U.S. global hegemony is dependent on its controlling and securing the global commons (ocean, air, and space).
Can you improve on this argument text? Help develop this argument by editing and adding more information or click on one of the edit links below to add a counter, supporting, or related argument.
You can help improve this argument by adding a supporting argument.
You can help improve this argument by adding a counterargument.
You can help improve this argument by adding a related argument.
Command of the commons is the key military enabler of the U.S. global power position. It allows the United States to exploit more fully other sources of power, including its own economic and military might as well as the economic and military might of its allies. Command of the commons also helps the United States to weaken its adversaries, by restricting their access to economic, military, and political assistance. Command of the commons has permitted the United States to wage war on short notice even where it has had little permanent military presence. This was true of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the 1993 intervention in Somalia, and the 2001 action in Afghanistan. ( More ... ) Posen, Barry R. "Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony." International Security. Vol. 28, No. 1 (Summer 2003): 5-46. [ 3 quotes ] [ page 8-9 ]
Command of the commons creates additional collective goods for U.S. allies. These collective goods help connect U.S. military power to seemingly prosaic welfare concerns. U.S. military power underwrites world trade, travel, global telecommunications, and commercial remote sensing, which all depend on peace and order in the commons. Those nations most involved in these activities, those who profit most from globalization, seem to understand that they benefit from the U.S. military position—which may help explain why the world’s consequential powers have grudgingly supported U.S. hegemony. ( More ... ) Posen, Barry R. "Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony." International Security. Vol. 28, No. 1 (Summer 2003): 5-46. [ 3 quotes ] [ page 46 ]