Both are useful in achieveing American political aims abroad, so getting rid of them seems like a bad choice from the perspective of the US government
Both are useful in achieveing American political aims abroad, so getting rid of them seems like a bad choice from the perspective of the US government
This has been their plan since PNAC (Project for a New American Century) to secure America’s place in a multi polar war as the preeminent bully. They are rolling back the projects of American “soft power” to focus on the military. They knew the days of the unipolar world was limited in the early 2000s so they drafted an entire plan for refocusing the US global hegemony to operate in different conditions. Part of it has always been a controlled contraction of non military spending.
PNAC was about trying to maintain the unipolar global hegemony. I see this as a departure from that and the acknowledgement that a new strategy of empire is needed.
Yes and no, they had contingency. It’s primary focus was getting into the middle east as fast as possible to try and secure the unipolar world but even in 2003 they knew that China was going to be a threat to imperial interests and they would have to contend for the power. If you read through the white papers this really isn’t a departure though, they wanted to get rid on all non military spending and use the military to run the empire instead of the business empire of the past. Considering they want to wrap up Ukraine as fast as possible and close the Russian front so they can focus on Taiwan and China is a last gasp of the PNAC plan to prevent true multipolarism from starting. Listen to their language about BRICs to get a hint of their plans, they want to nip it in the blood. It is just that they’re too late.