“We’re America, Bitches!”
The Problems with U.S. Primacy. Written in December 2021.
At The Chicago Economic Club on the 24th of April 1999, British Prime Minister Tony Blair outlined his ideas for how the international community should respond to humanitarian crises such as that in Kosovo, stressing the importance of intervening “based not on any territorial ambitions but on values” and asserting “we will not have succeeded until an international force has entered Kosovo.” (Blair) In the conclusion of what would come to be known as his ‘Doctrine of the International Community,’ Blair kisses the feet of the United States: “You are the most powerful country in the world, and the richest. You are a great nation. You have so much to give and to teach the world.” (Blair) His final words — groveling — resonate with the history of post-1945 America, a history of being seen as the world’s policeman,
It must be difficult and occasionally irritating to find yourselves the recipient of every demand, to be called upon in every crisis, to be expected always and everywhere to do what needs to be done. […] We need you engaged. […] I say to you: never fall again for the doctrine of isolationism. The world cannot afford it. Stay a country, outward-looking, with the vision and imagination that is in your nature (Blair; emphasis added).
Since 9/11 — two years after Blair’s doctrine — US-led wars have cost America $6.4 trillion and cost the world 800,000 lives, all while displacing 37 million people (Bokat-Lindell). The United States spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). This paints a picture of American military primacy, the world’s largest and most expensive police force. But what is fueling the desire to be the world’s policeman? If America bases its ‘justice’ on “values” or “vision and imagination” as Blair highlights, what kind of values and what kind of vision? An analysis of the justification for primacy first gives the superficial solution that Blair subscribes to: America has become the world’s policeman as an act of altruism because it is needed by the world. When delving deeper, a more sinister justification rears its ugly head: the ideologies of imperialism and white supremacy. But what is the future of American primacy and the assumptions lying behind it? Can we, as Americans or non-Americans, envision a world without it?
Justifying American Military Primacy
In the aforementioned ‘Doctrine of the International Community,’ Blair begins by describing the “tear stained faces of the hundreds of thousands of refugees [from Kosovo] streaming across the border […] their heart-rending tales of cruelty.” (Blair) This is a clear message to the United States: these people are helpless, they need you. This idea of American military primacy as an altruistic act is ever-present in the American psyche. Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011, called America a “beacon to oppressed peoples everywhere […] and defender of the repressed everywhere” in the same sentence (Gates 31). With this outlook, the country with the motto In God We Trust becomes a Christ figure itself, venturing to set free the proverbial sinners of the world. Sam Lebovic highlights that “Americans have come to see military supremacy as a form of selfless altruism, as a gift to the world […] It is telling that Americans thank their military for their “service” — a form of giving, obligation.” (Lebovic) Again, this idea of self-sacrifice — even martyrdom — is apparent, conforming to Blair’s image of a country that always gives generously, expecting nothing in return. This is what creates the image of America not as a “Global Cop” but as a “Global Social Worker,” no longer a military power characterized by force or violence, but an emotional power characterized by altruism for those in dire need (Conry). Each US military mission is titled something dazzling and awe-inspiring: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, Operation New Dawn…
‘Operation Freedom’ from what? What ‘New’ thing is ‘Dawning’? This is where the justification becomes ideological, a ‘higher purpose’ centering around Great American Values: freedom achieved through liberal democracy. In President Biden’s most recent press release on defense spending, he requested $752.9 billion for defense in 2022, justified with “a commitment to realizing and defending the democratic values at the heart of the American way of life.” (Austin; emphasis added) This is part of a long line of American democratic ideology provoking international militarism and interventionism. George W. Bush justified invading Iraq as “failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists,” insisting “Iraqi democracy will succeed.” (Bokat-Lindell; emphasis added) As far back as 1913, Woodrow Wilson was intervening in the democratic affairs of the US’s neighbors, insisting “I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men.” (Horgan 913; emphasis added) This ideological obsession with freedom, but especially with a very specific definition of American liberal democracy, is what has consistently been behind the ‘altruism’ of American military primacy. Not only is democracy the best, most American way; any other system is immediately labeled a cruel oppressor in need of America’s altruistic intervention.
