Hannah Busha: Brief Intermission From The World Stage

Hannah Busha Brief Intermission From The World Stagesince The Start Of

Hannah Bush A Brief Intermission from the World Stage Since the start of our great nation, the United States of America has traditionally risen to the occasion and proven to be a major power player on the global stage. The United States involvement in the First World War proved to be the decisive in the defeat of the Axis powers. Since the end of the Second World War, the US has been a leading superpower that even when challenged, militarily, politically or economically, ultimately came out victorious. However, in the current multipolar global atmosphere, the United States’ ability to influence the world is waning, due in part to its own actions regarding other state powers on the global stage (Muggah).

America needs to briefly retreat from its role in the world as the sole superpower and enforcer to allow its economic base, military power, and political will at home to regather strength; a brief respite should enable the nation to become once again the unrivaled superpower that has the ability to bring about change and spread the ideals of democracy at the global level for the betterment of the world. Currently, the interventionist military engagement policy that America continues to set in motion and force onto other states is not working to effectively achieve America’s goals. Over the last several decades, the main goal of US foreign policy recently has been to combat (McCarthy) terrorism by promoting regime changes in other states through military force (Walt).

This goal started in the Bush administration in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. These policies and interventionist tactics have continued to be a prevalent tool of the Presidential administrations that have followed him. An active, long-term war to eliminate terrorism and extremist organizations is not a realistic goal that can be obtained with the United States’ current resources and role in the world (Subrenat). While the War on Terror has been successful in deterring any large scale terrorist attacks on American soil, it has expended so many resources that the US can not afford to lose. Not only are these military operations continuing due to America’s active engagement policy, but they are also costing the US billions of dollars, lives of American soldiers and creating disunity between US citizens and leaders in the government.

It is also putting pressure on America’s role as the sole and unrivaled superpower of the world Active engagement in the world has been the backbone of US foreign policy for so long, and for quite some time it has worked. No other countries had the resources or the power to question America’s dominating power on the world stage. America, no doubt, is still the leading super power of the world but other countries now have the ability to rival it. This due in part to the rise of other nations and the gradual fall America is facing. In recent years, America has lost almost half of its control over the global economy dropping from a 40% domination of global innovation and trade to now around 25%.

It has lost its technological edge against other countries as well, with many Asian countries now having similar achievements in science and technology (Subrenat), and America’s own infrastructure is being crippled. This decline in America’s own power allows other nations to sweep in and begin to rival America’s recent undeniable lead in the global atmosphere. America’s downfall is mainly because it refuses to focus on continuing the greatness and improve the country from the inside out; instead focusing only on forcing its own ideals and principles onto other countries through unattainable acts of global domination. Such unattainable acts include a long lasting war on terrorism that itself alone has cost the US 2.1 trillions of dollars (Amadeo) and an unknown number of human deaths.

America’s foreign policy goals should still remain in place, but active engagement that involves boots on the ground and militaristic threats is not the answer given America’s current declining role on the international stage. America can not afford to continue to push its political agenda the way it currently is (Whitehead). American resources need to be built up before militaristic intervention can occur. This however, does not at all mean complete isolation from the world. This would be disastrous for the overall goals of the United States to continue its reign as leader of the free world.

As Stephen Hadley, the National Security Advisor implied, if America were to totally step away from its position as a dominating superpower it would leave a vacuum of power in its place in which China or Russia could step in and control the world stage. Neither are states which proclaim the same principles of “rule of law, freedom of movement and access to markets,†according to Hadley, which could lead to a potential shift in balance away from promoting democratic ideals and instead living in a world where states compete militarily at a great financial cost and also an overall cost to the human race. America needs to be able to continue to promote its democratic ideals while stopping the expenditure of resources it currently does not have.

The most effective way to continue to pursue foreign policy issues in a manner that is most attainable and reliant for the US is to stop the active military engagement and intervention on the world stage and instead focus on America’s economical role in the international arena. By improving America economically, the status of America as the most forefront dominator in the world will be solidified, therefor allowing it to once again make militaristic interventions that are less costly to the United States and overall more effective as a whole. Once again, a retreat from military intervention, does not mean stopping overall US foreign policy goals, it simply means to achieve them through other means, including economic sanctions, drones and covert operations.

