Critique of the Pax Americana
October 14, 2002 11:43 AM Subscribe
Critique of the Pax Americana by Jay Bookman; a response by Donald Kagan, one of the plan's architects; and a response to Kagan by Bookman. (via Tapped)
You are a moron. To compare the Nuclear Arms race of the cold war and containment to the conquests of the Roman Empire proves you didn't pay attention in history class.
You are rude, and I think incorrect, but I won't stoop to calling you names.
You seem to make the same point that Kagan does in his rebuttal: "The Roman Empire was built on direct military conquest; America has done very little of this: therefore, there is no meaningful comparison between the two".
First of all, this implies that two things need to be identical for there to be a meaningful comparison, which is obviously not the case.
Secondly, and more importanly, it ignores the fact that a lot has changed in the world since the time of Caesar. The mechanisms and definitions of Empire are not neccessarily the same as they were then. Kagan's argument is akin to saying: "The Romans carried around big poles with eagles on top; Americans never do that, so we can't be like the Romans". This blindness to historical change is unforgivable if understandable in a Classics Professor.
Are there meaningful comparisons to be made? Absolutely. First of all, the simple structural fact that both are the economic and military superpower of the day. Regardless of whether you think that defines an 'empire', one would be foolish to disregard the parallel. Secondly, let's not forget that Rome was originally a Republic with a strong emphasis on the rule of codified law, and that continued to play a major role in it's political and philosophical culture - even long after is was no longer entirely true. That should sound familiar. Thirdly, Rome had strong sense of the superiority of it's culture, military, and polity. This may have been justified, but surely also was an often exploited blind spot.
So while I agree that the Rome-USA analogy has become a cliche and is often misapplied, it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
posted by freebird at 12:20 PM on October 14, 2002
You are rude, and I think incorrect, but I won't stoop to calling you names.
You seem to make the same point that Kagan does in his rebuttal: "The Roman Empire was built on direct military conquest; America has done very little of this: therefore, there is no meaningful comparison between the two".
First of all, this implies that two things need to be identical for there to be a meaningful comparison, which is obviously not the case.
Secondly, and more importanly, it ignores the fact that a lot has changed in the world since the time of Caesar. The mechanisms and definitions of Empire are not neccessarily the same as they were then. Kagan's argument is akin to saying: "The Romans carried around big poles with eagles on top; Americans never do that, so we can't be like the Romans". This blindness to historical change is unforgivable if understandable in a Classics Professor.
Are there meaningful comparisons to be made? Absolutely. First of all, the simple structural fact that both are the economic and military superpower of the day. Regardless of whether you think that defines an 'empire', one would be foolish to disregard the parallel. Secondly, let's not forget that Rome was originally a Republic with a strong emphasis on the rule of codified law, and that continued to play a major role in it's political and philosophical culture - even long after is was no longer entirely true. That should sound familiar. Thirdly, Rome had strong sense of the superiority of it's culture, military, and polity. This may have been justified, but surely also was an often exploited blind spot.
So while I agree that the Rome-USA analogy has become a cliche and is often misapplied, it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
posted by freebird at 12:20 PM on October 14, 2002
was originally a Republic
With a Dictator never the less....
"The Romans carried around big poles with eagles on top; Americans never do that, so we can't be like the Romans".
This is a childish analogy at best.
The comparison of the the Truman's Containment Policy and the proliferation of Nuclear weapons is a totally alien concept to what the Romans experienced. The Romans risked an army if they lost battle. If the United States and the USSR would have gone in to Thermonuclear battle, it would have been suicide for both sides. The is no victor in a nuclear battle. Both sides knew the consequence of attacking the other. There is no such example of anything like that in history.
Regardless of whether you think that defines an 'empire'
Do not get me wrong. American is an Empire. We dominate the world, and I am glad. In fact I think we already have far more power than the Romans ever dreamed of. That is the point. We, as Americans, have weather by intention or not have found more powerful ways of influencing people around the world than by brute force, only using our military when necessary (You can argue if this case is necessary or not, but that is not the focus of this debate). What disturbs me about Bookman and other's point of view is that they are portraying this image of "United State Marine Corps World Tour 2002" with shows in Bagdad, Teheran, P'yongyang, and one final sold-out show in Beijing. This is just a liberal's wet-dream. The American people would not stand for it. Look how much effort it taking to use the military against a country that has done everything in it's power to kill Americans at every chance it gets...
Rome-USA analogy has become a cliche and is often misapplied, it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
I belive it can when the author has such delusions.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:58 PM on October 14, 2002
With a Dictator never the less....
"The Romans carried around big poles with eagles on top; Americans never do that, so we can't be like the Romans".
This is a childish analogy at best.
The comparison of the the Truman's Containment Policy and the proliferation of Nuclear weapons is a totally alien concept to what the Romans experienced. The Romans risked an army if they lost battle. If the United States and the USSR would have gone in to Thermonuclear battle, it would have been suicide for both sides. The is no victor in a nuclear battle. Both sides knew the consequence of attacking the other. There is no such example of anything like that in history.
