioning that Japan will be allowed to become a nuclear armed country if North Korea's nuclear armament is not blocked. Even if Japan does become a nuclear armed country, it means that the United States does not consider this situation to be a serious threat. United States' national power is a situation in which its strength exceeds 50% of the world so even in the case of any one supreme power dominating Asia or Europe, there is no danger to any strong extent for the United States.

The strategy of the United States, for the time being in the future, will be to meet the challenge in the war on terrorism. Before the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States, the United States believed that terrorism was an international crime and believed that it was a problem that the police should handle. However, the scale of the September 11th attack was so great that it gave the American people no choice but to establish terrorism as the objective of its military strategy. The United States has changed its principle that it adhered too for scores of years and has stipulated the fight with terrorists to be a "war." The first objective of the United States is to eliminate terrorists and the regimes of states that sponsor terrorism.

The core of the North Korean nuclear problem too is the United States' perception that North Korea's power supports terrorism. When we recognize that the United States is squarely confronting the fact and that it has the will and the ability to solve it, we are able to establish a more effective policy toward the North and toward the United States.