Is the United States Becoming Too Dominant in the World?

Others on this board have argued that the imperial reach of the US (through trade rather than military annexation) is similar to Rome et al. As such the 'overstretch' argument should certainly be a concern. Although since we do not have to maintain forces of occupation throughout our sphere of influence, as did Rome and others, does that change the equation?

And I would also say that the US has been straight up since 9/11 that we would be engaging security threats, both Al Queda specifically as a result of their involvement in the WTC destruction and other organizations that present a security threat -whether or not they were involved in the 9/11 attacks. So why is it a suprise to anyone that the US is now moving to engage those other entities? And while other states clamor that we should be using multilateral institutions (NATO, the UN), they simultaneously unilaterally move to involve themselves in the conflict (witness Chirac trying to get French troops involved because he fears becoming a second tier influence). National status seems to be more of a concern with many of these critics, not a fear of conflict with the US.

 

LOL. Yeah, we just plain don't "like" North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. North Korea tripped us in the hall that one time, and Iran tried to copy off our Algebra test, and Iraq cut in front of us in the lunch line last week. Those jerks.

Would the world be better off with, or without, Westernized democracies (or at least governments that were not inherently oppressive) running those three countries?

The word "hegemony" is so tiresome. This is "US hegemony" in the same sense that fighting racism is intellectual hegemony. Sometimes, there isn't room for the other guy's point of view. This isn't a debate on school vouchers or the Bowl Championship Series. It's a question of millions of people whose rights of self-determination are being squashed by oppressive, autocratic governments and it becomes our concern when those governments sponsor terrorist groups.

As for the remark that we fear they "might one day acquire the kind of weapons the US prefers to reserve for its friends and clients", I can't for the life of me imagine why the writer would want to go there. The implication is that we're somehow wrong to oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons among states with track records of aggressive military behavior.

Pardon me, but it's better for the United States, and Britain, and the rest of the world, if Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons. I don't apologize and don't feel a shred of guilt that our government is taking steps to prevent it.

Someone please provide documentation of this. I do not believe the Pentagon ever described our strategy using that term. I am positive this remark, if it was ever even uttered, is being taken completely out of context.

That editorial is asinine.

 

<B>Someone please provide documentation of this. I do not believe the Pentagon ever described our strategy using that term. I am positive this remark, if it was ever even uttered, is being taken completely out of context.
</B>

BK, I didn't believe that part myself, but a simply Yahoo search on "benevolent domination" comes up with an army of responses. Here's a quote from one of them:

http://www.aei.org/ra/rawatt010412.htm

<I>But hard-line doesn't mean wrong line. The DPG document, as it was originally written in 1992, was never published. It was leaked to the New York Times by "an official who believes this post-Cold-War strategy debate should be carried out in the public domain." Who? Just call him Mr. Softie.

But even the Times' wildly spun description of the Wolfowitz-Libby DPG draft made some solid sense. It reported, breathlessly: "The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower. . . . America's political and military mission in the post-Cold-War era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. . . . With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism."
</I>

Here's another link:

http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/08/24/13230.html

<I>As the New York Times explained it, the Wolfowitz Doctrine argues that America's political and military mission should be to "ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism." Its core thesis, described by Ben Wattenberg in the April 12, Washington Times, is "to guard against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for example, Iraq or China. America is No. 1. We stand for something decent and important. That's good for us and good for the world. That's the way we want to keep it."
</I>

Interesting stuff.

That search also brings up this great result as well:

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/5185/

 

You keep running a play until it doesn't work anymore. We have momentum. I can't imagine why we would stop now. We not only have a physical and economic advantage, we've shaped a mental advantage as well. Life is constantly moving toward a state of goodness and those leaders that fail to change are like dinosaurs They will eventually become extinct. It's not imperialism. It's evolution so to speak.

 

Ah! That's *exactly* what I was trying (and failing) to say in the 'axis of evil' thread!

I love the Guardian.

PhiSlammaJamma:

Life is constantly moving toward a state of goodness and those leaders that fail to change are like dinosaurs They will eventually become extinct.

I don't believe in an evolutionary theory of history at all. Things don't just 'get better' on a consistent basis. An example: people believed in inevitable progress in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They thought industrialisation was a magnificent development - and I suppose it was. But without industrialisation (railways, etc) it would have been impossible for the Holocaust (or even the rise of Germany, now that I think about it) to occur. Things happen in cycles. If we work *really* hard, sometimes we can make more good things happen than bad. Shrug.