Regardless of whether you think that defines an 'empire'
Do not get me wrong. American is an Empire. We dominate the world, and I am glad. In fact I think we already have far more power than the Romans ever dreamed of. That is the point. We, as Americans, have weather by intention or not have found more powerful ways of influencing people around the world than by brute force, only using our military when necessary (You can argue if this case is necessary or not, but that is not the focus of this debate). What disturbs me about Bookman and other's point of view is that they are portraying this image of "United State Marine Corps World Tour 2002" with shows in Bagdad, Teheran, P'yongyang, and one final sold-out show in Beijing. This is just a liberal's wet-dream. The American people would not stand for it. Look how much effort it taking to use the military against a country that has done everything in it's power to kill Americans at every chance it gets...
Rome-USA analogy has become a cliche and is often misapplied, it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
I belive it can when the author has such delusions.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:58 PM on October 14, 2002
Yes I agree it should not be dismissed out of hand. I have very little tolerance for those who declare "out of hand" that the United States is not an empire. If I recall correctly empire is most properly a term given after the fact.
IMHO the United States is an empire. The methods have changed but the end result is very striking. I can certainly accept that I could be wrong but I find it intellectually dishonest to find no comparisons between ancient empires and our own.
I don't accept the notion that the administration is unconcerned. But it certainly should be an issue of discussion.
posted by filchyboy at 1:01 PM on October 14, 2002
IMHO the United States is an empire. The methods have changed but the end result is very striking. I can certainly accept that I could be wrong but I find it intellectually dishonest to find no comparisons between ancient empires and our own.
I don't accept the notion that the administration is unconcerned. But it certainly should be an issue of discussion.
posted by filchyboy at 1:01 PM on October 14, 2002
So while I agree that the Rome-USA analogy has become a cliche and is often misapplied, it cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Previous discussion, by the way.
posted by homunculus at 1:16 PM on October 14, 2002
Previous discussion, by the way.
posted by homunculus at 1:16 PM on October 14, 2002
What disturbs me about Bookman and other's point of view is that they are portraying this image of "United State Marine Corps World Tour 2002" with shows in Bagdad, Teheran, P'yongyang, and one final sold-out show in Beijing.
Actually that's not what he's saying at all, that's what you're saying because it's easier to knock down.
Look how much effort it taking to use the military against a country that has done everything in it's power to kill Americans at every chance it gets...
Do you mean Iraq? If so, then you've crossed the line from your usual mumbo-jumbo into the special category of mumbo-pocus. Not even Bush has gone so far as to claim anything that ridiculous.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:16 PM on October 14, 2002
Actually that's not what he's saying at all, that's what you're saying because it's easier to knock down.
Look how much effort it taking to use the military against a country that has done everything in it's power to kill Americans at every chance it gets...
Do you mean Iraq? If so, then you've crossed the line from your usual mumbo-jumbo into the special category of mumbo-pocus. Not even Bush has gone so far as to claim anything that ridiculous.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:16 PM on October 14, 2002
Actually that's not what he's saying at all, that's what you're saying because it's easier to knock down.
To be blunt, you are wrong. That is exactly what he is saying.
From the article:
It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.
and so forth...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:21 PM on October 14, 2002
To be blunt, you are wrong. That is exactly what he is saying.
From the article:
It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.
and so forth...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:21 PM on October 14, 2002
Steve, nice try. Where exactly does Bookman mention anything like: "United State Marine Corps World Tour 2002" with shows in Bagdad, Teheran, P'yongyang, and one final sold-out show in Beijing. "? Bookman does mention permanent military bases in Iraq (similar to those we maintain in Saudi Arabia post-Gulf War) and eventual U.S. dominance in every region of the world, but if you keep reading you'll see that he'd drawing this straight out of the President's Nat'l Security Strategy:
"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."
Try to address the issues without the hyperbole and strawmen.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:33 PM on October 14, 2002
"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."
Try to address the issues without the hyperbole and strawmen.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:33 PM on October 14, 2002
Bookman and Kagan are talking past each other, unfortunately, and that's bleeding through into this thread.
Bookman is using a more general definition of empire; Kagan is saying we aren't anything like the formal structure of the Roman Empire, and Bookman is saying that doesn't matter. But Kagan is saying it does matter -- that our use of alliances (NATO), treaties (UN) and trade (WTO) rather than conquest is an important difference. Certainly it would seem difficult to march to a different drummer from the US, to live outside those systems -- but just as often it seems to be the world trying to call the tune and order the US in step (Kyoto, Iraq). By no means is this an 'empire' with identical characteristics, and it seems more of a deliberate loading of the debate to choose the term (just as with certain other specious comparisons that are thrown around).
