The Rational Hawk - Beyond Neocon

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]rainjack wrote:
That’s a fucking lie, and you know it - you have let nothing slide, and you are tryijng to keep it up even now. Bullshit on your self-righteous hypocrisy.

…

It has everything to do with this disuccion - it is about somoeone gettitng what they want. If it will make you feel better, substitute “U.S.A.” for me, and the third world country of your choice whenever it references you.

…

No one is doing anything on yor behalf, or speaking for you. It is am illustration. You mena to tell me you don’t understand symbolism?

…

You have tried to equate being strong, and rich with “might makes rightism”. I was attempting to show that strength and wealth are noat easily hidden. But you would have seen that had you read all of my post.

…

Yes - that is absolutely correct. And it has nothing to do with my comprehension skills, and everything to do with your ability to convet a coherent thought. How many folks have you had to correct on this very thread?

The problem is - you don’t make a clear point. You are just vague enough so that anyone that comments on what you say is wrong.

Try saying exactly what you mean in one sentence or less, and sticking by it. Your technique is frustrating to say the least.
[/quote]

Heh, I just had to capture your wondrous prose in case of future editing. Anyway…

I have been highlighting your attacks, but have mostly refrained from attacking back in any meaningful way for quite a while now, which is what I meant by letting it slide. Feel free to think otherwise.

No, in fact I haven’t. This is where you go astray. You appear to have some idea of what I must mean in your head and then you never see what I am saying.

I’ve explain several times now that the premise for the blog posting is flawed, in my view. It specifically promotes the use of “might” by making the assumption that “might” is the only tool that will be effective.

I’ve never suggested that anyone should try to hide strength or wealth. I am suggesting what one does with their strength or might makes a huge amount of difference to the person on the receiving end.

This is why I was talking about the fact that I’d move my car for the weak or the strong, but would resist doing so for either as well if they were to be an asshole about it.

However, I also admitted that its possible that I could be forced to move my car, but that I’d greatly resent it. These things are directly pertinent to the point I have been making since my first post.

That’s going to be a problem. Real life is not that simple.

As soon as I try to say something simple, you will use that simplicity to come up with all kinds of silly attacks – precisely because I haven’t taken the care to be clear about what I mean to ward off those silly attacks.

Everyone who doesn’t bother to think about what I’m saying and understand my point, instead arguing against a stance that I don’t actually have.

However, amazingly, the stance they are all arguing against is some model “liberal” viewpoint. Funny how that works.

42

[quote]vroom wrote:
Kuz,

I’m already being slapped with Kumba-Ya bullshit, I don’t think I’m going to go and suggest anything concrete which would encourage that misinterpretation.

Perhaps look into some serious materials on conflict resolution, negotiation and mediation. How do we expect other people to travel the road to peace if we can’t find it ourselves?

To reverse it to the extreme, if there is no path to peace, we should just bomb the entire region into nonexistance and be done with it.

Obviously, there are paths to peace and good relations between nations. Yes, some of those paths do include military conquest – as we saw after WWII.[/quote]

Easy tiger. I’m not saying there is no path to peace outside of cash or military strength, but my comment was more that if you feel that the first two do not work, what is the alternative?

Honestly, I would rather hear concrete ideas from people as opposed to just pointing out things they disagree with. Anyone can criticize (Lord knows it happens on here enough over the slightest thing).

Here’s what I’m wondering: Is all diplomacy merely a zero-sum game of Machiavellian intrigue? Where there can only be win-lose? Or is there something more to it? Up to this point, diplomacy on the world stage has mostly been about doing things that will benefit your own self-interests first and foremost… and if some general world good works its way in, all the better.

A little sad, really.

43

[quote]vroom wrote:
Dismissing it out of hand, and then throwing in a parting insult? Why am I not suprised?

I wish I could say that disappoints me - but it is just par for the course.

You aren’t one of the people on these forums that gets to claim mock indignation… I’ve been letting your insults slide for weeks now.

Which reason should I elucidate for the summary rejections?

  1. It’s purely made up and doesn’t have much to do with the discussion?

  2. It purports my behavior on my behalf, assuming it can speak or me?

  3. It neglects to look into the issues being discussed in any way?

Anyone, rich or poor, big or small, could point out that I had parked them in, and I’d be happy to go move and let them out.

Anyone, rich or poor, big or small, could be a total jackass and get less cooperation out of me.