Powerful nations and empires should be watched. If they're overstepping their bounds (as I believe the US is, since it's currently ignoring the principles of self-determination on which it was founded), then people need to know about it.

Of course, even though I disagree with the direction the Bush administration wants to take, I don't think anything can be done about it. I can b**** and moan and piss into the wind all I like, just as European countries are right now, and the current US government won't listen or care. How depressing.

HayesStreet:

Although since we do not have to maintain forces of occupation throughout our sphere of influence, as did Rome and others, does that change the equation?

I think it does. Although global industrial capitalism isn't an American system, per se, the US is dominates it to a greater extent than any other country, and has economic influence everywhere. So as a result, your military might isn't spread too thinly and you can apply it in short, concentrated bursts. Unlike, say, the British Empire or the Romans. So you may be the ultimate superpower for a really, really long time.

Not sure how I feel about that.

 

I saw a really terrific interview with a Lebonese-born American attorney who is the head of a group for Muslim women professionals in the US. She is routinely hired by the US government to speak in the Middle East on these issues.

She said that what so many in the Middle East don't understand is why the US preaches democracy to the people there but maintains its support of oppressive, dictatorial governments like those in Kuwait for example. They believe that the US' involvement in things like the Gulf War were nothing more than support of one harsh regime over another and that sides were chosen based on economic interests. They find it to be very disengenuous.

The comparison to Rome, and I'll agree with Kagy here, is a bad one simply because we are not sitting in control of other countries and their governments. We may be influencing them, but influence and control are very different things. Rome fell primarily because it extended not just its interests but its dictatorial and governmental dominance to an area that was simply too large for them to control.

 

You think that the US doesn't have a track record of militarily aggressive behavior? Ugh. I'd agree that the US has behaved better than many states. I'd agree that the US treats its own citizens better than most.

But the type of hegemony that the White House seems to desire isn't good. No nation is ethical enough to wield that. Power corrupts, etc. We can be more moral and decent than anybody, and still commit gross abuses in the name of the natioanl interest.

 

Was it ignoring the 'principles of self-determination' to try and (under UN auspices no less) wrest control of Somalia from warlords and the famine they created, or to show support for Taiwan (by putting our own sons & daughters in harms way)when China threatened violent reunification, or to remove an admittedly repressive Taliban regime, or to prevent Serbian domination of self determination movements in Bosnia or Kosovo?

Without a doubt one of the largest dangers that has arisen in the wake of the Cold War is the explosion of self determination movements across the globe (as we've seen in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Chechna). It would be impossible for the US to support them all, since many are in conflict with each other. And many of them do conflict with US interests, or so it seems. However, if your contention is that attacking (if it comes to that) regimes currently in power in Iraq and North Korea is ANTI to values of self determination, I find your conclusion laughable. You would be hard pressed to find two more repressive regimes on the planet.

 

If anyone would have read the Hit List thread that treeman posted, you would understand why these countries have been labeled as the "Axis of Evil." They will do anything to stop the US and her Allies. The cost of money and lives is of no importance to them I would read these articles.

http://www.orbat.com/site/americagoestowar.html#1021702

dimsie-The US has always practiced self-determination. In the Middle East, after WW2, as I have pointed out several times, the British divided up those countries and intended to rule all of them. The US was the country who said no and said they should be able to choose how they want their countries run. The problem was that the British stayed in order to "help" these countries set up new governements when in reality, all they were doing was imposing on them. The US is still in those countries because the Brisith didn't play by the rules. While I am not saying this is the only reason, it is part of it.

As far as historical evolution goes, it does exist. The Middle East was the world leader for hundreds of years. The Europeans were no match for them. With the Industrial Revolution, the Middle East took a back seat. The knew they had to conform with this new era, but they did not know how. What they did was try to Westrenize themselves, which they didn't want, instead of industrializing, which they did want. If they had known the difference, it is very likely they could have remained the world power.

Kagy's pretty much right. The US is not just after any country whose government or economy we don't like. We don't like China's government, but we're not attacking them. There's plenty of countries who don't fit the US model that we aren't going to attack.

If you read that link from treeman that I've included here, you might see that this is not all about taking over other countries who we simply do not like. It is about groups with WMD and no fear who will stop at nothing to destory America and her Allies.