By any measure the US is a hegemonic power unlike any that has been seen before. This isn't a fact that can be argued with, but it's certainly a complicated enough question that using simplistic, biased analogies is unlikely to engender serious debate. Clearly, the power disparity just plain freaks some people out -- and they're willing to trot out any old argument as long as it props up their vision of a hobbled hegemon, of international legal restraints on American power. (Whether such paper restraints have any value at all is, of course, another debate entirely.) For sober Americans, of any political stripe, the judicious and responsible use of our position is going to continue to occupy public debate for some decades to come. But don't expect anyone to ever get elected on a platform of permitting a rival power or grouping to emerge. By that measure, this is hardly out of the mainstream.
posted by dhartung at 1:39 PM on October 14, 2002
Bookman is using a more general definition of empire; Kagan is saying we aren't anything like the formal structure of the Roman Empire, and Bookman is saying that doesn't matter. But Kagan is saying it does matter -- that our use of alliances (NATO), treaties (UN) and trade (WTO) rather than conquest is an important difference. Certainly it would seem difficult to march to a different drummer from the US, to live outside those systems -- but just as often it seems to be the world trying to call the tune and order the US in step (Kyoto, Iraq). By no means is this an 'empire' with identical characteristics, and it seems more of a deliberate loading of the debate to choose the term (just as with certain other specious comparisons that are thrown around).
By any measure the US is a hegemonic power unlike any that has been seen before. This isn't a fact that can be argued with, but it's certainly a complicated enough question that using simplistic, biased analogies is unlikely to engender serious debate. Clearly, the power disparity just plain freaks some people out -- and they're willing to trot out any old argument as long as it props up their vision of a hobbled hegemon, of international legal restraints on American power. (Whether such paper restraints have any value at all is, of course, another debate entirely.) For sober Americans, of any political stripe, the judicious and responsible use of our position is going to continue to occupy public debate for some decades to come. But don't expect anyone to ever get elected on a platform of permitting a rival power or grouping to emerge. By that measure, this is hardly out of the mainstream.
posted by dhartung at 1:39 PM on October 14, 2002
If you all are looking for a much better anology, I think perhaps British policy in the first half (until 1880s) is a much better comparison, leaving out India (which was formally conquered.)
Britain had the worlds largest over the horizon strike capability (a superb fleet,) dominated the world economically and technically (creation of the first integrated rail system, the industrial revolution) and forced small, less developed states to do its will. It did not have a large formal control over much of the world, but exercised control via economic means and gunboat diplomacy.
But this anology is not exact either. Kagan is right here. No question. His analysis of what it takes to keep the peace is dead on. I challenge anyone who disagrees with Kagan to provide me an example, outside of the EU, where a peace has been kept over a period of time by rule of international law, et al. The fact that such a time does not exist does not mean the internationalists are wrong. It just means they need to realize what Kagan is saying...you need a dominate power to keep the peace. Is there any other likely contender on the world stage you all would like to see keep the peace?
posted by pjgulliver at 1:40 PM on October 14, 2002
Britain had the worlds largest over the horizon strike capability (a superb fleet,) dominated the world economically and technically (creation of the first integrated rail system, the industrial revolution) and forced small, less developed states to do its will. It did not have a large formal control over much of the world, but exercised control via economic means and gunboat diplomacy.
But this anology is not exact either. Kagan is right here. No question. His analysis of what it takes to keep the peace is dead on. I challenge anyone who disagrees with Kagan to provide me an example, outside of the EU, where a peace has been kept over a period of time by rule of international law, et al. The fact that such a time does not exist does not mean the internationalists are wrong. It just means they need to realize what Kagan is saying...you need a dominate power to keep the peace. Is there any other likely contender on the world stage you all would like to see keep the peace?
posted by pjgulliver at 1:40 PM on October 14, 2002
My statements stand for themselves.... Mr Webb. I need no further explain them to you since you offer nothing your self. You are listening, but still not hearing me.
PJ: right on.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:44 PM on October 14, 2002
PJ: right on.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:44 PM on October 14, 2002
With a Dictator never the less....
For the Roman republic, the dictator was a temporary position (usually six months) appointed in times of crisis. It was not a permanent position until J. Caesar declared himself dicator for life. This got him killed, but at that point it was too late for the Republic... that's another story, however.
If we take empire to mean "a political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority", I'm not sure we can call the US an empire. At best it is a nebulous one. For example, if you go Marxist and see economics as the key element, then you can claim US corporations have a functional empire through the IMF and World Bank. However, IMO the US needs to take the whole militarization thing up a few notches before we can say the world or large patches of it are "ruled by a single supreme authority."
On preview, more or less what dhartung said, I think.
posted by D at 1:54 PM on October 14, 2002
For the Roman republic, the dictator was a temporary position (usually six months) appointed in times of crisis. It was not a permanent position until J. Caesar declared himself dicator for life. This got him killed, but at that point it was too late for the Republic... that's another story, however.
If we take empire to mean "a political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority", I'm not sure we can call the US an empire. At best it is a nebulous one. For example, if you go Marxist and see economics as the key element, then you can claim US corporations have a functional empire through the IMF and World Bank. However, IMO the US needs to take the whole militarization thing up a few notches before we can say the world or large patches of it are "ruled by a single supreme authority."
