[U.S. Foreign Policy: Reasons for Failure]

[U.S. Foreign Policy: Reasons for Failure]

American foreign policy in recent years has been almost a series of failures. The Afghan and Iraqi incursions were historic milestones that greatly facilitated the decline of American hegemony. Furthermore, success stories in U.S. foreign policy have rarely been seen in recent years. The goal of intervening in the Libyan crisis (2010-11 and beyond), for example, was to eliminate Gadhafi and corrode a stable pro-U.S. regime; the former succeeded but the latter failed perfectly; a unified nation-state collapsed in Libya. The goals of the D.C.R. policy were unclear. In 2008, Bush mentioned Ukraine's accession to NATO, which he did not want, in fact, even from NATO's other powers (such as Germany) or even from American officials. A pro-U.S. government was established in Ukraine since 2014, but Russian intervention and civil war soon led to the loss of half the Donbas, a factory and mining area in the east, and now a fifth of the territory where most industrial facilities are located in Russia's all-out invasion. That is, pro-U.S. Ukraine, for instance, will survive if war comes to a halt tomorrow but will continue to require huge amounts of support, it will be an "irrelict state" with its own industrial base that is extremely weak. It's not a victory for Russia either, but it's hard to see it as a 'win' of US foreign policy.  

Israel/Palestine's push for Israeli-Saudi ties was thwarted by Hamas attacks and postponed indefinitely _ effectively for the time being _ while the U.S. massacre in Gaza and ginoside aid have helped to improve some relations between Saudi Arabia and its host Iran. Saudi Arabia, at the center of U.S. policy in the Middle East, is increasingly leaning toward China, not toward the U.S. Everywhere, there is no "certain victory." Yoon Suk Yeol's military cooperation with Japan is a rare case in the world in recent memory of a perfect fulfillment of U.S. demands, but after Yoon's resignation, this part will also likely be overturned by the next administration. Public opinion is too bad. Why is America's foreign policy failing in every region, and America being pushed back geopolitically?  

The overall decline of American hegemony is underlying the fundamental causes, including a decline in the rate of return on capital in the United States, a decline in US manufacturing compared to emerging competitors such as China, and a situation in which the United States is overtaken by China in high-tech. In other words, US foreign policy is unlikely to succeed in the midst of an overall hegemony crisis. However, other causes of policy confusion, errors, and failure are present. These roots are linked to the fundamental way the liberal empire of the United States operates.  

First, many policies lack continuity and continuity because, within a two-party framework where arguments and policies are extremely divergent, a change of power could mean a fundamental revision of foreign policy. This greatly reduces the trust of outsiders in the United States. For example, the Clinton administration, which sent an albright to Pyongyang, sought to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea, but immediately afterwards, George W. Bush thwarted them, calling North Korea the "axis of evil." What does this look like? Obama put a "deal" on the table by seeking to normalize Iran, but the very next president, Trump, scuttled it, losing credibility in relations with Iran. Trump's "big plan," a possible re-president, appears to surround China in partnership with Putin, but it is unclear whether the leadership of Russia, which knows the lack of policy continuity, will accept it.  

Second, many of America's deep-seated foreign, security and military officials are good at analyzing, but most American politicians - in a self-contained system - don't know much about foreign countries. Unlike South Korea, where studying abroad is crucial to building up a dominant position, high-quality politicians (such as lawmakers) can be put in a position to make sufficient decisions without going beyond their territory and learning any foreign languages. When they evaluate foreign countries, they use quantified figures, such as gross national product, to make judgments, which are rather deceptive. For example, the largest gross national product in the world is, of course, the United States, 77 percent of which is "service." The service of more than a million lawyers in the United States, for example, and the retail sales performance of Walmart and McDonald's don't add up much military power. But many American politicians assumed that Russia's gross national product was only 3 percent of global GDP, so they were "not a match anyway." In terms of nominal GDP, the Russian economy is right to be less than one-tenth of the size of the American economy. However, in the case of steel production, which is directly related to military power, Russia's steel production is about 90% of that of the United States. In addition, Russia ranks fourth in the world in terms of electricity production essential for military enterprises, even if it is a quarter of that of the United States. Therefore, it is not a society that is considered a pushover in terms of 'war ability', but even if American experts knew it, American politicians ignored it without knowing it. Therefore, in the early days of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, unrealistic goals such as 'to defeat Russia' were suggested.  

Third, there are many different collective interests that intervene too easily in the decision-making process. Simply put, any group with money can lobby for policy in a pluralistic, but primarily "wealthy" political system. Some lobbyists can almost criticize policy decision-making. In the United States, for example, it would be nearly impossible to make, decide, or implement policies against Israel without paying attention to Israeli lobbyists such as AIPAC. From the standpoint of the US empire's "national interest" in maintaining American hegemony in the Middle East, we will withdraw from the Israeli massacre in Gaza and Arab/Islamic state such as Saudi Arabia, not Israel