 

You parade your ignorance like a badge of honor. We don't "attack" them because they're a great power. Attacking China would have... catastrophic results, for everyone.

We only attack weak regimes that we disagree with.
And my main issue with Kagy's comment... is that the US is most *certainly* aggressive. You may agree with the ideals that the US is fighting for. Fine. But to claim that we're not aggressive is foolish. Since ww2, we've probably been the most militarily active country on the planet with the possible exception of the Soviet Union... now, that leaves "right" and "wrong" out of the picture. Justification isn't what I'm debating.

 

HayesStreet:

However, if your contention is that attacking (if it comes to that) regimes currently in power in Iraq and North Korea is ANTI to values of self determination, I find your conclusion laughable. You would be hard pressed to find two more repressive regimes on the planet.

OK, I wasn't clear. I think I'm just frustrated because very few people in this country will admit that there are other reasons for attacking Iraq than America 'saving the world', to quote Princess. I think my basic contention in the paragraph you quoted is that the USA (as Jeff noted) is hypocritical. Example: if it's supposed to be spreading freedom and democracy across the globe, as its rhetoric posits, then why isn't it threatening to invade China? *There's* an oppressive regime for you. But China is huge, and the lure of the Open Door policy has cast its spell over the US for more than a century. Money, money, money. Or in the Middle East, oil, oil, oil. Generally, worldwide: power, power, power. Not really democracy, with a few exceptions (I think you and I actually agree on this, partially). No wonder Europe is recoiling from Bush right now.

Additionally, there's something rather silly about saying 'we're going to *force* you to be free and democratic, dammit!' How do you think *that* idea works in practice?

Princess:

The US has always practiced self-determination.

Oh really? I don't think the Native Americans who used to live here would agree.

Here:

http://kuhttp.cc.ukans.edu/cwis/organizations/las/interven.html

is a timeline of US intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean from 1823 until the present.

In the Middle East, here's an example of the United States practicing self-determination:

"In the aftermath of the Second World War, the U.S. moved in quickly to establish itself as the number-one power in the Middle East. American policy in this period was chiefly concerned that countries in the region did not come under the control of nationalist regimes. They had their first taste of that threat in Iran, when the democratically elected president Mohammed Mossadeq, with mass popular support, nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. In a coup engineered by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt, Mossadeq was toppled and replaced by the Shah. The Shah's power was underwritten by massive infusions of American aid and upheld by the notoriously savage secret police, Savak."

There are further examples here:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/15/blood_for_oil.shtml

Probably a tad biased, considering the source. But I couldn't be bothered going to the bookshelf. I will if you deem it necessary.

My point, Princess, is this: no, the US doesn't always practice self-determination. It is not always pro-democracy. It does not have a blemish-free human rights record. It does some good things, yes, but it also does some bad ones. As haven says: We only attack weak regimes that we disagree with.

You aren't going to listen to me, of course, but I keep on posting. Why? Why? I am clearly off my rocker.

 

Haven, I think you are confusing "active" with "aggressive". In which post-WWII foreign conflicts involving the United States did we act as the aggressors?

Is backing one side of a conflict "aggression"...? Where in your opinion did the United States instigate conflict that would not have existed otherwise?

Aggression by my definition is exemplified by the North Korean invasion of South Korea, or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Those were naked attempts at conquest.

Most of our involvement was reactionary in nature. We involved ourselves to protect what we considered our national interests-- we were certainly interventionist. I'll concede that.

 

1) For all those of you who do not feel that America is altering the scope of the war on terrorism to increase their influence, or eliminate opponents,why have most of those who gave them immediate and acknowledged support after sept 11th, for the purposes of going after terrorism pulled, altered, or questioned their current support? They haven't been asked to increase that support, just alter that which they do support, so why are they balking? Is everyone else wrong?


2) Self-determination...It is anti-thetical to enforce self-determination on others. This doesn't seem obvious to you? And yet, we have on several occassions tried to overthrow popular ( literal term) governments because we disagreed with them, and have replaced them with 'democracies' or dictatorships. How is that self-determination...You can have whatever government you want as long as it's what we want? What is the principle of democracy? That people have the sovereign right to determine their own system of government within their own borders...Does it say anywhere that the particular form of governemtn has to be modelled after the United States? If North Korea wants to be more socialistic than we are, whi the hell are we to say they can't, and pretend to be about self-determination...Someone ( Brian Kagy )asked " Would the world be better of with , or without Westernized democracies running ( Iran, Iraq, or N. Korea)? Don't you think that's for THEM to decide? How can we purport to be a democratic government when we decide what would be betters for others...What is inherantly oppressive? Is that for us to decide?

