Have We Hit Peak America

8/11/2019 Have We Hit Peak America

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/have-we-hit-peak-america 1/24

8/31/2014 Have We Hit Peak America?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/have_we_hit_peak_america

H VE WE

HITPEAK AMERICA?

THE SOURCES OF U.S. POWER

AND THE PATH TO NATIONALRENAISSANCE.

AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN THE

WORLD IS IMPERILED. AND AT A

FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, THE

AMERICAN PEOPLE SENSE IT. A

NUMBER OF RECENT POLLS SHOW

THAT MORE AMERICANS THAN

EVER BEFORE -- NEARLY 60PERCENT, IN SOME CASES --

BELIEVE U.S. POWER IS WANING.In other words, a greater number of Americans are

worried about diminishing U.S. influence today

than in the face of feared Soviet technological

superiority in the late 1950s, the Vietnam quagmire

of the late 1960s, the 1973 oil embargo, the apparent

resurgence of Soviet power around the 1979

invasion of Afghanistan, and the economic

concerns that plagued the late 1980s -- the five

waves of so-called declinist anxiety that political

scientist Samuel Huntington famously identified.

Many analysts have attributed Americans' current

anxiety to the aftershock of waging two long wars in

Iraq and Afghanistan. But the polls actually reflect

something deeper and more potent -- a legitimate,




http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/have_we_hit_peak_america 2

increasingly tactile uncertainty in the minds of the

American people created by changes in the world

and in America's competitive position, which they

feel far more immediately than do the participantsin Washington policy debates. Average Americans

do not experience the world through the lens of

great-power rivalry or U.S. leadership abroad, but

rather through that of an increasingly competitive

globalized labor market, stagnating income growth

among the middle class, and deep and unresolvedworries about their children's future. A recent CNN

poll, for instance, found that Americans think by a

2-to-1 margin that their children's lives will be worse

than their own. They are questioning the promise of

growth and expanding opportunity -- the very

substance of the American dream.This anxiety is real and justified, and it lies behind

much of the public's support for withdrawing from

the world, for retrenchment. Yet American

leadership and engagement remain essential. The

United States cannot hide from the world. Rather, it

must compete. And if it competes well, it can restorenot only its economic health, but also its strength

for the long haul. That resilience will preserve

Americans' ability to determine their fate and the

nation's ability to lead in the way its interests

require.

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/12-3-2013%20APW%20VI.pdf

http://www.pollingreport.com/life.htm





Unfortunately, absent from current discussions

about U.S. foreign policy has been a hardheaded

assessment of what it will actually take to rejuvenate

and compete. Policymakers and experts have notyet taken a clear-eyed look at the data and

objectively analyzed the fundamental shifts under

way globally and what they mean for America's

competitive position. Nor have they debated the

steps necessary to sustain U.S. power over the long

term.Many foreign-policy experts seem to believe that

retaining American primacy is largely a matter of

will -- of how America chooses to exert its power

abroad. Even President Obama, more often accused

of being a prophet of decline than a booster of

America's future, recently asserted that the UnitedStates "has rarely been stronger relative to the rest

of the world." The question, he continued, is "not

whether America will lead, but how we will lead."

But will is unavailing without strength. If the United

States wants the international system to continue to

reflect its interests and values -- a system, forexample, in which the global commons are

protected, trade is broad-based and extensive, and

armed conflicts among great nations are curtailed --

it needs to sustain not just resolve, but relative

power. That, in turn, will require acknowledging the

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/28/remarks-president-west-point-academy-commencement-ceremony





uncomfortable truth that global power and wealth

are shifting at an unprecedented pace, with

profound implications. Moreover, many of the

challenges America faces are exacerbated byvulnerabilities that are largely self-created, chief

among them fiscal policy. Much more quickly and

comprehensively than is understood, those

vulnerabilities are reducing America's freedom of

action and its ability to influence others.

Preserving America's international position willrequire it to restore its economic vitality and make

policy choices now that pay dividends for decades

to come. America has to prioritize and to act.

Fortunately, the United States still enjoys greater

freedom to determine its future than any other

major power, in part because many of its problemsare within its ability to address. But this process of

renewal must begin with analyzing America's

competitive position and understanding the gravity

of the situation Americans face.