Might I find it more necessary to do what a rich and large jackass asks even though he is an asshole? Yes.

However, that would fall exactly within the issues I have been describing above, where those with might abuse that fact and act like an asshole, thereby earning the wrath of all who have to suffer this behavior.

You claim you don’t understand my point, then you give me a silly example which is almost a perfect vehicle for illustrating my own point.

It’s almost comical.[/quote]

But what’s different here is that how you and I might act as individual people differs from how most (hell, all) countries act in a similar situation. I don’t think rainjack’s example was horribly far off.

The fact that certain countries are wealthy and/or military powers will always color discussions.

You just cannot totally ignore it, whether it be the big/powerful country keeping that in mind when negotiating a treaty with a much smaller nation or that smaller nation in those same discussions possibly feeling (as you pointed out before) some kind of resentment over the fact that no matter how good their cause, they cannot truly force an issue.

44

[quote]But what’s different here is that how you and I might act as individual people differs from how most (hell, all) countries act in a similar situation. I don’t think rainjack’s example was horribly far off.

The fact that certain countries are wealthy and/or military powers will always color discussions.[/quote]

Kuz,

I’m not sure I’d agree. The policies of a country are exposed to other countries via diplomats – well at least if relations still exist at all.

Anyway, it is a people to people issue at the top levels, the likes of which most of us will never see.

Regardless, the way you phrase your statement seems to imply that the rich and powerful country does not have to act respectful to another country.

It is precisely the attitude that respect does not have to be shown to another person, or another country, that causes so much ire.

International politics is sort of like Internet forums. Leaders speak to each other via the news media, or refer to each other during internal talks to their own populace. The personalities and egos of the leaders are certainly involved in the process somewhere.

Making the leaders or people of another country feel pushed around is not going to be helpful. It will raise the price in all of your negotiations, even if your countries are generally on good terms.

45

[quote]vroom wrote:
Regardless, the way you phrase your statement seems to imply that the rich and powerful country does not have to act respectful to another country.[/quote]

You cry and moan when you feel you are mis interpreted, then you go and say something like this. Kuz never said that. No one but you is saying that. Geez.

Wrong again. No one is suggesting that it is okay for one country to completely disrespect another because they are bigger, stronger and richer. It is the mere fact that a country is richer and stronger and bigger that causes the ire to be reaised. I fear this concept has flown comnletely over your head.

I think this is strike three. When a deal is done, or about to be done it is done with real people, in real venues, with real pens. Posturing and grandstanding is just placating the homefront. Don’t believe me? Ask Bill Richardson.

This is absurd. How does the strongest, richest, most powerful economic and military power on the face of the earth hide the fact that he is all of those? You don’t. Our reputation precedes us. To try and hide that fact would be a sign of weakness to some - and regarded as hypocrisy by others.

For someone that seems caught up on telling me how wrong I am about his position - you sure do sound a lot like the way I have had you pegged from the get go.

46

This is an interesting article Hedo. The diversity issue is a good example, but that is something that may only be found in combat- you all fight under the same flag. Things will not be the same in the greater American population until someone invades us and we are forced to act together in a fight for our lives- not the lives of Iraqis.

I think you know by now I try to bash the actual soldiers as little as humanly possible.

However, the worldview you use is an example of American naiviety. America was completely isolationist for quite a while, generally from 1865- 1914. There was heavy resistance to world war I, as there was no clear reason (still isn’t) why we should have or got involved at all.

Now why was that? You point at Europe not wanting to fight anymore. No shit. All of our wars have been away games. Not one bomb has ever fallen from a plane and landed in one city on the US mainland.

How the hell would we know what true destruction is? Americans in the Nineteenth century saw it first hand, and hence did not have a desire to go through so much bloodshed and destruction ever again; it is a fact that the combined casualties from all our other wars combined do not equal those of the Civil War.

How can you blame the Europeans for wanting to find another way to settle squabbles when they have seen the destruction firsthand in the last century? Their great grandfathers were at Verdun, their grandfathers in Berlin, their fathers waiting for the Soviets to roll in, (or, in the Eastern bloc, saw the Soviets roll in). Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic. Not enough blood has been spilled already on European soil?

And what, for instance, would happen if a country wanted to act on the Saudi’s oppression of their people? “For democracy and freedom, we will free the Saudi’s of the brutal oppression and ancient laws”. What would we say? Do you think the American government would let that happen? It is no different than that.

