[quote]Bismark wrote:
…[the] American grand strategy.
[/quote]
Please describe further?
My more naive self says foreign policy should be based on steering the ship, just keep it going straight, avoid conflicts if possible and try to keep things as stable as possible.
Are you assuming there is a more active end game for America?
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
…[the] American grand strategy.
[/quote]
Please describe further?
My more naive self says foreign policy should be based on steering the ship, just keep it going straight, avoid conflicts if possible and try to keep things as stable as possible.
Are you assuming there is a more active end game for America?
[/quote]
That’s not a strategy. A strategy is the praxis for attaining a specific objective/s.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
…[the] American grand strategy.
[/quote]
Please describe further?
My more naive self says foreign policy should be based on steering the ship, just keep it going straight, avoid conflicts if possible and try to keep things as stable as possible.
Are you assuming there is a more active end game for America?
[/quote]
I’ll be happy to eloborate when I have some time tomorrow. What did you think of the cost-benefit analysis of the Iraq War?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
…[the] American grand strategy.
[/quote]
Please describe further?
My more naive self says foreign policy should be based on steering the ship, just keep it going straight, avoid conflicts if possible and try to keep things as stable as possible.
Are you assuming there is a more active end game for America?
[/quote]
That’s not a strategy. A strategy is the praxis for attaining a specific objective/s.[/quote]
I knew you would be along shortly. It is seeming that based on the evidence at hand, the neocon “strategy” is coming at a fairly large cost.
I put the quotations because my current, albeit ignorant, understanding is that these guys are more like cheerleaders. They rally the party with some glorious endgame, but leave the actual strategy and means to an end to others who maybe more familiar with how difficult it will be to attain.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
…[the] American grand strategy.
[/quote]
Please describe further?
My more naive self says foreign policy should be based on steering the ship, just keep it going straight, avoid conflicts if possible and try to keep things as stable as possible.
Are you assuming there is a more active end game for America?
[/quote]
That’s not a strategy. A strategy is the praxis for attaining a specific objective/s.[/quote]
I knew you would be along shortly. It is seeming that based on the evidence at hand, the neocon “strategy” is coming at a fairly large cost.
I put the quotations because my current, albeit ignorant, understanding is that these guys are more like cheerleaders. They rally the party with some glorious endgame, but leave the actual strategy and means to an end to others who maybe more familiar with how difficult it will be to attain.[/quote]
The point I made earlier is that it’s not an exclusively neocon delusion. Idealism runs deep across the political spectrum. Also keep in mind that the so called “neocons” are not conservatives by any stretch. In fact, their ideological roots are the “New York Intellectuals”
They’re actually leftists. The reason they got the “conservative” label is due to their association with Chicago University(a conservative institution) and the philosopher Leo Strauss. Strauss was actually associated with the hard right earlier in his career(revolutionary conservatives of the Weimar Republic) but after WWII he disassociated himself from the movement and became more of a liberal. Also keep in mind that modern American conservatism is not genuine conservatism. Authentic conservatism is a reactionary, anti-liberal, anti-democratic force. Modern American conservatism is classical liberalism.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The point I made earlier is that it’s not an exclusively neocon delusion.[/quote]
What are you referring to?
I’m also curious to hear you philosophize about propaganda techniques used to gain public approval for some of the policies aimed at supporting the neocon ideals?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Chemical weapons aren’t WMDs? WTF is a WMD then?[/quote]
I posted this on the first page,
"I have written ad nauseum that the term “weapons of mass destruction” is a emotive misnomer that lacks analytical rigor. Weapons of mass destruction was frequently employed in securitizing speech acts post-9/11 to justify the proliferation of the state security apparatus and the invasion of Iraq.
Unconventional munitions are more accurately described as chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological(CBRN) weapons. Chemical weapons are not particularly effective weapons. They are highly dependent of geographical and weather conditions, are costly to produce, hazardous to store, and have profound political and security repercussions as their unconventional nature is antithetical to several nearly universal international norms. This is not an uncommonly held position in the intelligence and defense communities. "[/quote]
Why you talk so funny?
[/quote]
Thy utility of statecraft can only be validated by the facade of the SOFA. The paternity doth cogent narrative regarding Iraq’s CBRN program and it’s supposed ties to al Qaeda. The raw intelligence was merely politicized, marginalized, and fettered to colloquial ideology. Dick Cheney. Kurdish peshmerga with the support of SOFA statecraft crafted RealPolitik alas exacerbating and deploying praqmata, and stigmata, to various ISIL operations.