THE RELATIVE ECONOMIC DECLINE

OF THE UNITED STATES IS A FACT.For the first time in 200 years, most growth is

occurring in the developing world,and the speed

with which that shift -- a function of globalization --

has occurred is hard to fathom. Whereas in 1990





THE WORLD'S ECONOMIC CENTER OF GRAVITYThe larger a country's GDP, the greater its pull on the world's economic center of gravity. So when the

Industrial Revolution spurred massive growth in the United States, the center moved west, eventually out

over the Atlantic Ocean. Today, it is moving back toward Asia.

SOURCE: MCKINSEY GLOBAL INSTITUTE, WITH DATA FROM ANGUS MADDISON OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

GRONINGEN

just 14 percent of cross-border flows of goods,

services, and finances originated in emerging

economies, today nearly 40 percent do. As recently

as 2000, the GDP of China was one-tenth that of theUnited States; just 14 years later, the two economies

are equal (at least in terms of purchasing power

parity).

This shift reorders what was, in some sense, a

historical anomaly: the transatlantic dominance of

the past 150 years. As illustrated by the map below,it wasn't until the Industrial Revolution took hold in

the 19th century that the world's "economic center

of gravity" decisively moved toward Europe and the

United States, which have since been the primary

engines of growth. Today, however, the economic

center of gravity is headed back toward Asia, and itis doing so with unique historical speed.

This trend will persist even though emergingeconomies are hitting roadblocks to growth, such as

pervasive corruption in India and demographic

challenges and serious distortions in the banking

system in China. For instance, according to the

asset-management firm BlackRock and the

http://www.blackrock.com/investing/literature/whitepaper/are-emerging-markets-the-next-developed-markets-us.pdf





VS. SPENDINGing on entitlements and net interest payments will exceed federal revenues,

iscretionary programs will be borrowed.

AL BUDGET OFFICE

Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD), consumption in emerging

markets has already eclipsed that in the United

States, and spending by the middle classes in Asia-Pacific nations is on track to exceed middle-class

spending in North America by a factor of nearly six

by 2030.

U.S. wealth is not shrinking in absolute terms -- and

it continues to benefit from economic globalization

-- but the United States and its allies are losingmight compared with potential rivals. Although

Europe and Japan have been responsible for much

of the developed world's lost relative economic

power, the U.S. economy has also slowed from its

traditional rates of expansion over the past several

decades. Worsening productivity growth has playeda particularly large role in the U.S. slowdown,

dropping to around 0.5 percent annually, which the

Financial Times has referred to as a "productivity

crisis." A range of factors are responsible, including

a decline in the skill level of the American workforce

and a drop in resources allocated to research anddevelopment.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6cb5aece-7dee-11e3-b409-00144feabdc0.html#axzz33lNyIMDR

http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2013/cfljanuary2013_306.pdf





Overall, the U.S. economy has become less

competitive. The McKinsey Global Institute, for

instance, has measured the relative attractiveness of

the United States across a range of metrics, such asnational spending on research and development

and foreign direct investment as a percentage of

GDP. It found that U.S. business attractiveness

relative to that of competitors fell across 14 of 20 key

metrics from 2000 to 2010 -- and improved in none.

And according to the Harvard Business Review, U.S.exports' global market share dropped across the

board from 1999 to 2009 and suffered particularly

sharp falls in cutting-edge fields such as aerospace.

This shift in economic growth toward the

developing world is going to have strategic

consequences. Military power ultimately derivesfrom wealth. It is often noted that the United States

spends more on defense than the next 10 countries

combined. But growth in military spending

correlates with GDP growth, so as other economies

grow, those countries will likely spend more on

defense, reducing the relative military power of theUnited States. Already, trends in global defense

spending show a rapid and marked shift from the

United States and its allies toward emerging

economies, especially China. In 2011, the United

States and its partners accounted for approximately

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/public_sector/strategy_scenarios_and_the_global_shift_in_defense_power

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/military-spending-cuts/u-s-military-spending-dwarfs-rest-world-n37461

http://www.wedc.wa.gov/Download%20files/HBR_LoomingCompetiveness.pdf

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/Strategy/PDFs/Keeping_the_American_Dream_Alive_Final_a.ashx





80 percent of the military spending by the 15

countries with the largest defense budgets. But,

according to a McKinsey study, that share could fall

significantly over the next eight years -- perhaps toas low as 55 percent.