And the comparison with racism is ludicrous...What is racism? Is it the American definition? Don't you see that any time you say that our values/standards/perspective is THE value/standard/perception, you are abandoning any connection with self-determination. Either a country can decide for itself or not...and if it is permissable for the world to interven on behalf of an issue like racism, would it have been morally right ( not possible, right) for Britain to invade the U.S., overthrow it's government, and replace it with a version of it's own when America was pratcising slavery and Britain wasn't? Or when we were slaughtering thousands of Native Americans, should another power have had the right to step in and take control in the name of sefl-determination? Or did we have the inherant right, the democratic right of figuring it out for ourselves, bruises and all, atrocities and all, on our own because we are our own self-determining country? But is that a 'liberty' we only afford ourselves, because that is 'history' and this is 'now'..? Whether or not their is room for another person's opinion should pretty much be determined by who's room it is, no? Millions of African and Native Americna's rights have been squashed by our oppressive, autocratic government in the past, yet had anyone else 'stepped in', we would have rallied in the cause of 'liberty'. And it could be argued that millions upon millions of peoples' rights are being squashed right now by the U.S. when we determine whether or not their governments are up to our standards, and if not, replace them by force.

Re: nuclear arms...I would have to say that if any nation in the world has a right to fear another having nuclear arms, it would be Japan fearing us...No other nation has ever used them...we have...That is a fact, no matter how you excuse it. DOes that mena we should not have it? Have we demonstrated more nuclear responsibility than anyone else? No, in fact we have demonstrated less...Britain, etc. have never used it, should they judge us wanting? They would have as much factual, historical cause for doubting us, or more, than we do North Korea...

So now that you know that "benevolent domination" was used, how are you going to excuse/dismiss/ignore it, or it's implications that others perspective on the U.S just might have some foundation?

 

Where in your opinion did the United States instigate conflict that would not have existed otherwise?

Gah! (I'm starting to sound more and more like Bridget Jones here.) Butting in, off the top of my head:

Guatemala. Iran, in the 1950s. (Both democratically elected governments that the US, in the form of the CIA, toppled.)

Cambodia (US ally) was bombed by the US (without Congressional assent - you know, the law) during the Vietnam War, leading directly to the destabilisation of the country; the formerly unpopular Khmer Rouge was able to gain power. We all know what happened after that - over *two million* people murdered. (Incidentally, why didn't the US intervene in Cambodia to stop the genocide there, if it's so noble and democratic in its aims?)

Oh, and the Gulf of Tonkin thing was fabricated, as I recall.

Sigh.

 

One BIG area you guys are missing, is that the USA is not trying to CONQUER the world.

We are just trying to make it safe....for us, and the rest of the peaceful nations.

You can not go to history to show parallels as there are none, never before has one country had as much power both economically and militarily, and you know why? Because we don't try to TAKE over anyone else.

We are the only country to CONQUER other nations then give them back their soverienty(sp?) and also pay to build them back up.

The USA is far from perfect but it is THE leader of the world, and we have to act as such.

As a leader, you either lead or get the hell out of the way, it is time for us to lead.

DaDakota

 

Do you seriously think that possible examples of the U.S intervening against ( by our standards) dictatorships in any way negates, excuses,or invalidates the fact that we have often done the reverse, or have tried to overthrow popular governments because we weren't comfortable with their socialist leanings, etc. etc...I don't see any point in this argument, it's just like having character references at a murder trial where there is no doubt that in THIS case, this sometimes nice fellow killed this person, or these people...what's the relevance?

Calling self-determinist movements a danger is so hypocritical, arrogant, and historically subjective that it boggles the mind...So we have the right to self-setermination, but the fact that others right to do that might conflict with ours, or upset the balance justifies us revoking that right? Would it be a sin to neither support nor undermine those self-determining movements in conflict with each other, in that it isn't our right? Might does not make right, not in a democratic self-determininst society...

How do you call North Korea oppressive, to the point where it justifies our intervention? Would you accord other nations the right to intervene in our country based on their standards, or do we have the right to self-determination? Or do we just have the might...the point of the article in question?