On preview, more or less what dhartung said, I think.
posted by D at 1:54 PM on October 14, 2002
...mumbo-pocus...
Somehow that phrase made me laugh out loud.
posted by oissubke at 1:57 PM on October 14, 2002
Somehow that phrase made me laugh out loud.
posted by oissubke at 1:57 PM on October 14, 2002
You are listening, but still not hearing me.
Shout louder, he may come round.
posted by niceness at 2:04 PM on October 14, 2002
Shout louder, he may come round.
posted by niceness at 2:04 PM on October 14, 2002
Just thinking about this some more, as I was tempted to add that the collection of taxes/ tribute would be a key part of determining the presence of a "single supreme authority," at least if we want to make the Roman analogy. If you were looking for economic empire, you could argue that certain IMF/ World Bank activities do in fact function as tax collection by US corporations. For example, when the IMF forces a third world nation to privatize its water supply in order to qualify for loans, money that used to be collected as taxes by the government in order to pay for the service is now going to a (foreign) corporation. Interesting.
I'm not bothering with supporting links here as I'm just speculatin'. Someone who has read Empire would likely be more help.
posted by D at 2:06 PM on October 14, 2002
I'm not bothering with supporting links here as I'm just speculatin'. Someone who has read Empire would likely be more help.
posted by D at 2:06 PM on October 14, 2002
An excellent article in the New Yorker on the nature and role of the U.S. in the world: Our Way: The trouble with being the world's only superpower by Fareed Zakaria.
posted by homunculus at 2:09 PM on October 14, 2002
posted by homunculus at 2:09 PM on October 14, 2002
British policy in the first half (until 1880s) is a much better comparison, leaving out India (which was formally conquered.)
No, it wasn't - and the case of India actually strengthens your analogy considerably, pjgulliver.
The British ruled India primarily by proxy, currying favour (pun unintended, but inevitable) with as many of the subcontinent's hundreds of maharajas as possible and exploiting rivalries between them. When this diplomatic method failed, the British employed small tactical forces - usually consisting primarily of those maharajas' forces and/or British-led Sikh and Gurkha regiments - to remove opponents. Only in rare instances (most notably the disasterous aborted attempt to take Afghanistan) did the British resort to anything like a war of conquest in South Asia.
And of course the primary goal of Britain's empire was the exploitation of its colonies' natural resources and control of their trade, though this goal was often dressed in the finery of "civilizing" the Oriental savages (viz. Kipling's "White Man's Burden" et al.).
So Britain's approach to empire - resource exploitation, economic control, "civilizing" (i.e. forcing British values and institutions on subservient peoples), proxy wars, military conquest only when the rest fail - is quite a revealing analogy for American empire. And one further parallel: the pax Britannia was secured by Britain's unparalleled naval strength, America's by its extraordinary air power.
Maybe that's the question to Donald Fagan, then: was 19th C. Britain an empire? And if so, how is American hegemony different from it?
posted by gompa at 2:24 PM on October 14, 2002
No, it wasn't - and the case of India actually strengthens your analogy considerably, pjgulliver.
The British ruled India primarily by proxy, currying favour (pun unintended, but inevitable) with as many of the subcontinent's hundreds of maharajas as possible and exploiting rivalries between them. When this diplomatic method failed, the British employed small tactical forces - usually consisting primarily of those maharajas' forces and/or British-led Sikh and Gurkha regiments - to remove opponents. Only in rare instances (most notably the disasterous aborted attempt to take Afghanistan) did the British resort to anything like a war of conquest in South Asia.
And of course the primary goal of Britain's empire was the exploitation of its colonies' natural resources and control of their trade, though this goal was often dressed in the finery of "civilizing" the Oriental savages (viz. Kipling's "White Man's Burden" et al.).
So Britain's approach to empire - resource exploitation, economic control, "civilizing" (i.e. forcing British values and institutions on subservient peoples), proxy wars, military conquest only when the rest fail - is quite a revealing analogy for American empire. And one further parallel: the pax Britannia was secured by Britain's unparalleled naval strength, America's by its extraordinary air power.
Maybe that's the question to Donald Fagan, then: was 19th C. Britain an empire? And if so, how is American hegemony different from it?
posted by gompa at 2:24 PM on October 14, 2002
dhartung- i agree that the use of "empire" can be seen as inflammatory, it carries a lot of baggage, but then we simply need a new word for the new concept. Bookman and Kagan may be arguing past each other to some extent, but it seems that they disagree only on the name, and not the realities, of the new order. also, it's important to recognize that Pax Americana (or whatever one wants to call it) was a neoconservative project at least as far back as 1992.
our use of alliances (NATO), treaties (UN) and trade (WTO) rather than conquest is an important difference.
I agree, but it should be noted that the U.S. uses these alliances only when they serve the U.S. purpose, and in many cases (the WTO especially) serve primarily to give the patina of legality to what imperialism used to do by force, the plunder of natural resources (be they minerals, oil, or cheap labor) from weaker, developing countries.
