US "Academe", Good Grief.

These two guys should really flush their Ph.Ds in government and history down the toilet because their academic background is as worthless as the Ph.D in plumbing, with that difference that plumbing is a useful, in fact crucial, skill while what these two credentialed clowns preach is a sentence to all US "humanities" education. I would suggest to them to attend nearest community college and take precalc classes and maybe learn some basic facts about warfare--no operational theory, weapon design or wartime economy, no, nothing complex like that--just common facts and while at it they better revisit the Kubler-Ross model and learn to control their emotions. 

The Myth of Multipolarity. American Power’s Staying Power

The whole thing is a pseudo-academic delirium but look at what these two "experts" use as data, LOL))

That is true no matter which metric one uses. Polarity is often still measured using the indicators fashionable in the mid-twentieth century, chiefly military outlays and economic output. Even by those crude measures, however, the system is not multipolar, and it is a sure bet that it won’t be for many decades. A simple tabulation makes this clear: barring an outright collapse of either the United States or China, the gap between those countries and any of the also-rans will not close anytime soon. All but India are too small in population to ever be in the same league, while India is too poor; it cannot possibly attain this status until much later in this century.  

LOL)) These guys are sure innovators in terms of cooking books. I have news for these two sore losers--it matters critically what metrics one uses, but for this academic sinecure abusers it is an unknown quantity because they never attained any skills dealing with tangibles such as productive economy, real warfare and earning, in the end, an honest buck doing something useful instead of packaging illiterate BS into shiny big words platitudes.  But these two do not stop here, they go into the field in which they have not just zero but negative understanding.
 

But they did confirm my increasingly assertive thesis that most of graduates of Western "elite", or US Ivy League, degree mills with NON-STEM backgrounds (and even there one has to be very cautious) are primarily academic frauds unfit for any serious professional or research occupation. But they, and those cretins who published this malarkey in CFR's rag Foreign Affairs, already lost any pretense of having any not just academic--they never had one--but at least basic human decorum which hides the true nature of the man for a while. But they continue to wax "military". 

Militarily, meanwhile, most analysts still see China as far from being a global peer of the United States, despite the rapid modernization of Chinese forces. How significant and lasting is the U.S. advantage? Consider the capabilities that give the United States what the political scientist Barry Posen has called “command of the commons”—that is, control over the air, the open sea, and space. Command of the commons is what makes the United States a true global military power. Until China can contest the United States’ dominance in this domain, it will remain merely a regional military power. We have counted 13 categories of systems as underlying this ability—everything from nuclear submarines to satellites to aircraft carriers to heavy transport planes—and China is below 20 percent of the U.S. level in all but five of these capabilities, and in only two areas (cruisers and destroyers; military satellites) does China have more than a third of the U.S. capability. The United States remains so far ahead because it has devoted immense resources to developing these systems over many decades; closing these gaps would also require decades of effort. The disparity becomes even greater when one moves beyond a raw count and factors in quality. The United States’ 68 nuclear submarines, for example, are too quiet for China to track, whereas China’s 12 nuclear submarines remain noisy enough for the U.S. Navy’s advanced antisubmarine warfare sensors to track them in deep water.

Somebody explain to them, that the US ground forces are no peers to China, let alone Russia and have an astounding record of losses to the most subpar technologically but much shrewder strategically and stronger willed enemy. Plus, how can you explain to these people that they should stay away from military affairs in which they have zero background, especially in combined arms, and especially with the military which hasn't faced it since 1950. I understand their desperation, but even correctly stated advantages of the US Navy over PLAN will be offset by Russia transferring some of the most advanced military technologies of which the US can only dream about. But in the end, this pseudo-academic BS published by these two discloses something very peculiar for all their Ph.Ds (useless as they are) credentials--it is the lack of class and real culture. One can be a patriot but avoid a laughable, if not utterly embarrassing, confabulations and myth-mongering, and can, in fact it is mandated for real Patriots, face problems and challenges their nation faces in all their severity. But due to these two being a defective product of US education system the only thing they have going for them is blind chauvinism and Karen-type sense of entitlement and exceptionalism, not understanding that they paraded themselves as a freak show from Barnum Circus. They surely dispelled the myth of US intellectual "elites" being intellectual.