To profess bigoted phantams akin to WMD from various paradigms imbued by Socrates, Plato, and Dick Cheney. It’s a multi-level and multi-level intuition that laments RealPolitik at my ThinkTank. Thy ThinkTank hath Machiavelli proclivities underlying the sofy underbelly of Dick Cheney.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The point I made earlier is that it’s not an exclusively neocon delusion.[/quote]
What are you referring to?
I’m also curious to hear you philosophize about propaganda techniques used to gain public approval for some of the policies aimed at supporting the neocon ideals?
[/quote]
Dyadic democratic peace theory.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
What are you referring to?
[/quote]
I was making the point that democratic peace theory is not just a neoconservative foreign policy. And I was also pointing out that the neoconservatives are not “conservatives” in any sense. They’re not modern American conservatives(classical liberals) nor are they traditional conservatives. They’re liberals.
You want me to philosophise about their propaganda techniques? Not sure what I can say really. Obviously in the lead up to Iraq they drew spurious conclusions from intelligence and presented Iraq as an imminent threat to US security.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The fact that you point to the violation of international law as a sufficient casus belli for the Iraq War
[/quote]
I did no such thing. Read, Bistro, read. Then read it again to get it right. Then review and read it one more time. You appear to be a rather slow student here.
[/quote]
What are cease fire agreements, arms control/disarmament treaties, and prohibitions against politician assassination if not international law? No more games. Address the whole of my post. It should be easy if I’m half the dilettante you purport me to be.
No more games push. You better address the whole of Bistro’s post or prepare yourself for a horizontal cascade of jargon in the tradition of offensive verbosity.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
…[the] American grand strategy.
[/quote]
Please describe further?
My more naive self says foreign policy should be based on steering the ship, just keep it going straight, avoid conflicts if possible and try to keep things as stable as possible.
Are you assuming there is a more active end game for America?
[/quote]
The US objectives should be:
To ensure the maintenance of unipolarity/US hegemony
To ensure international stability by managing the balance of power
The problem with US foreign policy is not “neocons” but rather the dominance of Wilsonian idealism. Clinton/Albright were Wilsonian idealists who believed in democratic peace theory and oriented US foreign policy towards nation building. My mistake was assuming Bush II was different. I didn’t take his democracy building talk seriously. I believed that Iraq was part of a coherent grand strategy aimed at undermine Iran and restoring the balance of power to the region.
Obama and Hillary have been far worse than Bush - their support for the Arab Spring uprisings and their toppling of Gaddafi and nation building ventures in the ME have been an utter disaster. I actually find it difficult to believe that they could be so naive. Again, maybe I’m underestimating their stupidity.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The US objectives should be:
To ensure the maintenance of unipolarity/US hegemony
To ensure international stability by managing the balance of power [/quote]
Those objectives are mutually exclusive. Unipolarity by definition means there is an existing and significant imbalance of power.
[quote]
The problem with US foreign policy is not “neocons” but rather the dominance of Wilsonian idealism. Clinton/Albright were Wilsonian idealists who believed in democratic peace theory and oriented US foreign policy towards nation building. My mistake was assuming Bush II was different. I didn’t take his democracy building talk seriously. I believed that Iraq was part of a coherent grand strategy aimed at undermine Iran and restoring the balance of power to the region. [/quote]
The democratic peace theory literature is quite substantial. You are taking issue less with dyadic democratic peace theory than you are with artificial efforts of spreading democracy as a foreign policy, correct?
Again, you are misusing the term balance of power. Southwest Asia is not characterized by unbalanced multipolarity, but by unipolarity. For a balance of power to be established in the region, Israel’s nuclear monopoly would have to end.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Those objectives are mutually exclusive. Unipolarity by definition means there is an existing and significant imbalance of power.
[/quote]
Perhaps I didn’t express myself well. As you know, I have no formal background in international relations.
The US needs to maintain its global hegemony. By “maintaining the balance of power” I’m speaking in a regional sense; not in a global sense. I mean the balance of the regional powers in the ME - we need to ensure that neither the Gulf States nor Iran are able to dominate the region. We need to ensure that they offset each other.
Not just that. Some states will become more benign and stable under democratic rule - eg, Japan and West Germany after WWII. However, this was only successful because:
A). They were annihilated first and compelled to accept unconditional surrender.
And
B). They required an enormous investment in terms of oversight and rebuilding.
There were other factors such as the unique conditions of Germany and Japan - too detailed to go into here but the history of Japan and Germany was such that a transition to “liberal” democracy was possible there whereas it is not in most other nation states that we’re talking about today.
