U.S. primacy is ineffective and permanently tarnished.
Porter ’19 [Patrick; 2019; Professor of International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham. He is also Senior Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, London and a Fellow of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; “Advice for a Dark Age: Managing Great Power Competition,” The Washington Quarterly, 42:1, 7-25, https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2019.1590079, WWIS]
American grand strategy since 1945 has been one of “primacy,” to secure itself by acquiring unrivalled dominance and denying key regions to hostile powers. Against hopes to the contrary, Washington’s consolidation of its primacy since the collapse of the Soviet Union has not created an international order content to submit to its will. Despite—or because of—expanded alliances in Europe and Asia, a globe-girdling military presence, wars of regime change and occupation, and the spread of capitalism on Washington’s terms, U.S. rivals have amassed greater capability and increased appetite for risk-taking. Additionally, U.S. allies are hedging—for instance through their participation in the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) or their opposition to Washington’s abrogation of the JCPOA nuclear agreement and its new sanctions against Iran, all over the United States’urging.2Emerging powers, such as India, also hedge, sharing intelligence with Washington while buying S-400 missiles from Russia and muting criticism of Beijing.3And American allies in Asia are investing increasingly heavily in defense. Though this has come partly through U.S. urging, it could tip potentially into an arms race.
The United States is not willingly accepting these developments that under-mine its primacy. It neither makes major concessions nor willingly shares power. Despite President Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric, the United States on his watch pursues a more illiberal version of dominance, enlarging its footprint in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.4Trump has drawn down a small garrison in Syria, but increased the overall U.S. presence in the Gulf, and his administration is attempting to isolate and contain Iran. Trump’s domestic opponents, too, show no signs of renouncing the pursuit of primacy abroad. Apart from opposing his trade wars, they denounce the White House for being too accommodating to adversaries and not supportive enough of allies. With escalating rivalries under way against two Eurasian heavyweights, Russia and China, and potential confrontations with two designated proliferation “rogues” in Iran, North Korea and possibly Venezuela, the United States is in danger of being locked into combat with five adversaries simultaneously.