The resulting deterioration in American military

superiority has already begun, as the countries

benefiting most rapidly from globalization are using

their newfound wealth to build military capacity,

especially in high-tech weaponry. As Robert Workand Shawn Brimley of the Center for a New

American Security wrote this year: "[T]he

dominance enjoyed by the United States in the late

1990s/early 2000s in the areas of high-end sensors,

guided weaponry, battle networking, space and

cyberspace systems, and stealth technology hasstarted to erode. Moreover, this erosion is now

occurring at an accelerated rate." (Work has since

been confirmed as deputy secretary of defense.)

China, in particular, is acquiring higher-end

capabilities and working to establish "no-go zones"

in its near abroad in the hopes of denying U.S.forces the ability to operate in the Western Pacific.

China's declared defense budget grew 12 percent

this year -- and has grown at least ninefold since

2000 -- and most experts think its real defense

spending is considerably larger. The International

http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_20YY_WorkBrimley.pdf





Institute for Strategic Studies has judged that

Beijing will spend as much on defense as

Washington does by the late 2020s or early 2030s.

Meanwhile, regional powers like Iran -- and evennonstate actors like Hezbollah -- are becoming more

militarily formidable as it becomes easier to obtain

precision-guided munitions and thus threaten U.S.

power-projection capabilities.

Simultaneously, the United States is slashing its

defense spending while allocating its remainingfunds less strategically. Not only has the Defense

Department estimated that it has already cut almost

$600 billion from its budget plans for the next

decade, but if current trends continue, by 2021

nearly half of the Pentagon's budget will go to

personnel-related costs, rather than procurement,training, research and development, or operations.

The U.S. National Intelligence Council recently

projected the future distribution of global power

using two distinct methodologies that incorporated

a range of "hard" and "soft" factors. By both

estimates, the U.S. share of global power will falldramatically, from around 25 percent in 2010 to

around 15 percent in 2050. The National

Intelligence Council predicted that over the same

period, the relative power of the European Union

and Japan will fall significantly as well.

http://globaltrends2030.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/global-trends-2030-november2012.pdf

http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_20YY_WorkBrimley.pdf

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Estimated_Impacts_of_Sequestration-Level_Funding_April.pdf

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/get_ready_for_the_democratization_of_destruction

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/us-world-military-idUSTRE7273UB20110308





GDPs OF G-7 AND E-7 COUNTRIESSOURCE: PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

The United States is worsening this problem by

refusing to confront its federal debt and deficits.

Unsustainable fiscal policy will limit U.S.

competitiveness and freedom of action in the worldwith a severity and alacrity not remotely

appreciated in today's U.S. foreign-policy debates.

The total federal debt currently held by the public,

which includes foreign creditors, is approximately

$13 trillion. That is almost three-quarters of U.S.

GDP, the highest it has ever been except for a brief period during and after World War II. Moreover, the

drivers of the debt are entitlement programs that

will impose enormous costs indefinitely.

Today, well over 60 percent of federal revenue is

consumed by spending on Social Security, the

major health-care programs (including Medicare,

Medicaid, and subsidies under the Affordable Care

Act), and interest payments on the federal debt. By

2043, spending on entitlements and net interest

payments will consume all federal revenue,

according to the Congressional Budget Office. Every

dollar the U.S. government spends on anything else

-- defense, intelligence, foreign affairs, the federal

justice system, infrastructure, science and





technology, education, the space program -- will be

borrowed. And by that time, the total federal debt

held by the public will far exceed U.S. GDP.

Recent attempts to address the problem have onlyresulted in fiasco. The "sequester" imposed

automatic, arbitrary, across-the-board cuts to

discretionary spending -- precisely the spending

that is not causing the fiscal problem -- with the

heaviest burden falling on defense. Most spending

for entitlements was untouched. One could hardlyimagine an outcome more likely to reduce

American power, and quickly.