The United States has propped up and supported countless dictatoships, fascist regimes, and crooked governments. At one time we helped Sadddam in his war with Iran, when it benefited us. Was he not crooked and oppressive then? Did we not look past it?

Stop making us look like the infallible protectors of light and good things, and the rest of the world just doesn’t know that they want what we have yet.

Fellas, if our type of government is fantastic, then you don’t have to spread it. People will steal it from you.

47

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Fellas, if our type of government is fantastic, then you don’t have to spread it. People will steal it from you.[/quote]

I was actually nodding my head at much of what you wrote. Right up until the last couple of paragraphs.

The U.S. holds a unique position on the world stage. We are the strongest, richest, most powerful economic/military power on the planet. That is not nationalistic vibrato - that is just the way it is.

Contrary to some on here may think - you can’t stuff those credentials in your hip pocket and pretend that they don’t exist. People notice. Nations notice. Regions notice.

I think we have done a pretty darn good job of taking the high road when it comes to foreign policy. We don’t use our military unless it is believed to be the only recourse.

You might have a different idea of what “only recourse” means - but that is a far cry from the U.S. being a “might makes right” nation. Look at Iran, and North Korea. If we were indeed the mean old bully that some seem to think we are - would we be letting the fucking French sit at the bargaining table? Please.

As for democracy spreading itself - I think it does, once an oppressed people gets a small taste of freedom. Look at the former Soviet Bloc countries. Look at Afghanistan. Look at Iraq.

48

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You cry and moan when you feel you are mis interpreted, then you go and say something like this. Kuz never said that. No one but you is saying that. Geez.
[/quote]

Maybe you’ll let Kuz speak for himself?

Stop being such an ass. I’m suggesting that just being rich and powerful alone is not enough to piss people off to any real degree. Yes, people will be looking for excuses to dislike you, but you’ll still have to give them one.

[quote]I think this is strike three. When a deal is done, or about to be done it is done with real people, in real venues, with real pens. Posturing and grandstanding is just placating the homefront. Don’t believe me? Ask Bill Richardson.
[/quote]

When a deal is done, all the communication and negotiation has been done in advance, so the visible ceremony with pens can take place. And yes, it is done with real people who are constrained by the boundaries set by their leaders.

So, when leader X insults country Y, leader Y can tell negotiator Y to tell negotiator X to stuff it up his ass. How you get the idea that leaders don’t have influence in the political process is beyond me.

As usual, you are just looking for stupid ways to try to show me wrong about something. Get serious for a change, this is getting boring.

You are the one talking about hiding things, not me. However, holding military exercises off the coast of another power is a message. As you say, people know you have power whether or not you do such things. So, what does such an expression of power do? Oh, yes, it makes people respect and appreciate you. That’s what it does!

Howabout, at some point, you stop making up a position for me and then arguing against it. Really, it’s snoresville. Try accepting that I mean what I say, then disagree with that. I know that’s a strange concept, but give it a shot.

49

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Fellas, if our type of government is fantastic, then you don’t have to spread it. People will steal it from you.

I was actually nodding my head at much of what you wrote. Right up until the last couple of paragraphs.

The U.S. holds a unique position on the world stage. We are the strongest, richest, most powerful economic/military power on the planet. That is not nationalistic vibrato - that is just the way it is.

Contrary to some on here may think - you can’t stuff those credentials in your hip pocket and pretend that they don’t exist. People notice. Nations notice. Regions notice.

I think we have done a pretty darn good job of taking the high road when it comes to foreign policy. We don’t use our military unless it is believed to be the only recourse.

You might have a different idea of what “only recourse” means - but that is a far cry from the U.S. being a “might makes right” nation. Look at Iran, and North Korea. If we were indeed the mean old bully that some seem to think we are - would we be letting the fucking French sit at the bargaining table? Please.

As for democracy spreading itself - I think it does, once an oppressed people gets a small taste of freedom. Look at the former Soviet Bloc countries. Look at Afghanistan. Look at Iraq.
[/quote]

I agree that the United States holds the stage right now. We are the richest and most technologically advanced country out there.

Now you are right, we haven’t used the military outright. But I don’t believe that this is because the administrations don’t want to, I believe it is because they can’t.

We went from WW II to Korea. One war that I will call noble to one that is far less noble, but still, one can make a point for the intervention.

Now, from Korea to Vietnam. One kind of OK war to a war that we had absolutely no business being in; in fact, we supported the wrong side. And, for all these wars, there was mandatory participation via draft.