Steve: My statements stand for themselves....
Yes, that's about all they stand for. And this:
Look how much effort it taking to use the military against a country that has done everything in it's power to kill Americans at every chance it gets...
...is definitely going on your greatest hits album.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:24 PM on October 14, 2002
our use of alliances (NATO), treaties (UN) and trade (WTO) rather than conquest is an important difference.
I agree, but it should be noted that the U.S. uses these alliances only when they serve the U.S. purpose, and in many cases (the WTO especially) serve primarily to give the patina of legality to what imperialism used to do by force, the plunder of natural resources (be they minerals, oil, or cheap labor) from weaker, developing countries.
Steve: My statements stand for themselves....
Yes, that's about all they stand for. And this:
Look how much effort it taking to use the military against a country that has done everything in it's power to kill Americans at every chance it gets...
...is definitely going on your greatest hits album.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:24 PM on October 14, 2002
Oops. Obviously meant "Kagan" there, not "Fagan." Damn you, Charles Dickens. Damn you to hell!
posted by gompa at 2:30 PM on October 14, 2002
posted by gompa at 2:30 PM on October 14, 2002
i would have to agree w/'d' in that reading 'empire' by hardt and negri might suggest more to those arguing what is or isn't an empire, let alone defines (or doesn't define) the usa as one. the ideas presented in the book are more expansive, not being simply limited to 'the romans' or 'the british', allowing for more room to maneuver and debate. for those not exposed to this poly-sci/philosophical treatise (it was pretty heavily hyped when it came out in 2000 and hardt did a fairly extensive book tour for that style of book). be forewarned though, that a background in deleuze/guattari's '1000 plateaus' helps enormously in some of the concepts discussed. helps, but is certainly not necessary.
'empire' does not attempt to define the usa hegemony as empire, but rather attempts to remold the idea of empire into a contemporary concept that can address the usa's role in the global scheme of things. very educational even if you disagree - please remember though, it's an academic piece of scholarship, not a current analysis of the global balance.
posted by buffalo at 2:32 PM on October 14, 2002
'empire' does not attempt to define the usa hegemony as empire, but rather attempts to remold the idea of empire into a contemporary concept that can address the usa's role in the global scheme of things. very educational even if you disagree - please remember though, it's an academic piece of scholarship, not a current analysis of the global balance.
posted by buffalo at 2:32 PM on October 14, 2002
Ah Matthew.... Did you even read the articles you, your-self, posted?
Webb:
it's important to recognize that Pax Americana...was a neoconservative project at least as far back as 1992.
read: "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy since 1992"
Kagan:
We were appalled by the lack of interest in these important issues displayed by both parties. The Clinton administration had cut the defense forces that had so brilliantly won the Gulf War to the point where even their military leaders were complaining of their inability to carry out the national defense strategy, and the Republicans in Congress joined in the effort... This situation changed only after the attacks on our country on Sept. 11, 2001.
but it should be noted that the U.S. uses these alliances only when they serve the U.S. purpose
Matthew, do you even understand the purpose of alliances and allies? Countries make alliances to benefit them selves. Or maybe you are implying that the U.S. has refused to help an ally at a time that the United States had nothing to gain? Please point me toward this event...
But let me guess, you will reply to this by making a smart-ass remark, a personal attack, or maybe some "big word" you heard someone else here at MeFi use to rebuke me with out an actual answer or counter....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:52 PM on October 14, 2002
Webb:
it's important to recognize that Pax Americana...was a neoconservative project at least as far back as 1992.
read: "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy since 1992"
Kagan:
We were appalled by the lack of interest in these important issues displayed by both parties. The Clinton administration had cut the defense forces that had so brilliantly won the Gulf War to the point where even their military leaders were complaining of their inability to carry out the national defense strategy, and the Republicans in Congress joined in the effort... This situation changed only after the attacks on our country on Sept. 11, 2001.
but it should be noted that the U.S. uses these alliances only when they serve the U.S. purpose
Matthew, do you even understand the purpose of alliances and allies? Countries make alliances to benefit them selves. Or maybe you are implying that the U.S. has refused to help an ally at a time that the United States had nothing to gain? Please point me toward this event...
But let me guess, you will reply to this by making a smart-ass remark, a personal attack, or maybe some "big word" you heard someone else here at MeFi use to rebuke me with out an actual answer or counter....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:52 PM on October 14, 2002
read: "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy since 1992"
No, a specifically neoconservative project. (Hey, look, another strawman from Steve_at_Linnwood. Color me surprised.) What Bookman refers to:
The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.
The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.
Nothing conspiratorial about it, I'm just pointing out that this idea has been around for a while, and has apparently found a suitable situation for its implementation.
But let me guess, you will reply to this by making a smart-ass remark, a personal attack, or maybe some "big word" you heard someone else here at MeFi use to rebuke me with out an actual answer or counter....