The unwillingness to choose a sustainable fiscal

path is forcing the United States to forgo the

investments necessary to sustain the domestic

sources of its power, and it is already eroding itsstrength abroad. Among allies, adversaries, and

swing states alike, U.S. fiscal policy is increasingly

calling into question America's ability to lead

globally.

FOR ALL THESE CHALLENGES TO

ITS INFLUENCE, THE UNITED

STATES RETAINS ENORMOUS

POTENTIAL STRENGTH. Far more so than

other great powers, it has the advantages and







writer Reihan Salam and others have shown, sectors

such as health care and education -- which together

comprise a quarter of the country's economy -- are

inefficient compared with other OECD nations.Government services are laggard. Introducing best

business practices and up-to-date information

technology to those areas would not only improve

Americans' lives, but would also tap underexploited

sources of national wealth.

With respect to defense policy, the United Statesmust be ruthlessly strategic in its spending and

preparations, prioritizing the principal source of its

military advantage: technological superiority. This

means focusing increasingly scarce defense dollars

on next-generation weapons, such as stealthy

bombers and quiet submarines, and on the assetsthat make them smarter than their enemy

counterparts -- command, control, communication,

and computer systems, as well as intelligence,

surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. And

it means fielding these capabilities with a better-

trained, leaner military that de-emphasizes lesslucrative investments, such as personnel strength

and systems that cannot survive or prosper in the

tougher emerging military-technological

environment.





NERGY SUPPLYenjoyed a surge of over a million barrels per day in its liquid-fuels supply --

supply from OPEC countries dropped sharply. The United States is on its

ergy.

TION ADMINISTRATION

THE KEY TO PREVENTING RELATIVE

DECLINE -- and perhaps sparking a renaissance

in American power -- lies not simply in remedying

problems with fiscal responsibility, economic

productivity, and military spending, but in

leveraging the country's comparative advantages,

which are significant. The United States has an open

political system that, historically, has proved able to

self-correct and adapt. It has a culture that favors

economic growth, accepts and integrates people

from all over the world, and enables mobility,

creativity, and personal renewal and reinvention. As

a result, the nation remains an abiding destination

for foreign investment -- a reliable source of growth

and safety in uncertain economic and geopolitical

times.

In particular, America's energy boom and its ability

to attract talent from around the world could yield

an outsized return on investment.

Less than a decade ago, energy loomed as an

enormous challenge for the United States. Not

anymore. The combination of horizontal drilling

and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking,"





technologies has generated a surge in U.S. oil and

natural gas production. Between 2007 and 2012,

U.S. production of shale gas increased from roughly

3.5 billion cubic feet per day to over 28 billion, ajump of over 700 percent. In the same period, shale

gas's share of U.S. gas production grew from 5

percent to 45 percent. With each year, the efficiency

of fracking has improved, and estimates of

recoverable reserves of shale gas have nearly

doubled. Driven by the production of tight oil madepossible by fracking, U.S. crude oil production has

also soared in the last five years, following four

decades of decline.

In 2013, the United States overtook Russia as the

world's leading producer of oil and gas. Within two

years it is likely to surpass Saudi Arabia as theworld's largest crude oil producer. U.S. imports of

oil and gas have fallen steeply in the last five years,

reducing the trade deficit. The United States will

soon be a net exporter of energy.

The economic boost from the so-called "North

American energy revolution" has already beenprofound. Natural gas prices in the United States

have plummeted, both in absolute terms and

relative to other markets around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tight_oil





Consequently, the United States is now uniquely

advantaged in industries, such as petrochemical

production, that require massive amounts of

energy. Billions of dollars of investment capital haveflowed into the United States, thereby helping to

revitalize the manufacturing sector. Energy analyst

Daniel Yergin has linked the creation of 2 million

jobs to the development of shale energy, and other

reports suggest that the renewal of the energy

industry (and associated manufacturing andsupport services) is pumping hundreds of billions of

additional dollars into the U.S. economy every year.

