History Repeats and Repeats and Repeats

How very similar the first ten years of the Twenty-first Century seem to the first decade of the Twentieth Century—with just a change in the name of the principal characters. A century ago England was coming off a hundred years of unchallenged world dominance.
But now she was being squeezed. Her options were suddenly limited. Dangerous rivals were arising in every quarter. After decades of going it alone around the world, she needed allies—making alliances with nations that were scarcely her friends.
As the Twentieth Century dawned, she was bogged down in an unpopular war against the African Boers—who had the sympathy of much of the rest of the world. She made an alliance with Japan—which set her on a collision course with the newly powerful United States. (By 1922, the Americans would obliquely threaten her with war unless she abrogated it. She backed down and did so at the Washington Naval Conference that year.)
She conceded the Caribbean as a sphere of influence to the Americans in 1903, allowing them to abrogate old treaties and build a canal on their own. The rise of Germany—a mutual enemy—forced her into a working alliance with Russia in 1907, against whom she had engaged in a long cold (and sometime hot) war throughout the 19th Century.
The new circumstances led to World War I, after which she was economically and militarily a “dead man walking”. World War II brought her empire down in shambles with the Americans and Russians scrambling for pieces. 1900-1910 can be seen as a beginning of the end for Britain’s empire, her place of economic dominance and her ability to act independently.
Let’s take a look at this past decade. We are coming off better than 50 years of unchallenged world dominance—and a long cold war with Russia who managed to hold about 25% of the planet against us. Our options suddenly seem far more limited—economically, diplomatically and militarily—than they did only a couple of decades ago.
We are doing what would have been unthinkable only thirty years ago—asking Russia for its help in dealing with troublesome nations like Iran whom we once controlled with quick CIA coups. We are bogged down in a couple of far off wars that are unpopular both at home and abroad.
A nation that we once treated with condescension, whose rivers our gunboats patrolled and whose capital our marines occupied, now faces us with as serious an economic (and military) rivalry as we have faced since 1776.
China is coming out of this recession bigger, stronger and economically more dangerous than it went into it—while we are threatened with, at best, a long, slow recovery while China will be able to make further gains on us.
How much doubt can there be that, as the 19th Century was the “British Century”, the 20th was the “American Century”, this new century will be the “Chinese Century”? (When Europe began sending ambassadors to China two hundred years ago, Napoleon refused. With his customary prescience, he warned, “Let China sleep—when she awakens she will devour us all.”)
Like Britain, in 1910, we’re still the biggest dog on the block. New York is still the center of world finance. Our fleets still keep the pirates at bay, around the world—protecting world shipping. But now—as there was with America then—there is a Chinese squadron on patrol off the Persian Gulf. Our navy can no longer do it alone.
How long will we be able to afford to keep carrier battle groups on station at every choke point for world trade in the world? Without military force at those points (a cop on the corner), there will be chaos. Deciding who will replace us where could easily result in some serious warfare.
We may have (as England did between 1918-1939) a period when we still look powerful. But at some point the game will likely be up. The question might well go from, Will we keep the Persian Gulf to Will we keep Hawaii? I suspect some reading this will see that day.
Once again the ball goes ‘round—and ‘round—and ‘round. We may not enjoy this next part of the ride. Just keep 1909 in mind—and England.