I think that statement stands for itself.
posted by Ty Webb at 3:11 PM on October 14, 2002
No, a specifically neoconservative project. (Hey, look, another strawman from Steve_at_Linnwood. Color me surprised.) What Bookman refers to:
The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.
The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.
Nothing conspiratorial about it, I'm just pointing out that this idea has been around for a while, and has apparently found a suitable situation for its implementation.
But let me guess, you will reply to this by making a smart-ass remark, a personal attack, or maybe some "big word" you heard someone else here at MeFi use to rebuke me with out an actual answer or counter....
I think that statement stands for itself.
posted by Ty Webb at 3:11 PM on October 14, 2002
not my fight, but it's really irritating...
Steve_at_Linnwood: You are a moron.
Steve_at_Linnwood: you will reply to this by making ... a personal attack, or maybe some "big word" you heard...
Here's a couple of big words: obnoxious hypocrite
posted by johnny vagabond at 3:24 PM on October 14, 2002
Steve_at_Linnwood: You are a moron.
Steve_at_Linnwood: you will reply to this by making ... a personal attack, or maybe some "big word" you heard...
Here's a couple of big words: obnoxious hypocrite
posted by johnny vagabond at 3:24 PM on October 14, 2002
your right, not your fight.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:26 PM on October 14, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:26 PM on October 14, 2002
Heh. That pesky "empire" analogy. Such a distressing label, especially when applied to one's own country and/or interests. Painful, emotional, vaguely hysterical language....not entirely unlike calling for "cutting off Saddam's shit head, UN resolution in hand", rather than "Pax Americana".
~chuckle~
Really. Why use the nasty "empire" when something like "hegemony" rings so benign, especially when applied to our own sacred interests?
And lest anyone point fingers my way, you've no doubt noticed that instead of using the phrase "American bombs" in debate, I've lately opted for the less emotionally laden "Doubleplusgood Liberation Drop Shipments." I think that helps the tone of the debate and spins it correctly, don't you?
The bland taste for meal is acquired, one supposes.
On the issue of American presence overseas: "Is America the 'good guy'? Many now say, 'No.'"
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:38 PM on October 14, 2002
~chuckle~
Really. Why use the nasty "empire" when something like "hegemony" rings so benign, especially when applied to our own sacred interests?
And lest anyone point fingers my way, you've no doubt noticed that instead of using the phrase "American bombs" in debate, I've lately opted for the less emotionally laden "Doubleplusgood Liberation Drop Shipments." I think that helps the tone of the debate and spins it correctly, don't you?
The bland taste for meal is acquired, one supposes.
On the issue of American presence overseas: "Is America the 'good guy'? Many now say, 'No.'"
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 3:38 PM on October 14, 2002
Steve-o, since this is a public space, it's kind of everyone's fight. Wading through the negative tripe gets old fast. Perhaps you can take the personal attacks off-line? They're really harshing my mellow.
posted by johnny vagabond at 3:39 PM on October 14, 2002
posted by johnny vagabond at 3:39 PM on October 14, 2002
Yeah, I could have guessed some people in this thread are high...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:45 PM on October 14, 2002
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:45 PM on October 14, 2002
...on the sound of their own voice.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:16 PM on October 14, 2002
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:16 PM on October 14, 2002
foldy, we are not an empire using the definition provided by D; are you using, perhaps, some sort of Newspeak definition of the word? When you use words, do they mean whatever you want them to mean? Would Eric approve?
Ty: The term, and the idea, of Pax Americana source back at least as early as this June 10, 1963 speech by John F. Kennedy, who was rejecting the idea; but the term became entrenched afterward (and arguably better describes -- in Kennedy's critical formulation -- the era between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the era of detente). For the record, my view of American foreign policy is much closer to Kennedy's alternate vision, using Hamiltonian promotion of democracy and Wilsonian institutions to project our "soft power" -- reserving our "hard power" for necessary confrontations with e.g. the USSR.
In any case, it is not that I wholeheartedly support a neo-conservative formulation such as Pax Americana, which is deliberately aggressive, but that like Fareed Zakaria (thanks to homunculus for posting that; I should have considered it myself), our hegemony, or hyperpower, or as an NPR sketch put it yesterday, super-duper power, is a fact. No matter where we go, there we are -- the strongest country in the world. I believe we would have been so even at Clinton-era defense budgets, although I would still argue strongly in favor of military transformation (a vague term, to be sure, that can mean different things to conservatives and liberals). But then, you see, even the Clinton era -- peace dividend and all -- has brought us to the point where we are the undisputed superpower. In other words, it didn't take a "neo-conservative project" to do that; if anything, one can see it as a holdover from the Reagan-era buildup that helped tip the USSR off the economic cliff. So, either way, bing bang boom, here we are. In time, a Democratic president will take office again, and it's extremely unlikely that he will be filling his administration with Z-magazine resumes. Left or right, we have this power, and we have to develop a consensus on how to manage it.