There is no current reason to continue intervening in countries when America itself currently does not have the correct resources to do so. The War on Terror appears to have no end in sight (Jenkins) so why would America want any more militaristic conflict when it is not even handling the current military conflicts swiftly and effectively (Walt). Not only are financial funds lacking for all the wars it is involved in, the American people are not a unified front. The government is constantly at battle grounds with what is best for the country, and therefor continues to dig the country into a hole that if it isn’t stopped now will surely wreck the status of America. A new focus on improving its own status as a country, before trying to pressure other countries to adopt America’s policies is needed.

Stimulation of the economy through a refocus on economic activity instead of active engagement would lead to a greater influx of revenue for the United States and then that money would be able to go towards technological advancements and infrastructure, both which are resources the US is lacking but need right now. With the buildup of these resources the US would be able to slowly become more and more dominant on the world stage, allowing no questions on which country is the leader of the free world. It would very obviously become the United States again. Along with the buildup of resources for the United States, the citizens of the United States may even become unified over the matter of military involvement.

There may be a sense of peace for the US people due to an active and successful economy allowing a greater support for US intervention in other countries because the home front in America is improving. A new focus away from military intervention and towards building an economic powerhouse in America will bring unwavering support in favor of democracy. A brief retrenchment from the global stage will allow America to solidify its rightful place as the undeniable leader of the free world. During the retrenchment period, America can still work on promoting democratic ideals but from a distance. When once again America is fully back on top, military missions and interventions may be pursued to continue to secure foreign policy goals.

Paper For Above instruction

The United States has long been regarded as a dominant global superpower, a role it has cultivated through decisive military interventions, economic influence, and the promotion of democratic ideals. However, recent decades have witnessed a shift in the international landscape, revealing signs of decline in American dominance. This paper argues that to sustain its influence and strategic advantages, the U.S. should consider a strategic pause—an intermission from its active global military engagements—to rebuild domestic strength, restore technological and infrastructural vitality, and reassert leadership through economic power rather than prolonged military interventions. Drawing on historical context and contemporary geopolitical analysis, the discussion emphasizes that a temporary retrenchment will position the U.S. to re-emerge as an unrivaled superpower capable of pursuing its foreign policy goals more effectively in the future.

The historical backdrop of U.S. foreign policy illustrates a trajectory of broad interventionism, rooted in the post-World War II era, where military and economic dominance helped shape a unipolar world order. After victories in World Wars and the Cold War, the United States became the preeminent superpower, capable of deploying its military and economic resources globally. But recent decades have demonstrated a waning influence, with significant declines in economic control, technological innovation, and infrastructural strength. This shift is partly due to the overextension from continuous military campaigns, notably the War on Terror initiated post-9/11, which has drained resources and lowered public support. The costliness of these military endeavors, both financially—estimated at over $2.1 trillion—and in human lives, raises questions about their feasibility and strategic value in achieving long-term U.S. interests (Amadeo). Furthermore, the persistent engagement seems to be less effective in combating terrorism or securing stable democratic regimes, often resulting in prolonged conflicts with uncertain outcomes (Walt).

In addition to military overreach, economic indicators suggest a concerning decline in America’s relative dominance. According to studies, the U.S. share of global trade and innovation has diminished from approximately 40% to around 25%, signaling a weakening in technological leadership and economic influence (Subrenat). This decline is compounded by aging infrastructure and inadequate investment in technological advancement, which hinder the country’s capacity to maintain its strategic edge. The rise of powerful emerging economies, particularly in Asia, has further challenged American superiority, causing a redistribution of global economic and political influence. These trends underscore the necessity for a recalibration of U.S. foreign policy priorities—shifting focus from military interventions to internal strength building.

