[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Between the U.S. and who? I don’t see any potential enemy power or enemy alliance that could make a “world war.” We’re almost certain to remain on good terms with Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia. Russia is suspicious of us but not actively hostile. China would rather sell us stuff than fight us. Our alliance with Pakistan probably annoys India, but no more than that. The Islamic states will never ally against us, their governments go in too many different directions. Southeast Asia is just as fractious. I really can’t see all of Latin America lining up behind Chavez and Castro. Africa hardly bears mentioning.
[/QUOTE]
The real risk isn’t a ‘world war’, but a multi-front war. Having your soldiers tied down in one place can cause opportunism to create conflict elsewhere. If the U.S. was so tied down in Iraq that it was clear that it was unable to respond to aggression elsewhere, you might see little flashpoint wars break out elsewhere as rival factions and governments use the opportunity to attack each other or the U.S. So maybe Pakistan takes a swing at India, or smaller wars on the order of the Sudanese break out. Maybe someone like Kim Jong Il figures that it’s ‘now or never’ and goes after his neighbor (probably not the Koreas, but other countries with similar tensions).
Twenty years ago, the biggest risk to the U.S. was a global war. Today, it’s the ‘death of a thousand cuts’. Asymmetrical warfare, multiple smaller attacks around the globe, threats to America’s interests and allies, etc. The Americans can’t steam carrier groups everywhere.
Over time, this constant state of low-level warfare and terrorism could break the back of the American people and they’ll start giving in to demands and suing for peace whenever possible. But once you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane. So it goes on, and on, and on…
The parallels to the decline of the Roman Empire are interesting. The Empire wasn’t overthrown by a stronger adversary. It was chipped away at on many fronts, while its own people grew more decadent and wealthy. The skirmishes required Rome to spend more money on legions, which put a strain on the treasury. Then it found it hard to raise legions of Roman citizens, and started hiring barbarians. Morale plummeted in the Legions. Sensing weakness, Rome’s adversaries pressed harder. Trade routes were cut offf. Rome had to withdraw from or lessen its grip on client states. The long decline began.
I can imagine similar scenarios. Wars in Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Central America. Constant terrorist attacks. Maybe the U.S. increases military funding more to meet the threats. This is unpopular during a good economy, but when a recession comes, the price looks to steep. An anti-war, anti-military candidate is elected. The military is cut back. Sensing weakness, anti-American forces, both military and economic, press forward…
The Bax Brittania isn’t that long ago. Fifty years ago, France was a military and economic collossus. The British Empire spanned half the globe. It didn’t take a military destruction of those countries to cause them to decline. It just took sustained pressure and populations increasingly unwilling to pay the price.