Balance of power cannot be used in a regional sense? I don’t consider the United States to be a “power” as such in the ME for example - the US presides over regional powers. The US does not actually have any tangible control over any of the regional powers. Israel, the Gulf States, Turkey etc are autonomous actors. The US has minimal influence over the regional players and is not involved independently as a player themselves. I would’ve thought in this context the “balance of powers” is an appropriate description. No?
[quote]
Southwest Asia is not characterized by unbalanced multipolarity, but by unipolarity. For a balance of power to be established in the region, Israel’s nuclear monopoly would have to end. [/quote]
Israel’s nuclear dominance does not represent unipolarity because it is not perceived as an offensive threat. At best, it is seen as a last ditch defensive deterrent. It is not perceived as an existential threat to any other state. It is not perceived as a deterrent to the regional ambitions of any other state. In fact, Israel is best viewed as uninvolved and extrinsic to the regional “power politics”. Israel has no designs upon its neighbours; it is already secure due to its nuclear arsenal therefore it is not really a player; it’s not involved in the “power politics” of the region. It’s more of a wildcard in the deck - sitting in the middle of it all but uninvolved in the struggle.
Sorry about my shortcomings in terms of IR jargon and theory. As I said, I don’t have any formal background. I’m interested in what you have to say about this though. Maybe you can correct some of my misunderstandings or misuse of terminology.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Chemical weapons aren’t WMDs? WTF is a WMD then?[/quote]
I posted this on the first page,
"I have written ad nauseum that the term “weapons of mass destruction” is a emotive misnomer that lacks analytical rigor. Weapons of mass destruction was frequently employed in securitizing speech acts post-9/11 to justify the proliferation of the state security apparatus and the invasion of Iraq.
Unconventional munitions are more accurately described as chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological(CBRN) weapons. Chemical weapons are not particularly effective weapons. They are highly dependent of geographical and weather conditions, are costly to produce, hazardous to store, and have profound political and security repercussions as their unconventional nature is antithetical to several nearly universal international norms. This is not an uncommonly held position in the intelligence and defense communities. "[/quote]
Why you talk so funny?
[/quote]
Why you no contribute to discussion?[/quote]
Been there; done that.
You were in high school at the time.[/quote]
Of what consequence is that? It doesn’t impact the cogency of my argument. Has your advanced age somehow imbued you with a superior understanding of U.S. security policy?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Perhaps I didn’t express myself well. As you know, I have no formal background in international relations.
The US needs to maintain its global hegemony. By “maintaining the balance of power” I’m speaking in a regional sense; not in a global sense. I mean the balance of the regional powers in the ME - we need to ensure that neither the Gulf States nor Iran are able to dominate the region. We need to ensure that they offset each other. [/quote]
No worries. Simply put, classical balance of power theory requires rough parity among the great powers in a multipolar system. You are arguing that the U.S. should maintain the current distribution of power in the international system, which it dominates. That clarifies things. I agree with your assessment.
[quote] Some states will become more benign and stable under democratic rule - eg, Japan and West Germany after WWII. However, this was only successful because:
A). They were annihilated first and compelled to accept unconditional surrender.
And
B). They required an enormous investment in terms of oversight and rebuilding.
There were other factors such as the unique conditions of Germany and Japan - too detailed to go into here but the history of Japan and Germany was such that a transition to “liberal” democracy was possible there whereas it is not in most other nation states that we’re talking about today.
[/quote]
That’s a very reasonable position.
It can be, but it must be specified that it’s being used in that sense. Remember the logician’s admonition. Iran isn’t a potential hegemon. That would require that she possess disproportionate power in a multipolar system, neither of which is the case.
International relations can be approached though three levels of analysis; these are the systemic level, domestic level, and individual level. Polarity is a component of systems theory. It does not concern itself with the domestic characteristics of a state or the perceptions (or misperceptions) its peers may have of it. It is only concerned with the distribution of power within a given system. I don’t disagree that the Israeli nuclear arsenal is only intended to establish deterrence, but Israel’s domestic constitution doesn’t change the material dimensions of the regional system. Nuclear capability is a prerequisite to great power status in the atomic age. Israel is not a great power, but its sizable nuclear arsenal (approximiately 300 warheads according to the DIA) gives it a significant military advantage over its peers in southwest Asia.
My understanding only comes from the time and effort I have put into the field. I’ve always been impressed by your broadly gauged historical knowledge, which is certainly superior to my own.
C’mon Cush, you know he talks like that in real life.
How else would he attract Jen Psaki at a cocktail party??