The energy boom has also significantly reduced

carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, even

as the emissions from other, more traditionally

"green" states, like Germany, have increased. Alarge part of this shift has been driven by the rapid

transition from coal to less expensive and less

emissions-intensive gas-powered electricity.

According to the U.S. Energy Information

Administration, in 2012 alone, a year in which U.S.

GDP grew nearly 3 percent, the country's energy-related carbon emissions fell almost 4 percent, to

their lowest level since 1994 and 12 percent below

their 2007 peak.





Admittedly, some enthusiasts have overhyped the

strategic implications of this revolution. True

energy "independence" -- defined as isolation from

shocks to global energy markets -- is impossible.And the United States has not gained newfound

leverage over energy producers such as Russia.

Nonetheless, the energy revolution has given the

United States an important strategic capability. In

2011, the growth in U.S. and Canadian production

helped moderate global oil prices when suppliesfrom Libya were interrupted during that country's

revolution. Going forward, the United States will be

better able to help allies by diversifying their energy

options and, in some cases, offering them more

secure supply lines. To Japan, for example, energy

flowing from North America is vastly preferable toMiddle Eastern supplies that must transit the South

China Sea.

Preserving and furthering the energy revolution and

its boost to U.S. competitiveness is crucial. But it

first requires a Hippocratic oath mindset: Do no

harm. The North American energy revolution hasbeen made possible in part by supportive property

rights and state laws and regulations. But fracking

does have risks. A prudent, predictable regulatory

regime, one that provides rigorous monitoring and

reduces potential environmental risks, benefits both

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14531





industry and the public. By contrast, efforts under

way in some states to ban the transport of fracking

wastewater on state roads -- or even ban fracking

entirely -- could curtail one of the country's greatestcomparative advantages.

Looking outward, Washington must change its

mindset toward its place in the global energy

market. The United States is the world's leading

energy superpower. It is time to reverse prohibitions

on the export of oil and other hydrocarbons, manyof which date from the OPEC embargoes of the

1970s. The government should continue to grant

licenses to export liquefied natural gas to countries

with which it does not have free trade agreements,

and reverse the ban on crude oil exports.

ANOTHER STRENGTH OF THE

UNITED STATES IS ITS EDGE IN

HUMAN CAPITAL -- the productivity,

innovation, and entrepreneurship of its workers.

The United States remains an attractive destination

for smart, skilled, and creative individuals, even as

the global competition for such workers intensifies.

In 2010, for instance, Gallup reported that over 165

million of the approximately 700 million adults

worldwide looking to emigrate would like to move to

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127604/Young-Less-Educated-Yearn-Migrate.aspx





According to a 2010 study, about 24 percent of the world's adults hoping to emigrate listed the United

States as their ideal destination -- more than three times the number wanting to head to second-place

Canada.

SOURCE: GALLUP

the United States, well ahead of second-place

Canada. The United States did particularly well

among younger respondents.

U.S. advantages in the global "war for talent" include

the perception of meritocracy and mobility in the

American system, exceptional centers of economic

activity in places like New York and Silicon Valley,

and the allure of American higher education.

Shanghai Jiao Tong University's influential annual

review of the world's top universities, for instance,

lists 17 American universities among its top 20.

Major U.S. universities also have much larger

endowments than potential rivals abroad, helping

them lure the best and the brightest, which in turn

enables them to serve as incubators for innovation.

These assets have made the United States the

leading destination for high-skilled immigrants,

who provide an essential engine for economic

growth. William Kerr of Harvard Business School,

for instance, found that American immigrants of

Chinese and Indian extraction accounted for 15

percent of U.S. domestic patents in 2004, up from

just 2 percent in 1975. And the Brookings Institution

http://www.people.hbs.edu/wkerr/kerr_highskillimmempirics-8-26-13.pdf

http://www.economist.com/node/17928981

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2013.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127604/Young-Less-Educated-Yearn-Migrate.aspx





NIVERSITIES ARE IN THE UNITED STATES. F WORLD UNIVERSITIES, SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY, 2013

has estimated that a quarter of technology and

engineering businesses started in the United States

between 1995 and 2005 had a foreign-born founder.