By the time 1968 came about, only those who were blind cheerleaders of the
terribly corrupt government could believe that we still should be there. Then the draft ends, the shroud of infalliblity that America had was gone. How anyone can ever trust the American government after Vietnam is a wonder to me.

So nowadays, there is no draft. Well, if the war is truly worth fighting, and the cause is that immediate, why don’t they draft? We only have the capabilities to handle one war at a time - the buget deficit proves this, as does simple numbers of soldiers.

So why not draft? Because the American people would immediately be affected. Not the 300 families from NJ who have lost family members, but the million and a half that now have to worry about their sons. So now, they pay attention to politics, and watch what the government is doing. Which is exaclty what the government doesn’t want.

This is why we use the CIA to overturn govenments we don’t like, as it is covert, quiet, and anyone who suggests that we had a part in it is labeled a radical or fringe member. Much easier than fighting a war. Ask Pat Robertson, he knows a lot about assassinations.

Why don’t we attack Iran or North Korea? Because they’ll fight back. We will never attack or bully North Korea because of the capabilities they have, plus the fact of how bloody that war could be. Iran is larger and more dangerous than Iraq, and not worth attacking when you can attack Iraq instead. It is much easier to make Saddam out to be the evilest man in the world, as America already knows and dislikes him.

The Soviet Union fell because those people wanted freedom (not because of goddamn Reagan). They might not have known how to do it, but they wanted change.

Just as America did in 1776, just as Serbia did against Milosevic, just as Ireland did against England (for a thousand years they fought the English oppression. Don’t talk to me about twenty years of Saddam’s terror). When people want change, they will do it. Iraq didn’t want it. If they did, it would have been done.

50

Fightin

I’ll say the same thing that RJ did. I thought you were making a lot of sense up until the last couple of paragraphs.

Taken as an idealogy the man is saying that Europe and much of the world has lost their courage and ability to stand up for what they believe in, hence the compromise and accept. They have traded social convenience for honor and respect and doing what is right rather then doing what you have to do. This realization dovetails well with the thinking of the “New Left” as outlined by Mancuse and others. I sometimes wonder if the left realizes how little orginal thinking they are doing and how heavily influenced they are by Socialists thinkers who advocate a deconstruction of the US.

As to Reagan. I think your analysis left a lot out. The USSR was bankrupt morally, and financially. The military was a shell. I stood a post for many years waiting to face the Warsaw Pact. In the end whether they wanted freedom or not, they needed a leader and Reagan provided the leadership they needed to overthrow the burden that the USSR became. Ask an immigrant from Eastern Europe, they are pretty clear on who freed them. And not for nothing the USSR was the darling of the left, in this country for 40 years.

The world has always had a leader. The world is fortunate to have one as benevolent as the US in present times.
I don’t think China or the Old USSR would have the same empathy for Freedom and Democracy as we do,

51

[quote]vroom wrote:
But what’s different here is that how you and I might act as individual people differs from how most (hell, all) countries act in a similar situation. I don’t think rainjack’s example was horribly far off.

The fact that certain countries are wealthy and/or military powers will always color discussions.

Kuz,

I’m not sure I’d agree. The policies of a country are exposed to other countries via diplomats – well at least if relations still exist at all.

Anyway, it is a people to people issue at the top levels, the likes of which most of us will never see.

Regardless, the way you phrase your statement seems to imply that the rich and powerful country does not have to act respectful to another country.

It is precisely the attitude that respect does not have to be shown to another person, or another country, that causes so much ire.

International politics is sort of like Internet forums. Leaders speak to each other via the news media, or refer to each other during internal talks to their own populace. The personalities and egos of the leaders are certainly involved in the process somewhere.

Making the leaders or people of another country feel pushed around is not going to be helpful. It will raise the price in all of your negotiations, even if your countries are generally on good terms.[/quote]

Woo hoo! Kuz speaking for himself! :wink: (Sorry - I had to throw that in. The way Vroom and Rainjack are at each other’s throats 24/7 cracks me up. lol)

Anyhoo, I certainly don’t mean at all to say or imply that a rich and powerful country does not have to act respectful to another country. I think maybe that’s where a lot of the mix-ups in the discussions on this thread are coming from. In fact, I think you do need to act respectful towards other countries and not belittle their interests out of hand. Sure, maybe you can get away with doing that with one or two countries, but if it becomes a trend… suddenly it may be 100 “little guys” against the 1 “big guy” (and the big guy is not going to enjoy that much).