Proponents of a strategic retreat argue that this pause does not diminish America’s commitment to its core values or its international obligations. Instead, it provides an opportunity to bolster domestic infrastructure, enhance technological innovation, and promote economic growth—all essential for sustaining international influence. Stephen Hadley, a former National Security Advisor, cautions that a complete withdrawal without an alternative strategy could create a vacuum, allowing rival powers such as China or Russia to fill the void and redefine global influence away from democratic principles (Hadley). Therefore, a nuanced approach is necessary—one that maintains diplomatic engagement and global influence through economic means, intelligence, and soft power, while reducing the costs and risks associated with large-scale military operations.

The proposed strategy advocates for a temporary halting of active military interventions, emphasizing economic development as the primary instrument of foreign influence. Strengthening America's economy—through investment in innovation, infrastructure, and technological research—would restore its competitive advantage and enable strategic military actions that are less burdensome financially and politically. Economic tools such as sanctions, covert operations, and targeted drone strikes can replace extensive troop deployments, aligning U.S. foreign policy with sustainable resource use. This approach echoes the idea that a stronger domestic foundation—reflected in a revitalized economy and infrastructure—bolsters the U.S. position on the world stage and increases the legitimacy and effectiveness of future interventions.

Moreover, a focus on rebuilding domestic strength can unify the American populace around shared national goals, reducing partisan conflicts and ideological divides that currently hinder cohesive policy implementations. Public support for foreign entanglements often diminishes when domestic issues such as economic inequality, infrastructure decay, and technological stagnation remain unaddressed. By prioritizing economic growth, job creation, and technological innovation, the U.S. can generate a sense of national pride and stability that underpins its international strategy. A revitalized economy would also attract global investments, position the U.S. as a leader in emerging technological fields, and strengthen its bargaining position in international diplomacy (Jenkins).

Additionally, during this intermission, the U.S. should leverage its diplomatic influence to promote democratic principles through soft power initiatives, international aid, and multilateral cooperation. This softer approach can effectively uphold and spread American values without the costs associated with military conflicts, which have become less sustainable and often counterproductive. For instance, diplomatic engagement through international organizations and strategic alliances could serve as a platform for advocating human rights, governance reforms, and economic development, thereby maintaining U.S. influence without direct military involvement (Whitehead).

In conclusion, the United States faces a pivotal moment in its global strategic posture. The declining efficacy and mounting costs of military interventions necessitate a reassessment of foreign policy priorities. A strategic pause—an intermission from active military engagement—would allow the nation to focus inward, rebuilding economic, technological, and infrastructural strength. This revitalization would enable the U.S. to regain its superpower status, project power more responsibly, and sustain its leadership role in promoting democratic values worldwide. In essence, a temporary retreat from the world stage is not abandonment but a calculated step towards a more sustainable and effective global influence, ensuring that the United States remains the leader of the free world for generations to come.

References

• Amadeo, Kimberly. “Whose Spent More on War? Bush, Obama, or Trump?” The Balance, 31 Mar. 2018.
• Board, The Editorial. “America's Forever Wars.” The New York Times, 23 Oct. 2017.
• Hadley, Stephen J. “America's Role in the World.” United States Institute of Peace, 21 Mar. 2017.
• Jenkins, Brian M. “Fifteen Years On, Where Are We in the ‘War on Terror’?” The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, 15 Nov. 2017.
• McCarthy, Justin. “Top U.S. Foreign Policy Goals: Stem Terrorism, Nuclear Weapons.” Gallup, 16 Feb. 2017.
• Muggah, Robert, & Yves Tiberghien. “5 Facts You Need to Understand the New Global Order.” World Economic Forum.
• Subrenat, Jean-Jacques. “Global Power and Influence in 2018 and beyond.” WikiTribune, 30 Jan. 2018.
• Walt, Stephen M. “Top 5 Reasons We Keep Fighting All These Wars.” Foreign Policy, 4 Apr. 2011.
• Whitehead, John W. “War Spending Will Bankrupt America.” CounterPunch, 16 Feb. 2018.