The Pentagon's New Map

So I see someone else reads Charles Johnson, too.

 

This is an interesting article. It is nice to see that the author admits that: When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror.

In another words none of the original reasons given by Bush for the war, UN resolutions, wmd or terrorism. We are into rearranging the Middle East and the world to make it "American" i.e., with our version of democracy and capitalism.

Another nice point is that the author does take notice of what we could call the third world or non developed countries. He refers to them as being disconnected from globalization. He says that we should take the emphasis off of worrying about major countries as the primary source of danger for the US, (no StarWars?) but rather about these poor countries that are dis- connected from globalization.

He views these countries primarily from a military or security point of view. He views the US main export as "security" or military intervention. To him the only parts of the world that have connected to globalism are those that they US has made secure. He definitely wants the US to be the world's cop. The Us should virtually enforce that all countries of the world plug into the American version of democracy and capitalism.. No mention is made of the UN or any other nations.

Internationalists of the UN variety have long said that the security of the world depends on dealing with poverty, disease and ignorance of poor people in the world, who make up the majority. They have not however, envisioned a world forced to conform to the American versions of capitalism and democracy.

 

I would guess that this person would argue that the general American system of capitalism and democracy have worked better than pretty much every other system that has been tried.

But I would point out that countries that adhere to a different, though relatively similar, form of capitalism would not be considered disconnected. Certainly China differs from the United States. In many ways, even countries that this author cites as success stories such as Germany and Japan have systems that do differ from that of the United States in some key ways.

That's the thing, though, if the basis for our system of economy and government works, should it be dimissed simply because it is the American system? I mean, if it works to allievate poverty and get these people into the international world, why shouldn't it be tried?

 

My responses would be...

A) Because It is based on certain priorities, and not all nations have those priorities. Many nations prioritize their religious practices, their culture, their sense of security, etc. more...I should point out that the US does pretty poorly in those annual Standard of Living? Best Place to live studies, proving that it neither HAS to be our way, nor should it.

B) Because we are determining it for them. Part of the reason it has worked here is that we chose it..Would it have been as effective, would we have gotten through crises such as the Civil War, etc. if the system in place had been imposed on us by, say, the French?

C) Because of the filter of culture...Our system has grown the way it has partly in reflection of our culture. Expecting the same system to work with people with entirely different cultures, histories, religion, etc. is naive, and probably dangerous.

 

I don't know. It's worked pretty well in Japan, and we pretty well forced the stuff on them.

You're assuming that we wouldn't take those things into consideration. One of the reasons the Japan occupation has turned out as successful is that the variations for their culture were taken into effect.

 

The US compares poorly only to other countries that also have political and economic systems that are only marginally different than that of the US.