Preserving the U.S. edge in human capital is

essential. But the United States is not exploiting this

advantage as much as it should. Its current

approach to H-1B visas, for instance, is overly

restrictive and ultimately harmful. The United

States regularly educates and trains hyperskilled

Ph.D. students in the sciences, for example, and

then makes it difficult for them to stay in the

country. America should welcome and try to keep

skilled and talented workers and entrepreneurs.

The payoffs are clear: Every H-1B visa granted for an

employee to join a high-tech company adds another

five jobs to the economy. Other countries, such as

Canada and Australia, already understand this

dynamic. They are attracting talent through

incentives and criteria, such as educational

attainment and work history, that suggest great

economic potential. The United States ought to

learn from their example.

More broadly, improving America's world-class

universities and research centers is essential to

building and attracting the world's best talent and to

http://static.pulso.cl/20130612/1768132.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303802104579451122421049340

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/01/immigration-west

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2013.html





fostering the innovation that will fuel economic

growth in the 21st century. The U.S. experience in

the last century demonstrated the multiplier effect

of public investments in basic research. Failure toprioritize funding for such bodies as the National

Science Foundation, the National Institutes of

Health, and the Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency is penny-wise and pound-foolish. It

was technological innovation that produced the

startling boom in oil and gas production, and thecountry's ability to generate and exploit alternative

energy sources will be driven by scientific

breakthroughs -- as with graphene, a nanomaterial

that has the potential to revolutionize batteries.

The United States also needs to tap fully its existing

reservoirs of domestic talent. Extending the careersof the country's 76 million baby boomers -- perhaps

through encouraging flexible working hours and

changing how Social Security retirement benefits

are calculated -- would not only help alleviate the

strains on entitlement spending and increase

retirement savings, but it would also help theeconomy grow as more mature workers continue to

contribute the lifetime of expertise they have

developed.





Building such skills among the coming generation

of workers is critical as well. Even during the recent

recession, employers could not fill certain high-

skilled positions -- a supply-demand imbalanceprojected to continue through the decade. One way

to address this gap may be through education

tailored to specific careers. The Automotive

Manufacturing Technical Education Collaborative,

for example, partners auto companies and

community colleges in 12 states to train students forhigh-skilled careers in the auto industry.

PERHAPS THE SINGLE MOST

IMPORTANT THING AMERICANS

CAN DO, however, is to be honest with

themselves about the challenges the country faces

and the seriousness with which it needs to treat

them. America needs to talk less about its

exceptionalism and focus more on demonstrating it.

If America chooses the path of economic

adaptation, reform, and restored productivity -- that

is, if it resolves to make tough choices -- it will be

able to remain prosperous and strong and therefore

retain extraordinary influence over its future and in

the world. If it does not, it will see the domestic

http://www.autoworkforce.org/





sources of its power erode far more quickly and

with far more damaging consequences than is

currently appreciated.

Within the United States, there is an ongoing debateabout the appropriate uses of American power

abroad. But whatever one's views on how U.S. power

should be used, there is little reason to support its

erosion. If one favors extensive American

engagement, a resilient America will be better able

to lead and intervene effectively. If one favorsretrenchment and restraint, a more powerful

America will be better insulated from outside

threats. If one favors measured engagement,

strength provides options and the firmest basis for

sustained success. And, irrespective of foreign

policy, an economically dynamic, growing Americawill benefit all its citizens, particularly the

generations to come.

Otto von Bismarck is often quoted as having said

that God takes special care of drunks, children, and

the United States of America. But as another saying

goes, God takes care of those who take care of themselves. Although the former may still be true,

the latter certainly is.

While believing that America is doomed to decline is

a fallacy, refusing to confront the problems that

imperil its economic vitality would be no less a




failing. American strength and freedom of action

are not rights to be inherited but outcomes to be

earned. Preserving U.S. influence abroad requires

that Americans focus on renewing the sources of their nation's power and mitigating its weaknesses.

It is time to play the long game.

Elbridge Colby is the Robert M. Gates fellow at the

Center for a New American Security. Paul Lettow

was senior director for strategic planning on the U.S.

National Security Council staff from 2007 to 2009.The views expressed here are theirs alone.

Infographics by MGMT. design.

Have We Hit Peak America

Documents