I have no illusions -- no matter how nice we are from here on out, cranks like foldy will continue to see us as the heavy, the bad guy. There will always be critics. As Zakaria points out, if we take the hard-liner approach we will in short order wonder if our "empire" (and yes, even he uses the word, but it is clear in context that he doesn't think we are bad merely for that reason) is worth having. So of course I don't advocate rolling over allies on fundamental issues as a regular course of action. But I also feel we are fully justified in taking action, for example on Iraq, where leadership is required -- and where even argumentative allies will follow after some effort at suasion. Certainly there is no time in the future when we can imagine the thin level of support we have; it's unsurprising, therefore, that the Bush administration is seizing what they see as a probably narrow window for action.
On the other hand, a few more Balis, and who knows how much support we'll have?
posted by dhartung at 6:25 PM on October 14, 2002
Ty: The term, and the idea, of Pax Americana source back at least as early as this June 10, 1963 speech by John F. Kennedy, who was rejecting the idea; but the term became entrenched afterward (and arguably better describes -- in Kennedy's critical formulation -- the era between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the era of detente). For the record, my view of American foreign policy is much closer to Kennedy's alternate vision, using Hamiltonian promotion of democracy and Wilsonian institutions to project our "soft power" -- reserving our "hard power" for necessary confrontations with e.g. the USSR.
In any case, it is not that I wholeheartedly support a neo-conservative formulation such as Pax Americana, which is deliberately aggressive, but that like Fareed Zakaria (thanks to homunculus for posting that; I should have considered it myself), our hegemony, or hyperpower, or as an NPR sketch put it yesterday, super-duper power, is a fact. No matter where we go, there we are -- the strongest country in the world. I believe we would have been so even at Clinton-era defense budgets, although I would still argue strongly in favor of military transformation (a vague term, to be sure, that can mean different things to conservatives and liberals). But then, you see, even the Clinton era -- peace dividend and all -- has brought us to the point where we are the undisputed superpower. In other words, it didn't take a "neo-conservative project" to do that; if anything, one can see it as a holdover from the Reagan-era buildup that helped tip the USSR off the economic cliff. So, either way, bing bang boom, here we are. In time, a Democratic president will take office again, and it's extremely unlikely that he will be filling his administration with Z-magazine resumes. Left or right, we have this power, and we have to develop a consensus on how to manage it.
I have no illusions -- no matter how nice we are from here on out, cranks like foldy will continue to see us as the heavy, the bad guy. There will always be critics. As Zakaria points out, if we take the hard-liner approach we will in short order wonder if our "empire" (and yes, even he uses the word, but it is clear in context that he doesn't think we are bad merely for that reason) is worth having. So of course I don't advocate rolling over allies on fundamental issues as a regular course of action. But I also feel we are fully justified in taking action, for example on Iraq, where leadership is required -- and where even argumentative allies will follow after some effort at suasion. Certainly there is no time in the future when we can imagine the thin level of support we have; it's unsurprising, therefore, that the Bush administration is seizing what they see as a probably narrow window for action.
On the other hand, a few more Balis, and who knows how much support we'll have?
posted by dhartung at 6:25 PM on October 14, 2002
Dhartung makes many good points. American hegemony has existed for the past 11 years, and the world has done pretty well for itself under our watchful eye. Even doctrinaire lefties like foldie implicitly acknowledge that the US is the go-to guy whenever they ask/demand economic aid or humanitarian intervention.
One additional point to consider for the pragmatic opponents of American hegemony: the only country that presents a serious challenge to the United States in the 21st century is China. If we ever got seriously pissed (e.g. WMD in major US city), we could end radical Islam in one day - and might . China, however, is a different beast entirely.
It's my opinion that China's lack of ethical impediments concerning genetic engineering technology/clone trials/designer babies/etc. is going to push it over the top into bona fide superpower status in the near future - say, within the first half of this century.
At that point China would inevitably start butting heads with the US, and we'd get the second Cold War. Their 20 million unmarried male surplus is going to make them even more bellicose. I'd expect military force to be first employed during the resolution of China's many border disputes, though not against the US directly. But the war might eventually turn hot - particularly if the Chinese were ruthless enough to genetically engineer radiation resistance to improve nuke survivability.
The only thing that would forestall this kind of future is the emergence of a democratic China. Failing that, the only real counterweight is the Armed Forces of the United States of America. Critics of American power would do well to bear this in mind...
posted by godlesscapitalist at 3:27 AM on October 15, 2002
One additional point to consider for the pragmatic opponents of American hegemony: the only country that presents a serious challenge to the United States in the 21st century is China. If we ever got seriously pissed (e.g. WMD in major US city), we could end radical Islam in one day - and might . China, however, is a different beast entirely.
It's my opinion that China's lack of ethical impediments concerning genetic engineering technology/clone trials/designer babies/etc. is going to push it over the top into bona fide superpower status in the near future - say, within the first half of this century.
At that point China would inevitably start butting heads with the US, and we'd get the second Cold War. Their 20 million unmarried male surplus is going to make them even more bellicose. I'd expect military force to be first employed during the resolution of China's many border disputes, though not against the US directly. But the war might eventually turn hot - particularly if the Chinese were ruthless enough to genetically engineer radiation resistance to improve nuke survivability.