My thought was more that money and power will color discussions a lot. But even beyond that, I think how a bigger nation acts when it has money and power relates a great deal to my own beliefs on how people should act: Those with more should reach out to those with less… but no one should force them into doing it. Personally, I try to do my little part to give back since I feel like I’ve had it really good in my life. To me, I feel like I owe a certain amount back to the community and so I try to find ways to do that.

Big countries probably should view things in a similar fashion, in my mind. This is NOT to say that everyone else should tell the powerful what to do, when to do it, how much to spend, etc. I think that is precisely why a lot of Americans bristle at the idea of the U.N. acting high and mighty about what our country should be doing. But a lot of big countries do a ton to reach out to others (the U.S. and other major European powers, for instance, do a lot to bankroll the UN, respond to the tsunamis, etc.). Those big countries rarely get much credit for those actions and instead are told they are just a bunch of neocolonialists bent on doing things only in their own interest.

Unfortunately, that kind of reaction can sway bigger countries to do just that - say screw it and act in their own interests only.

In the end, the more powerful countries tend to reach out more and do more since they have the capabilities, but in balance to that, they should also have the right to use their strength to advance their own interests. The smaller countries would likely do the same if they had the power anyway.

52

Well now, that is interesting!

Are you suggesting that the rich and powerful buy the right to advance their interests?

Also, what do you mean by “advancing their interests”? The whole concept of getting “rights” due to might again start to lean towards a might makes right mindset.

Perhaps it comes down to basic principles that need to be commonly accepted. For example, do we all finally believe that all people are created equal? One person, one vote? That type of thing?

Do all these ideals go out the window as soon as we are talking International issues instead of internal issues?

Just as people argue about having religion pushed on them, or perhaps pulled from them, don’t countries apply this pressure towards others? Why should other countries feel any different than those who are annoyed when anothers beliefs are “imposed” by saying prayers in school or calling it a holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree.

Anyway, I just found your closing statement very interesting, in that it opened up a whole smorgasbord of questions. Speaking of which, I think it is lunch time…

53

[quote]vroom wrote:
In the end, the more powerful countries tend to reach out more and do more since they have the capabilities, but in balance to that, they should also have the right to use their strength to advance their own interests. The smaller countries would likely do the same if they had the power anyway.

Well now, that is interesting!

Are you suggesting that the rich and powerful buy the right to advance their interests?

Also, what do you mean by “advancing their interests”? The whole concept of getting “rights” due to might again start to lean towards a might makes right mindset.

Perhaps it comes down to basic principles that need to be commonly accepted. For example, do we all finally believe that all people are created equal? One person, one vote? That type of thing?

Do all these ideals go out the window as soon as we are talking International issues instead of internal issues?

Just as people argue about having religion pushed on them, or perhaps pulled from them, don’t countries apply this pressure towards others? Why should other countries feel any different than those who are annoyed when anothers beliefs are “imposed” by saying prayers in school or calling it a holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree.

Anyway, I just found your closing statement very interesting, in that it opened up a whole smorgasbord of questions. Speaking of which, I think it is lunch time…[/quote]

That’s sounds a bit like a law and economics approach to things (i.e. buying the rights to do certain things and treating all situations like a free market), but not 100% what I meant (but I think that could go down a pretty interesting road for discussion).

Powerful countries should not somehow have to feel guilty about having their power, but that’s exactly what I think a lot of smaller countries seek to do to them (especially via the UN). Those with power should seek to “do good” (yes, very amorphous term) in the world, but should also seek to do whatever might be in the best interests of its own people.

When I’m talking about one country advancing its interests, that doesn’t mean that it is not taking the idea of basic human rights for all or “one person, one vote” away. Two countries who value those principles could still disagree on overall policies. Trying to think of a good example. Ok, hypothetically, maybe the U.S. and Canada disagree on some general policy as it relates to their borders or to North America. They do not have to be against democracy, representative govt. and so on when they seek to advance their own national interests.

I would continue, but now you got me all distracted about lunch…

54

[quote]vroom wrote:
In the end, the more powerful countries tend to reach out more and do more since they have the capabilities, but in balance to that, they should also have the right to use their strength to advance their own interests. The smaller countries would likely do the same if they had the power anyway.

Well now, that is interesting!