This liberal-democratic altruism preoccupies American intervention but also that of the United Nations. Samera Esmeir highlights how the UN works on the project of “good governance,” promoting liberal governments without corruption where the rule of law and human rights are respected (Esmeir 1546). In this way, the UN and US are both fueled by a desire to intervene internationally to encourage liberal democracy. But, for the UN and the US, what is the true underlying ideology for intervention and militarism that Presidents and Secretaries-Generals aren’t willing to project on the world stage? For Esmeir and others, white supremacy and colonialism lurk under the guise of altruism.
The Sinister Underbelly
Esmeir argues Western political discourse has grown to favor discussions of legality alongside discussions of humanity, where those who are under non-Western-liberal legal systems are seen as dehumanized and in need of saving, hence Blair’s dramatic description of helpless refugees. This ‘dehumanization rhetoric’ places people in the Global South in an awkward position between human and inhuman, as their humanity has been taken away from them by their unjust governments and needs to be returned to them by a Western power, in this case, the US or UN. More specifically, the dangerous aspect of this is its “affinities with colonial rationalities.” (Esmeir 1545) Comparing “contemporary human rights logics” to the case study of 19th- and 20th-century Egyptian colonization, Esmeir highlights that colonizers saw themselves as helping or humanizing the Egyptian population by implementing what they saw as justice and human rights (Esmeir 1545; 1547–1549). In this way, the rhetoric of British colonizers exactly mirrors the American rhetoric, where non-democratic countries are helpless people in need of intervention, in need of humanization, in need of colonization. American military intervention, therefore, becomes a force of imperialism rather than altruism.
When it comes to the UN, Sam Lebovic’s history makes clear similar colonial rationales behind the United Nations. The 1940’s saw an expansion of German-controlled land under Nazi leadership, prompting an American and English desire to expand military influence into non-German territories in retaliation. As such, in 1945, the UN was set up with neo-colonialist aims “as a way [for the US and UK] to police the world while avoiding the appearance of empire-building” under the guise of building a better, peaceful, and unoppressive future (Lebovic). The UN was designed to favor the powers of the Big Four (Britain, the US, China, and the Soviet Union) through the powers of the Security Council. As for the rest of the world, the General Assembly was created to be “a sop for the smaller ones” as described by Roosevelt’s undersecretary of state, Sumner Welles, which it was thought would only meet around once a year (Lebovic). Therefore, the UN was formed as a neo-colonialist tool for the US to expand its empire and influence, notably by silencing the voices of Global Southern countries, under the guise of altruism.
As colonialism often does, America’s military primacy replicates the structures and ideologies of white supremacy. The United States didn’t hold the title of ‘world policeman’ until around the end of the Second World War; before then, this title was held by Britain. There was an explicit ‘passing of the baton’ in the form of Lord Lothian’s visit to the White House in 1939. According to Roosevelt, Lord Lothian pleaded with him to take from Britain “the scepter” to become the “guardians of Anglo-Saxon civilization.” (Roosevelt) This explicitly defined America’s priorities as protecting white and Western culture.
While choosing to intervene in some conflicts and not others, supporting some sides and not others, America makes clear which underlying ideologies are at play. The white-supremacist bias manifested itself, Doug Bandow argues, in Kosovan intervention, highlighting that “those who shout the loudest about genocide and war seem to care only when the victims are white Europeans” and spotlighting the antisemitism and fascist symbolism of the Croatian President at the time, Franjo Trudjman (Bandow 7). Nelson Mandela, who criticized Tony Blair for his support of American militarism and imperialism, called the US out for white supremacy in 2000, claiming they were ignoring the UN because the Secretary-General at the time, Kofi Annan, was black (Mandela).
These accusations are difficult to assess as we can never certainly know what intricate thought processes the US government is going through with each decision. Given the US’ dismissal of the UN from its formation, following Lebovic’s analysis, Mandela’s argument is less convincing. However, as the United States was founded on the principles of subordination of non-whites through colonization of native land and the Atlantic Slave Trade, it is fair to assume racist ideology has tainted American foreign policy similarly to the way it has tainted domestic policy. Because of this, the altruism argument is no longer convincing. American primacy, notably the obsession with democracy and intervention, is based on colonialism and white supremacy rather than the selfless values aggrandized by Blair and past Presidents.
What are our alternatives?
