Who will be the next President of the United States?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

I don't know why one has to ponder that assesment. The President of the USA is after all the commander in chief of the biggest and most advanced military force this world has ever seen. Being in command of that force has by definition got to make that office bearer the 'most powerful individual in the world'.

The president of the US is embebdded in a tight network of obligations, legal demands, mechanisms, dependencies on lobbies, interests and established networks and groups, as well as domestic prsssure, media pressure, needs to fulfill nterests and demands of his party, his or his party's voters, the intriocacies of future elections, prmmises being made to subgroups and interest groups before he was elected, needs deriving from keeping the economy running (more or less) etc etc etc. no president has the power to just sit and command, and everyone goes marching. Just look the massive campaigns and mass manipulation that were needed to gain GWB the support until he could dare to declare war on Iraq - it may have been planned ten years in advance, but the execution of that decision needed months and months of global manipulation in order to get much of the factors I mentione dbaove being supportive to his wish to attack Iraq.

It is all not so easy as if I would say "most powerful individual in the world". there are as many dependencies - if not more - a president is entangled in, as there are freedoms to make decisions and use America'S ressources at will.

And nthere is more in "power" than just military. Look at china, and what is called "soft power". They currently cannot match the american military on a global stage - but still they outmaneuver America, and take over the global influence that america had at the climax of it's power. Economic and financial power is far more important than just military power - as can be seen in the history of european nations of the past 500 years. So many great military powers had to give up, for the economy collapsed and their finance system broke down. Napoleon'S France should have truly become the leading superpower in Europe, for long times to come. He ailed: the military inferior small island of Britain proved to have then longer breath: for reasons of greater financial resposurces, and a more modern tax and banking system securing these. The powerful and for long time even superior Wehrmacht became vulnerable when it no longer could guarantee and secure free access to ressources needed for the war and the war production in German factories. Spain, Hungary/Austria both fell due to their economies and currencies collapsing under the might of military spendings. - Reminds this of some current actor, maybe? So, power is much more than just military capacity. Only tunnel-viewed unawareness of historic precedences could lead to that assumption of firepower deciding it alone. In general, America seem to overestimate this dinosaur it is investing so many of it's more and more precious and spare ressources into - even ressources it does not have, and needs to lend from others. It does not need a rocket scientist that this trend sooner or later must hit a wall, for it vannot go forever. Only question is if you are prepared at the time of the event, or not. Currently, the answer is a total No.