Are you suggesting that the rich and powerful buy the right to advance their interests?
[/quote]

Just had another thought. In a way, isn’t this what happens today anyway? Rich and powerful countries provide economic and humanitarian aid to get other countries more on their sides so they can advance their interests?

55

That’s a pretty cold and mercenary view Kuz.

56

[quote]vroom wrote:
That’s a pretty cold and mercenary view Kuz.
[/quote]

Which part? It’s not the view I subscribe to, that somehow big countries can buy their way into doing whatever they want. I tried to point that out since you seemed to think that was an interesting path to take the discussion.

Like I posted above, those with more should feel obligated to help out those in need, but also should not feel guilty about looking out for their own self interests. I’m not sure what part about that is cold and mercenary. In fact, I think it’s quite the opposite.

57

[quote]hedo wrote:
Fightin

I’ll say the same thing that RJ did. I thought you were making a lot of sense up until the last couple of paragraphs.

Taken as an idealogy the man is saying that Europe and much of the world has lost their courage and ability to stand up for what they believe in, hence the compromise and accept. They have traded social convenience for honor and respect and doing what is right rather then doing what you have to do. This realization dovetails well with the thinking of the “New Left” as outlined by Mancuse and others. I sometimes wonder if the left realizes how little orginal thinking they are doing and how heavily influenced they are by Socialists thinkers who advocate a deconstruction of the US.

As to Reagan. I think your analysis left a lot out. The USSR was bankrupt morally, and financially. The military was a shell. I stood a post for many years waiting to face the Warsaw Pact. In the end whether they wanted freedom or not, they needed a leader and Reagan provided the leadership they needed to overthrow the burden that the USSR became. Ask an immigrant from Eastern Europe, they are pretty clear on who freed them. And not for nothing the USSR was the darling of the left, in this country for 40 years.

The world has always had a leader. The world is fortunate to have one as benevolent as the US in present times.
I don’t think China or the Old USSR would have the same empathy for Freedom and Democracy as we do,[/quote]

Hey, I make no bones about where my philosophies come from. There is a direct line in my thinking back to people like Paine, Marx, Rousseau, and Jefferson. I don’t deny that. I think if more leftists not only understood, but owned, the original ideas of these people (and read their works), they would have better footing to stand on when arguing with conservatives.

I don’t want to get into the Reagan deal again. I’m not a fan.

However, the USSR was no darling to me. I don’t remember the Cold War very well, but the USSR was far from a Marxist country. It was a dictatorship little different from Nazi Germany, except that industry was nationalized. I don’t consider this a government anywhere near acceptable.

As for the US being benevevolent, that depends on who you ask. We live in the country- is it really important what we think? What does the rest of the world think? What does South America think, Europe, Asia? We have 300 million people in this country, and the world has what, 6 billion? Just because we think we are benevolent does not mean we are. The British Empire did not think itself “evil” when it existed. Yet countless countries look back and say that it was, such as the India’s, the Iraq’s, or the China’s of the world. The empire was synonymous with oppression.

You are right- at the present time, the US is far more tolerating of certain things than the USSR ever was. But saying that we are better than a totalitarian, sociopathic state is kind of being the one eyed man in the land of the blind.

It is not up to us to say whether our foreign policy was good. It is up to history.

58

The article posted was interesting and beyond that, makes me remember a time when I truly wished: ‘‘May God have mercy on the first country that bombs the US’’. Because i truly believed that that country would be wiped off the map.

Well, that kind of happen but not with that blazing fury that I expected and surely not against an enemy that could actually fight.

Now I am a little jaded. Not in the sense that I care about principles about the notions of Might Makes Right, Power and Ethics as they have been discussed above, but in the sense that I realize that the position advocated in the Blog is truly no longer doable by the US, which kinda saddens me.

FightingIrish brought some very interesting points about the US’s inability to engage in numerous battles, economically and militarily.

It ends up being true that fighting or threatening countries such as N.Korea, Iran or China are becoming more and more none issues.

This is where I will have to agree with Vroom, even if his first post generated such a heated debate. I don’t believe it to be an affront to US power or superiority to acknowledge that its ability to unilaterally dominate world affairs (geopolitically) is no longer as unchallenged as it once was. This is not only due to lacking allied support, which of course, plays a significant part, but also due to the emerging strength of the countries facing the United States.

Should there be a true and real all out war between the US and another country (except China), it would be easy to bet on the United States.