Even without its white supremacist and colonialist attributes, the American military costs an exorbitant amount of American money per year. This, of course, does not account for the ‘blood tax’ paid by Americans and non-Americans alike. This money and these lives could be saved and used towards helpful ends, both in the world and in America. The US education system, healthcare system, and transport system, among others, go underfunded yearly creating a low quality of life for American citizens. Domestically and internationally, American primacy has detrimental effects. Subsequently, the argument arises that the military should be defunded and the money reallocated. This begs the questions of whether America could step back from its prime position and what this could look like.
Daniel Silke acknowledges that US military supremacy is losing international support, and proposes a solution, using “another powerful institution at its disposal […] the world’s most powerful democracy” (Silke 12). He asserts that US elections are watched by people around the world and even “out-shadows domestic political activities in their own backyards — which is so often frustrating or fraught with corrupt outcomes.” (Silke 12) This conforms to Esmeir’s analysis of assigning humanity to those under liberal democracies, implying all those under non-American governments would rather watch American politics than their own. How true can this be when domestic politics is, for most, a matter of life and death, a matter of receiving social services or not, a matter of receiving recognition for their identity or not, and so much more? Silke’s vision for America’s future, therefore, still retains American primacy in a new form that plays ‘peaceful’ but still puts America first in a way that replicates the same rationales of military primacy.
Many, especially those involved in the American military, argue that without America playing policeman the world will fall into chaos and violence. However, Barbara Conry and John Carlos Rowe agree that the breakdown of US supremacy is inevitable. Conry argues the idea that the world won’t survive without American intervention is delusional as it “vastly overestimates the power of any single country to influence world events” as she specifically highlights “external powers usually lack the means to prevent or end civil wars.” (Conry) There is something to be said for this interpretation, even more so now than in Conry’s 1997 context, as China catches up to the US economically and the internet democratizes information and power like never before. Conry’s argument is supported in Rowe’s essay ‘It’s 1968, All Over Again’ where he argues in favor of the ‘Vietnam Effect,’ drawing a straight line from the Gulf Wars, through Afghanistan, to Trump’s foreign policy to highlight the “impossibility of neo-colonial military policies succeeding.” (Rowe 7) Rowe argues that US primacy is unsustainable, specifically because “the terrains, languages, economies, and global politics have changed dramatically in fifty years, but U.S. military and foreign politics have not.” (Rowe 7) As we can draw connections between the strategies and rhetoric used by Presidents since at least 1913, Rowe’s analysis rings true.
While Rowe does not present a sustainable alternative for the US’ future, Conry discusses this in-depth. She presents the possibilities of America taking a primus inter pares role, stepping back and allowing for the creation of regional security organizations (such as the pre-existing Western European Union), letting power balance naturally without intervention, and regionally sharing power under structures of spheres of influence. Nevertheless, she argues “the United States should always maintain sufficient military strength” so it could intervene “if serious imbalances were to arise […] as a balancer of last resort.” (Conry) By asserting that the US should still retain a significant military, taking the place of ‘first among equals,’ Conry cannot let go of the ideology of American supremacy. The vague ideas of “sufficient military strength,” “serious imbalances” or the “last resort” allow America to call the shots, leaving intervention up to their constant surveillance and their judgement of ‘values,’ which is a carbon-copy of the current system of US primacy and imperialism.
Samera Esmeir argues that Westerners, in this case Americans, must grow humility and modesty. In an ideal world, we can accept that other people “go about being human in radically different ways,” no longer desiring to intervene and instead standing in solidarity with mistreated people (Esmeir 1550). So why do Silke and Conry fail to envision a world without US primacy, even while arguing against it?
Perhaps there is something in the American psyche about primacy that cannot be escaped. Trump’s slogan ‘America First’ resonated with 46.09% of the voting population in 2016 and with a mob of people at the Capitol on January 6th. As many right-wing politicians often are, Trump has been praised for saying what everyone was thinking. A senior Administration official defined the Trump Doctrine in perhaps a more honest way as “We’re America, bitches.” (Immerwahr)
Christoph Hasselbach ends his essay ‘No Country Can Replace US as World Police’ with “After all, the US is more than Donald Trump.” (Hasselbach) Under Hasselbach’s narrative, America must have moved on from aggressive, chauvinistic foreign policy with the election of Joe Biden. In reality, Biden requests roughly the same amount of budget for defense spending as Trump and, as Noam Chomsky highlights, he “has not lifted the embargo on Cuba or sanctions Iran [and] in other areas, like China, he’s adopted a more confrontational (and quite dangerous) stance than predecessors.” (Bokat-Lindell) American liberalism, under the Democrats, seems to be “We’re America, bitches” in a nicer, more socially acceptable font.
