Matthew Whitaker’s remarks at the Doha Forum—acknowledging America’s inability to act as the “world’s policeman” and stressing the need to rely on allies—are not merely political posturing; they constitute an official declaration of the country’s reduced strategic capacity for global intervention. When he states that Washington can no longer maintain a military presence everywhere or act as a rapid reaction force, he is effectively acknowledging deep fissures in America’s warfighting apparatus. The approach that, from World War II through the post-Soviet era, relied on projecting military power and direct intervention, is now being forced to undergo fundamental redefinition under the pressure of economic costs, military attrition, and resistance from independent nations. This admission confirms what critical analysts have warned for years: the unipolar order has not endured, and the United States is no longer capable of unilaterally engineering global policy.
A Record Full of Wars, Coups, and Failures
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. assumed the world was left without rivals and that it could impose its self-fashioned order globally. Yet experiences in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya demonstrated that starting a war is easy, but ending one is costly. Dozens of coups, support for dictators, reliance on proxies such as Israel, and recent provocations against Iran are only part of a record that left millions of victims and ultimately ended in failure. Today, the U.S. military faces a personnel crisis: fewer young people wish to enlist, and global public opinion no longer sees it as a “savior power” but rather a “destructive power.” While official U.S. rhetoric may still speak of global leadership, the reality on the ground reflects declining power and reduced capacity for transnational operations. This context is precisely what makes the NATO representative’s statements a historic confession.
Emergence of New Blocs and the Expansion of Multilateralism
The U.S. once envisioned itself at the center of the world order, but countries such as China, Iran, Russia, India, Brazil, South Africa, Venezuela, and even regional economic and security blocs like Shanghai, BRICS, and the African Union have chosen a different path. Relying on internal capacities and regional synergies, these countries have built a new order based on independence, mutual respect, and genuine power-sharing. Washington’s complicity in the killings in Gaza and its overt alignment with Israel over the past two years have mobilized global public opinion—even segments of American society—against it. The world is no longer willing to comply with U.S. diktats—not out of moral idealism, but because following an interventionist power comes with a heavy cost: a record of sequential failures and global instability.
Future Order: Collective Cooperation or American Chaos?
The U.S. National Security Strategy shows that, despite stepping back from the idea of being the world’s policeman, Washington still seeks to maintain dominance—this time by shifting costs onto others. The “fear and doubt” policy under Trump, encouraging allies to purchase arms, fostering an arms race, and destabilizing multilateral institutions, reflects an effort to retain influence. The U.S. acknowledges it cannot lead the world alone but seeks to make the emerging order uncontrollable through disruption and chaos. It is therefore the historic responsibility of independent countries to strengthen political, security, and economic cohesion to prevent the world from returning to a cycle of proxy wars and unipolar domination. The future will either be a field of American chaos or a platform for a multipolar order—the choice rests with the global independence bloc.
NOURNEWS