However, if the giant cannot be awaken, such as it was by a Pearl Harbor type of event that would redirect the country towards a true war footing like it did in mid-WWII, I doubt that the US could realistically allocate the appropriate economic and military resources required to decide to ‘‘back up’’ their threats against larger/powerful/(fanatic) countries like Iran or N.Korea.

It remains also true however, that we have set foot in an era of warfare that no longer allows us to rely on diplomacy or military power to deal with our enemies. Therefore, in my mind, to posted blog is in essence nothing more then wistful and nostalgic daydreaming.

Truly, I do not doubt that the US had to respond in kind to the 911 attacks by invading Afghanistan. The Iraq invasion, might or might not have been ‘‘truly’’ required or useful depending on whom you asked (even if the invasion can be justified by many reasons ranging from personal on the behalf of the president, fulfilling a father’s uncompleted task, to military response for 911, to preemptive strike against WMD, to securing petrol lines, to setting up military bases in the Middle East to opening up new markets). But the point remains that we are faced with enemies that do not behave rationally from our perspective. We expect a wounded enemy to understand that if he does not back down and submit, we will attack again. However, terrorist, mainly Islamic terrorists seem to behave in the exact opposite manner, gathering support we every attack that we make. Moreover, we have not yet been able to make the paradigm shift from conventional warfare to counter-terrorism, as our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have shown.

It is also clear that the goals of the terrorists and those of America are diametrically opposed. One requires complete removal of American forces, interest, power bases and support of Israel from the Middle East whereas the US will do nothing of the sort, mainly because this would do nothing to really appease the terrorists hierarchy (in all probability), would be economically foolish, politically undoable because most of the countries harboring the terrorists are somewhat US allies and it would just be plain unfeasible realistically (how do you remove internationally owned corporations (seen to be US puppets of domination) from the Middle East).

In the end, this makes me think back to that Gladiator quote when a lieutenant mentions to his general that ‘‘people should know when they are conquered’’. I doubt that in our dealings with terrorism we will encounter such people. The Serbs knew and they stop rather rapidly, the Arabs of the Middle East might be less easy to convince.

How are we to combat such threats?

I highly doubt that it would be as easy as saying…‘‘We need to back up our threats with military might.’’ but would require novel efforts.

Its kinda hard to offer better than 77 virgins upon mission completion, but hey, we gotta try right?

That is where Vroom’s comments take their meaning. The underlying concept of might makes right (Hey, I’m all for it) that is rather self evident from the blog is old-fashioned and probably would not be significantly effective in today’s world affairs and against today’s enemies.

AlexH

59

Dandlex

Good post. However I think you are missing the point. The man never says might makes right. He says you need to be strong and not fearful of using your military. Many nations are quick to take that option off the table because they have become weak. We shouldn’t emulate weakness.

I will take issue with one point. The US is perfectly capable of upping the ante from a military and economic standpoint. We have chosen not to do so…yet. The US military we have now is a drawn down version of the one that existed in the early 90’s. We maintained that level throughout the Cold War. In other words the US has not put itself on a war mobilization footing. Just because we haven’t doesn’t mean we can’t.

Even at a greatly drawn down level the US military is still capable of dominating the battlefield. Additionally the restrictions put on our military would likely be lifted in a more global or regional war. Take Fallujah for example. We took great care not to damage property or cause civilian casualties. We didn’t have to do that. To be honest an armored battalion with air support could have done that mission with a lot less US casualties. The flip side is a lot more civilians would have been killed and property destroyed. That’s a choice the US made, not something we had to do.

From an economic standpoint you screw with your largest customer at your own risk. Again in time of war sacrafices are made. Regardless First World countries don’t really make war against each other anymore. The economies of smaller less developed nations are far more likely to collapse under US pressure and being mindful of that are far less likely to piss off their best customer.

60

Hedo,

I read your post and it just reeks of the concept that the world is a military playground ripe for dominating.

It that isn’t “might makes right” then nothing is.

Most people, or perhaps substantially less than that, don’t believe that quickly escalating an issue to the point that thousands of civilian lives are extinguished so that leaders that won’t adhere to your own desires are removed is a good premise for international policy.

The problem with that, as we are now seeing in Iraq, is that the aftermath is a problem. It takes a lot of time, energy and work to avoid creating a complete disaster. Or, I guess you could just walk away and let the entire populace suffer in squalor for generations.

I mean, you don’t have to look after that either.