The only thing that would forestall this kind of future is the emergence of a democratic China. Failing that, the only real counterweight is the Armed Forces of the United States of America. Critics of American power would do well to bear this in mind...
posted by godlesscapitalist at 3:27 AM on October 15, 2002
Even doctrinaire lefties like foldie implicitly acknowledge that the US is the go-to guy whenever they ask/demand economic aid or humanitarian intervention.
Fold can speak for himself but this "doctorinaire lefty" seriously doubts that the US is the go-to guy as far as economic aid is concerned (link1, link2 (pdf)).
And "humanitarian intervention", US style I could do without.
posted by talos at 4:22 AM on October 15, 2002
Fold can speak for himself but this "doctorinaire lefty" seriously doubts that the US is the go-to guy as far as economic aid is concerned (link1, link2 (pdf)).
And "humanitarian intervention", US style I could do without.
posted by talos at 4:22 AM on October 15, 2002
It's my opinion that China's lack of ethical impediments concerning genetic engineering technology/clone trials/designer babies/etc. is going to push it over the top into bona fide superpower status in the near future - say, within the first half of this century.
Could you explain your opinion because I don't understand how genetic engineering and designer babies could create a superpower. Are you talking purely militarily, like in Attack of The Clones? Are we going to see a Chinese clone army descend on the West? And where does this half-century time frame come from?
posted by Summer at 5:41 AM on October 15, 2002
Could you explain your opinion because I don't understand how genetic engineering and designer babies could create a superpower. Are you talking purely militarily, like in Attack of The Clones? Are we going to see a Chinese clone army descend on the West? And where does this half-century time frame come from?
posted by Summer at 5:41 AM on October 15, 2002
Are you talking purely militarily, like in Attack of The Clones?
Apparently so.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:41 AM on October 15, 2002
Apparently so.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:41 AM on October 15, 2002
dhartung- great post, I agree with a lot of it. I think you can see the difference, though, between earlier more idealistic notions of Pax Americana as a shield against the USSR (not that I have any illusions about JFK) and the hard line advocated by the neocons, under which any action is permissible if it conceivably serves/protects U.S. interests. There is an element of internationalism that I just don't think is present in neocon formulations, indeed almost a sense of belligerent disrespect for "the opinions of mankind". I recognize that the U.S. is, for better or worse, the lone sooperdooper power, but it is important that the U.S. use that power not only militarily when called for, but also to strengthen the institutions that will foster international cooperation. The Bush gang certainly seems to have a handle on the former, but on the latter they don't have, or want, a clue.
posted by Ty Webb at 8:57 AM on October 15, 2002
posted by Ty Webb at 8:57 AM on October 15, 2002
Summer & October Surprise:
No, my position is somewhat more sophisticated than that - the post that october cited is only part of it. See here. Basically, China can move ahead with genetic engineering, particularly designer babies, because they don't have the constraints on ethics/morality/etc. that the West has, so they can boost human intelligence by manipulating the relevant genes.
The resulting sci/tech boom will cause an economic and military boom, and thus follows the rest of my post. The clone army stuff is interesting, but it's not the key at all.
posted by godlesscapitalist at 2:32 PM on October 15, 2002
No, my position is somewhat more sophisticated than that - the post that october cited is only part of it. See here. Basically, China can move ahead with genetic engineering, particularly designer babies, because they don't have the constraints on ethics/morality/etc. that the West has, so they can boost human intelligence by manipulating the relevant genes.
The resulting sci/tech boom will cause an economic and military boom, and thus follows the rest of my post. The clone army stuff is interesting, but it's not the key at all.
posted by godlesscapitalist at 2:32 PM on October 15, 2002
*du du di du du du di du*
you have now entered the twilight zone.
*orchestra stabs*
submit it to analog godlesscapitalist, this one could run and run.
posted by asok at 3:54 PM on October 15, 2002
you have now entered the twilight zone.
*orchestra stabs*
submit it to analog godlesscapitalist, this one could run and run.
posted by asok at 3:54 PM on October 15, 2002
« Older Tools you can use. | How to build a bomb Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Just because the administration doesn't releases it's plans in detail to the media, does not mean that they are "unconcerned"
[B]ut 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan.
Well that is quite a bit different from the imperialism that you are talking about... We do not rule or control German or Japan... Those bases are they for two reasons:
1. To protect against the former Russian threat...
2. They contribute a huge amount of money to the local economies, and their host governments are not crazy to see them leave
And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years?
We have attempted to contain Iraq for eleven years now. But besides that, The Russians never had a suicidal desire to go out in "glory" as the protector of the Middle Eastern world. USSR wanted to conquer us. Iraq wants to destroy us... Big Difference....
Rome did not stoop to containment;
You are a moron. To compare the Nuclear Arms race of the cold war and containment to the conquests of the Roman Empire proves you didn't pay attention in history class.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:59 AM on October 14, 2002