In Stephen Wertheim’s words, “Primacy is an axiom about America’s role in the world, closer to the status of an identity than that of a policy or a strategy.” (Wertheim 7) “We’re America, bitches” is a state of mind, a Manifest Destiny that exists on both sides of the aisle, has existed since the Founding Fathers, and will likely persevere. “We’re America, bitches” is reinforced by language like “You are the most powerful country in the world, and the richest. You are a great nation. You have so much to give and to teach the world.” (Blair)
“We’re America, bitches” does not question the sustainability of US primacy or suggest alternatives as it cannot imagine any other kind of world order. Furthermore, it cannot acknowledge the humanity of the rest of the world, most significantly the traditions and people of the Global South. Esmeir’s idea of humility, modesty, and respect without intervention, therefore, is a pipe dream. It leaves one to wonder what will happen when America is dethroned and its baton as the world’s policeman passed on, leaving only its pride.
Works cited
Austin III, Lloyd J. “The Department of Defense Releases the President’s Fiscal Year 2022 Defense Budget.” U.S. Department of Defense, 28 May 2021. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2638711/the-department-of-defense-releases-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2022-defense-budg/. Accessed 30 November 2021. Press Release.
Bandow, Doug. “Why Are We in Bosnia?” Human Events, vol. 51, no. 35, 1995, p. 7.
Blair, Tony. “Doctrine of the International Community.” The Chicago Economic Club, 22 April 1999, Chicago, IL. Keynote address. https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20030812010849/http://www.pm.gov.uk:80/output/Page1297.asp. Accessed 28 November 2021.
Bokat-Lindell, Spencer. “Is the United States Done Being the World’s Cop?” The New York Times, 20 July 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/opinion/biden-afghanistan-intervention.html. Accessed 29 November 2021.
Conry, Barbara. U.S. “Global Leadership”: A Euphemism for World Policeman. Cato Institute, 1997.
Esmeir, Samera. “On Making Dehumanization Possible.” PMLA, vol. 121, no. 5, 2006, pp. 1544–1551.
Gates, Robert M. Exercise of Power: American Failures, Successes, and a New Path Forward in the Post-Cold War World. New York, NY, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2020.
Hasselbach, Christoph. “Opinion: No Country Can Replace US as World Police.” Deutsche Welle, 29 December 2018. https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-no-country-can-replace-us-as-world-police/a-46894590. Accessed 28 November 2021.
Horgan, Paul. Great River: the Rio Grande in North American History. Middletown, CT, Wesleyan University Press, 1984.
Immerwahr, Daniel. “Should America Still Police the World?” The New Yorker, 18 November 2020. https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/should-america-still-police-the-world. Accessed 29 November 2021.
Lebovic, Sam. “Why is America the World’s Police?” The Boston Review, 19 October 2020. https://bostonreview.net/articles/sam-lebovic-stephen-wertheim-tomorrow-the-world/. Accessed 28 November 2021.
Mandela, Nelson. Interview with Anthony Sampson. The Guardian, 4 April 2000. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/apr/05/nelsonmandela. Accessed 27 November 2021
Roosevelt, Franklin D. Letter to Roger B. Merriman. 15 February 1939. Massachusetts Historical Society Collections Online. https://www.masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=1842&mode=large&img_step=1&. Accessed 1 December 2021.
Rowe, John Carlos. “It’s 1968, All Over Again.” Cultural Critique, vol. 103, University of Minnesota Press, 2019, pp. 7–12.
Silke, Daniel. “The US 2008 Presidential Elections: From Global Policeman to Global Democracy.” Australian Quarterly, vol. 79, no. 2, 2007, pp. 12–13.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “SIPRI Military Expenditure Database.” April 2021. https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex. Accessed 30 November 2021.
Wertheim, Stephen. Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2020.
