As Washington negotiates with Iran and continues its standoff over Syria, the U.S. Congress on Monday failed to prevent the federal government from shutting down. Though the debate distracted from important foreign affairs, thanks in no small part to an unrelenting media circus, the first U.S. government shutdown in 17 years is hardly catastrophic. The United States is driven by processes far more powerful than the federal government, and political inertia is as much a part of its history as are its moments of national unity, which at times have transcended domestic American affairs. What protected it during times of duress was its vast wealth and its global military reach.

Of course, now is not a good time to be a government employee or contractor. There will undoubtedly be many delays and inefficiencies in routine government operations, ranging from visa approvals to veterans benefits. Federal parks and museums will close, costing local economies much needed tourist dollars. Consumer confidence has already taken a hit, and by definition a break in government spending will have an impact on economic growth for however long the shutdown lasts.

But things are not as bad as they appear. Essential personnel, including national security agents, entitlement services workers and workers with multiyear appropriations, will not be affected by the shutdown. At the highest levels of diplomacy, the executive branch retains its ability to negotiate with foreign powers. Meanwhile, state governments, consumers and private businesses will continue working, and the ongoing recovery in the private sector will continue. Ultimately, Congress will have to come to an agreement, and the physical impact will be short lived.

Alongside the government shutdown, the future of the debt ceiling is also in question, with the U.S. Treasury set to run out of operating funds within weeks if the limit is not raised. Even a short-term failure to raise the debt ceiling will have a limited, though potentially more broadly felt, impact. At a time when global markets are uncertain, a default would almost certainly shake investor confidence. But even a momentary default of U.S. debt payments would not make available alternatives significantly more attractive. Europe continues to face a serious unemployment and banking crisis, Japan has a stagnant economy and a shrinking population, and China's future social-economic stability is at risk from deep imbalances.

In many ways, the current budget battles are to be expected. The United States is at a turning point in history, and after a decade of war, the country appears to be entering a period of selective international engagement. The 9/11 attacks punctuated the end of the post-Cold War era, and as Washington winds down its direct military involvement in Afghanistan, the post-9/11 era too is nearing its end. In the wake of the Cold War, like in the wake of other periods of intense international involvement, the U.S. government touted the "peace dividend" as a chance to back away from military funding and refocus spending priorities.

Today's budget battle ultimately comes out of a similar push to refocus priorities to more closely match a policy of selective engagement. And in the long term it was the choice to allow the across-the-board spending cuts that were a part of the sequester along with continuing resolutions that freeze government budgets that will have the most important long-term effects. Without new appropriations, and with inflexible funding cuts, the biggest strategic impact will be felt by the U.S. military, which is struggling to maintain tactical and strategic readiness — as is usual in post-war periods. Absent a major international shift that would require a military response, these institutional adjustments are likely to persist. They even stand a good chance of being as painful as the politics are chaotic.

Nevertheless, Congress' long-term spending plans are anything but definitive. And if there is anything we can learn from history, it is that no matter how polarized and fractious U.S. domestic politics become, the United States has the resources and geographic advantages that enable the country to confront strategic problems when they arise. From Pearl Harbor to Sputnik to 9/11, challenges that threaten U.S. security have been met with a powerful military response. At the same time, without a clear rival to U.S. hegemony, a subtler balancing act is underway as the United States withdraws from Afghanistan and seeks to support regional balances of power all over the world. These tactics are only peripherally vulnerable to Congressional deadlock.