Disparity Between American Capabilities And Influence Abroad

The disparity between American capabilities and influence abroad is significant in interpretation but not importance from two standpoints: international relationships and foreign perceptions of power. From a power standpoint, the disparity between American capabilities and influence abroad is not important because the U.S. has a hegemony in relative capabilities. Therefore, if the U.S. wanted to fully commit to any mission and/or experienced a life or death situation, the American military would win on power alone. On the other hand, from a international relationships standpoint, the disparity between American capabilities and influence abroad is meaningful because foreign states understand that the U.S. will not always use these capabilities. Since
will commit resources to foreign wars and military presence. For example, after the Tet Offensive in 1968, public support of the war tanked. Therefore, in order to salvage public support and the offices of elected officials, Johnson and following presidents pulled back from the war. However, pulling back because of public opinion sent a message to the international community, a message that Middle Eastern states would later consider when testing the U.S. Later, Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, suggested that the U.S. and American public could not handle losses and would not commit to long-term engagements in which large amounts military personnel are at risk. Although the U.S. had the largest military in the world, the message the American public sent to the international community was that the citizens of the U.S. did not want to use it. This message, among the many other mixed signals sent to Hussein by the U.S. government, would have had an impact on his decision to invade